Talk:Spaniards/Archive 5

Legacy of Muslim Rule
201.240.241.177, you're being very, very tiresome - The genetic contribution of Iberians to NW Africans is irrelevant here, and what matters in this article is the NW African contribution to Iberian y-chromes. Therefore that last paragraph on bi-directional movements really should be integrated into the y-chromosomal paragraph at the beginning of this section - and not be tacked on at the end after what is effectively the conclusion of the whole section - namely, that the genetic cntribution of the Muslim year was small compared to earlier pre-Islamic contributions. Your continued messing up of the logical layout of this section is noted .(I've also replaced some dead links) Provocateur (talk) 05:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Dont want to get involved in these issues but is the last paragraph on that section not a bit repetitive? It seems to add no new information...--Burgas00 (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is so much information concerning Portugal here in the Spanish article and not in the Portuguese people article Muslim legacy-genetic section?. Too weird.Newuser.
 * The answer is there is so much information of that kind in this article in order to defame Spanish people. Felve (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that information concerning mainly Portugal should be in Portugal. It is ridiculous to have it in Spain. I think there is a lot of cherry picking in this article and goes in the direction that Felve points out.

By the way, google the following:

Estimating the Impact of Prehistoric Admixture on the Genome of ...

It deals with the question directly. It is a much wider study than most cherry picked here and shows the big picture in the European context. Read it carefully if your are interested and want to uncover the big agendas behind this article right now. And do not confuse concepts. The genetic study is about present populations.

Dont want to get involved in these issues but is the last paragraph on that section not a bit repetitive? It seems to add no new information...--Burgas00 (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is so much information concerning Portugal here in the Spanish article and not in the Portuguese people article Muslim legacy-genetic section?. Too weird.Newuser.
 * The answer is there is so much information of that kind in this article in order to defame Spanish people. Felve (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that information concerning mainly Portugal should be in Portugal. It is ridiculous to have it in Spain. I think there is a lot of cherry picking in this article and goes in the direction that Felve points out.

By the way, google the following:

Estimating the Impact of Prehistoric Admixture on the Genome of ...

It deals with the question directly. It is a much wider study than most cherry picked here and shows the big picture in the European context. Read it carefully if your are interested and want to uncover the big agendas behind this article right now. And do not confuse concepts. The genetic study is about present populations.

See this table:

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/7/1361/T03

Basque refers to Paleolithic ancestry. It is called Basque because they are supposed to represent that population best. The North African contribution is addressed. And also the Sub-Saharan African, which is deemed negligible. Read article well: Spain is IberiaS. Portugal is IberiaP, similar but not the same.

See also:


 * Macdonald's Haplogroup map

Very interesting because it again shows a big picture.In the case of Portugal, a small but significant portion of Sub-Saharan African DNA can be seen in the pie (dark green, 2 page), being negligible in Spain. Portugal,a small country of 10 million people with a huge empire in comparison with its population, much of it in Africa (Angola, Mozanbique, etc) has experienced some subsaharan African influence, which is not present in Spain in the same degree. To use these highly cherry picked articles that deal mainly with a Portuguese phenomenon to highlight it to refer to Spanish people and at the same time ignore it altogether in the Portuguese people article is one of the most twisted propaganda operations in Wiki.

As to the first article see the results:

Results

Admixture Proportions (4 Parental Populations): Y Chromosome and mtDNA With few exceptions, the mean admixture proportions estimated from mitochondrial and NRY data (table 3) fall in the range [0%–100%]. Values exceeding this range would indicate that a population considered a hybrid has more extreme characteristics than one of the parental populations. That may occasionally happen if recent genetic drift was strong, but a large number of values greater than 100% or smaller than 0 would suggest errors either in the model used or in the parental populations chosen. However, only slightly negative values, not exceeding –15%, are occasionally observed for the North African and North-Eastern Europe contribution to European groups of samples. Standard deviations are in most cases lower than 10% but can reach 15% in some regions.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window] Table 3 Weighted Average Across Loci, and Standard Deviations (SD), of the Estimated Contributions of 4 Parental Populations to European Populations.

Even after Bonferroni's correction for multiple tests (Sokal and Rohlf 1995), significant heterogeneity between loci is observed for several groups of samples (see table 3). This finding is in agreement with previous results indicating that the Y chromosome and mtDNA have different distributions in Europe (Dupanloup et al. 2003) and indeed worldwide (Seielstad, Minch, and Cavalli-Sforza 1998; Harris and Hey 1999).

The estimated North African contribution to the European gene pools is low, less than 2% on average (range: –10.7% in Scandinavia, 16.6% in Sardinia for molecular estimates; –4.1% in Scandinavia, 8.2% in Portugal, for frequency estimates). In more than one-third of the samples, especially in Northern Europe, the estimated North African admixture does not differ significantly from zero, suggesting that genes from North Africa essentially do not occur in the gene pools of these regions. In general, the estimated contributions from North-Eastern Europe are higher than the African contributions, but they still represent a small component of genetic diversity, accounting for between 10.5% (molecular estimates) and 17.4% (frequency estimates) of the total. Variation among regions is high, and most groups show little or no North-Eastern Europe admixture. The exceptions are Finland and Eastern Europe, where roughly 95% and 50% of the gene pools, respectively, seem to come from North-Eastern European ancestors.

'''The main components in the European genomes appear to derive from ancestors whose features were similar to those of modern Basques and Near Easterners, with average values greater than 35% for both these parental populations, regardless of whether or not molecular information is taken into account. The lowest degree of both Basque and Near Eastern admixture is found in Finland, whereas the highest values are, respectively, 70% in Spain and more than 60% in the Balkans'''.

Admixture Proportions (2 Parental Populations): All Loci With the increase of the number of systems considered (6 to 8 mitochondrial and nuclear systems, depending on the number of autosomal loci available in each population), the statistical errors of the admixture coefficients decrease substantially (all below 8%; table 4). The Near Eastern contribution is generally high, with a mean of 49.4% across Europe (range: 20.8% in England, 79.0% in the Balkans) when considering molecular information and 54.5% (22.1% in England, 95.6% in Finland) when considering only the frequency of haplotypes. However, there is reason to mistrust the estimates obtained for Finland. Indeed, more than 90% of the alleles observed there seem to have come from North-Eastern Europe (table 3), so its population can by no means be regarded as a hybrid between Basques and Near Easterners (table 4). The extent to which an incorrect choice of parental populations leads to wrong results is investigated by simulation in a successive section of this paper. At any rate, when Finland is excluded from calculations, the average Near Eastern contributions become 48.3% (molecular estimates) and 50.7% (frequency estimates).

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window] Table 4 Weighted Average Across Six to Eight Loci, and Standard Deviations (SD), of the Estimated Near Eastern Contribution to European Gene Pools.

Heterogeneity among the estimates computed for the different systems is nominally significant in central Eastern Europe, Eastern Europe, Finland and Scandinavia, and remains significant in the Balkans even after Bonferroni's correction for multiple tests. Note that, with the test we used, the probability to reject the null hypothesis (homogeneity across loci) when true was higher than the nominal 5%. However, this result confirms that analyses of single markers are likely to yield inaccurate estimates of demographic parameters.

In relation to the North African issue it states:

Regression Analysis

'''In figure 3, no significant correlation is apparent between North African admixture and geography. Genetic exchanges across the Mediterranean Sea, and especially in its western-most part where the geographic distance between continents is smallest (that is Spain), seem to have been limited or very limited.'''

And guess what?

This article and others have been erased several times here and in the genetic history of Europe article, which shows the degree of propaganda invoveld here and there.

Why?

Because of one simple reason, becasue they have found out one of the most interesting discoveries of population genetics lately:

1.Basques and other Iberians (Spaniards and Portuguese) are the most characteristically European in terms of biological ancestry. In other words, the closest to the Primitive Europeans, who continue to be a majority in Europe, especially in Western Europe.

And this discovery has come across two types that are very common in internet:

1. The Nordicist, who after centuries of propaganda does not like the new scenario.

2. The Afrocentrist, who had been clinging to Nordicist theories to try something that we all know.

In short, I doubt very much that these articles will really show the real state of the question with the kind of people that I have mentioned and their propaganda. Jandemorepeichen.

Vandalism
AS expected, some contributions made in the article and discussed in the section above have been erased. I leav3e it up for others users to judge. Jademorepeichen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 08:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

These have been the two quotes erased:

The main components in the European genomes appear to derive from ancestors whose features were similar to those of modern Basques and Near Easterners, with average values greater than 35% for both these parental populations, regardless of whether or not molecular information is taken into account. The lowest degree of both Basque and Near Eastern admixture is found in Finland, whereas the highest values are, respectively, 70% in Spain and more than 60% in the Balkans.

And

In figure 3, no significant correlation is apparent between North African admixture and geography. Genetic exchanges across the Mediterranean Sea, and especially in its western-most part where the geographic distance between continents is smallest (that is Spain), seem to have been limited or very limited.

Source:http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/7/1361

Jademorepeichen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 09:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Figure 3 quotes studies from 1999 and 2001 which are now outdated. Have a look at results from more recent studies. As for the rest of the article, it is irrelevant to the section. --84.71.66.143 (talk) 12:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is from 2004 by experts, not by you, whoever you are and invloving many more gnetic markers than most in the article. So, start erasing all those from 2004 or older, in fact most of them, especially those from the Muslim legacy part.Stop pulling people's legs. But this is the type of position of people who just want to push their agendas. They cherry pìck articles and erase others with the most ridiculous excuses. What a place of propaganda this is!. This is one of the articles (published by Oxford) that has been the target of both Afrocentrists and Nordicists in several palces in Wiki all the time. Just proof for what I say. Jandemorepeichen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 09:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
In the face of ridiculous constant vandalism on this article, clearly by one person who is unregistered, I will revert, whenever possible, to the last registered user, most likely to the Ogre, who seems to be the most active constructive editor here.--Burgas00 (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

A LOT OF MISTAKES..
Charles V did not speak castilia, he was baloon. Catalans and vasques are spaniards, read this laws: "Constitucion de 1978", "Estatuto de Guernika" and "Estatuto de Cataluña". And Tribunal Constitucional's decission about nacionalities and estatutos. Fanpiro 20/10/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.58.229.21 (talk) 13:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

1. In argentina no more than 25% of the people is spanish origin, and if you consider the basque as another etnich group the % is maximum 20 2. Charles V was not spanish, and he was NOT able to speack spanish!! 3. The Catalans (Dali, ecc...) are NOT spaniards!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alessandro.pasi (talk • contribs) 00:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Saying Catalans (or, one may add, Basques, Galicians, Cantabrians, etc) are not Spaniards is just like saying that Scots, Welsh and Cornish are not Britons - the problem is confusing "Spanish" with "Castilian" - the latter is a subset of the former, but the confusion is common.  A lot of the confusion comes from the American definition of Spanish used in the introduction, which is alien to most Europeans - including Spaniards.  Europeans do not recognise the Spanish speaking peoples of the Americas as "Spaniards". As for only 25 % of Argentinians being "Spanish" it would be more accurate to say that nearly all Argentinians, other than recent arrivals, have (some) Spanish ancestry, just as most Mexicans and Peruvians and Chileans, do - but of course the degreee of which ancestry changes radically from one country to another - most Mexicans are overwhelmingly of Amerindian origin, but this does not mean they have no Spanish ancestry - most do, but it is of much less importance than their indigenous origins. I dont know the situation in Argentina - there was mass migration in the post colonial period in the 19th and early 20th centuries, especially from Italy and Spain, but also considerable amounts from other European countries.  By now they are pretty much thoroughly mixed - though some genetic study  I saw also detected small, but not insubstantial traces of Amerindian ancestry -  not surprising given Argentina's long colonial history. As for Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire (Charles I of Spain) was Spanish by his mother Juana of Castile, daughter of Isabel I of Castile and Ferdinand II of Aragon. Charles owed much of his power in very large part to the tireless efforts of his Spanish grandparents to create the most modern and corrupt free administration and armies in Europe, and even cleaned the Spanish church of much of the corruption and politics that sent Martin Luther into a reformation frenzy in the Holy Roman empire. Charles I/V famously stated that "“I speak Spanish to God, Italian to women, French to men and German to my horse.” Finally exhausted by the endless challanges of his long reign he chose to retire to Yuste, in Spain.  If any country has the right to claim him as its own Spain certainly does. Provocateur (talk) 08:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Spanish 'subidentities'
Funny how 'Spanish' is considered as an ethnic group in the very first line and then the article talks about Spanish 'subidentities', when it's rather the opposite thing. The real fact is that Spanish citizens are from a variety of ethnic groups and backgrounds, being 'Spanish' an identity rather than an ethnicity. The only possible way to consider Spanish as an ethnic group is to regard the word as an equivalent of Castilian, yet even among some Castilians there is a clear difference between the Castilian ethnic group and the Spanish identity. The fact that many Spaniards from all over Spain feel both Andalusian and Spanish, or Galician and Spanish, and so on, doesn't make Spanish an ethnic group, but a sort of 'roof identity', just like Europeans aren't just an ethnic group either, even when some people may consider themselves very European. It is also quite funny to see how then the Portuguese are considered indeed a different people, being in many aspects closer to the Spanish identity than some of the people within the 'Spanish people' label. What it all proves is that the concept of people is simply stated here from the point of view of state citizenship, and therefore it is more a matter of political status rather than real articles about ethnic groups. Looks like everyone knows the difference between ethnicity and citizenship, but politically biased views are more important.--Purplefire (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with that comment. We should really reconsider the usage of the expressions 'ethnic group', 'X people' and so on in this and related articles. --Carles Noguera (talk) 11:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Asking for Semi-protection
Hello everyone! This page is constantly under attack by anon users who try to shift the sourced statements regarding Spanish people into their own POV views - generally trying to minimize or erase the data that demonstrates some genetic connections to some North African populations, or, quite the reverse, trying to say that Spaniards "are" North Africans or just plainly Africans. This is a constant problem by anons like:
 * (Peru)
 * (Peru)
 * (Paraguay)
 * (Argentina)
 * (Peru) - Blocked on 05:57, 23 February 2008 by User:East718 with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎(racist pov pushing)
 * (Peru)
 * (Peru)
 * (Peru)
 * (Chile)
 * (Australia)
 * (Peru)
 * (Peru)
 * (Peru)
 * (Peru)
 * (Peru)
 * Etc, etc...

I think you get the picture: this is probably always the Peruvian guy most of the time, and it's interesting how most of these types of edits come from Hispanic South America (not even Spain!); the Australian, which pops up several times is trying to convince the world that Spanish are somehow Semitic and that their closests ethnic groups are the Arabs and Sephardi Jews. This is not just an edit war. These anon repeatedly introduced changes that are deemed wrong by usual serious users, they never establish a dialogue or even given reasons or explanations for their edits. They are just vandals!

So what I poppose is that this article receives a Semi-protection (disables editing for anonymous users and registered accounts less than four days old). I believe it satisfies the conditions and could be a way to stop these constant disruptive intrusions. What does everyone think? The Ogre (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I, for one, agree with myself! The Ogre (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected
In fact, User:Nlu has just semi-protected the article. The Ogre (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * For future reference, semi- or full-protection requests should be directed to WP:RFPP. --Nlu (talk) 16:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I knew it in fact, but I though there should be some discussion before to see if there was some consensus. Thanks again! The Ogre (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Question
Is this the reason why this quote has been erased again? In figure 3, no significant correlation is apparent between North African admixture and geography. Genetic exchanges across the Mediterranean Sea, and especially in its western-most part where the geographic distance between continents is smallest (that is Spain), seem to have been limited or very limited. Source: Oxford Journals. Jandemorepeichen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk • contribs)

There's a reference that has a mis-spelling "acoording"
editprotected Footnote #30 has a mis-spelling of "according". Only one "c" is used in the footnote. (I wish my RFA had passed so I would not have to bother anybody.) Jason Quinn (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅.עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The image is not valid
Dali was catelonian, no? So what is he doing in this image?? This article is not about Spanish citizens vut about the ethnic group!!! Shpakovich 18:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC) -- Catalonians are spaniards too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.38.203.148 (talk) 21:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I denouce user Burgas
This user has been erasing studies and quotes like the following all the time. He is a manipulator. I propose that is is banned. He comes up with all ridiculous arguments to erase what he does not like as a Moroccan who uses this page for his personal propaganda about Spanish people.

See his latest deletion:

In fact, a European wide study including Spaniards states: No significant correlation is apparent between North African admixture and geography. Genetic exchanges across the Mediterranean Sea, and especially in its western-most part where the geographic distance between continents is smallest (Spain), seem to have been limited or very limited, establishing the North African contribution at 2.5/3.4%. [] []

Vandals
Some vandals are systematically deleting content:

See:

In the North African section.

In fact, a European wide study including Spaniards states: No significant correlation is apparent between North African admixture and geography. Genetic exchanges across the Mediterranean Sea, and especially in its western-most part where the geographic distance between continents is smallest (Spain), seem to have been limited or very limited, establishing the North African contribution at 2.5/3.4%. [] []

In addition, a wide ranging study (published 2007) using 6,501 unrelated Y-chromosome samples from 81 populations found that: “Considering both these E-M78 sub-haplogroups (E-V12, E-V22, E-V65) and the E-M81 haplogroup, the contribution of northern African lineages to the entire male gene pool of Iberia is 5.6%. ”

In the Paleolithic section.

According to another European wide study, the main components in the European genomes appear to derive from ancestors whose features were similar to those of modern Basques and Near Easterners, with average values greater than 35% for both these parental populations, regardless of whether or not molecular information is taken into account. The lowest degree of both Basque and Near Eastern admixture is found in Finland, whereas the highest values are, respectively, 70% ("Basque") in Spain and more than 60% ("Near Eastern") in the Balkans.[][]

These two articles that deal with the issue and the spanish directly and which are very informative are being systematically erased (guess why?)Both have been published by Oxford. It seems that Oxford is not good enough for some people here.

In addtiton, this is the situation>:

1. These people seem to favour articles that are from the 1990s, in this field quite outdated, and then systematically erase those from the 2000s, (these two are from 2004 and 2007), Just see and you will realise that most articles in the North African section which seem fine, only analyse one genetic marker and are from the 1990s. How come these people, whoever they are, erase those from the 2000s, obvioulsy much more updated, and like to leave those old ones?

2. The articles that these people like to leave refer in most cases to Iberia. Iberia is not Spain, it is Spain plus Portugal and in fact most of that information concerns Portugal more than Spain. But then, these newer articles, that make direct reference not only to Iberia as a whole, but exactly to Spain, are systematically erased.

Just read yourselves in detail and take your time to see the type of manipulation we are talking about here. It is completely unacceptable. Just watch out.

On the other hand I propose the following question. If the sections are considered too long, what shall we erase, articles from the 1990s or articles from the 2000s? I think the response is obvious, unless propaganda and agenda is the main point here and not updated objective information. Jandemorepeichen.

And there is more. See:

Recent development of methodologies for defining population structure using genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphism markers has led a 2006 study to conclude that there is clear and consistent division between “northern” and “southern” European population groups. This study, involving 74 Spanish American participants strongly suggested a close genetic relationship between Greeks, Italians, Portuguese and Spaniards, whereas all European populations north of the Alps and the Pyrenees (except for Ashkenazi Jews) fell squarely into a separate "Northern" population group.

This article introduces the genetic section. How come? Have you people read it? Mnay of the participants in the study were actually Americans. Yes, you think it is incredible? No, read it. Americans who just self identify with different European ethnicities. For this reason the article should not even be here. Americans cannot represent Eruoepan popualtions purely, no matter how they like to think so. In fact, these American based studies often seem to contradict Euroepan based studies. But how come? The text in the article does not even make reference to the fact that we are not dealing with Euroepans here,but in many cases just with Americans. So, the articles that deal only with European samples and that name Spain directly are being erased and those with American samples etc are being not only left, but presented as if they were only from Europeans, misleading the readers without mentioning that many of the samples were from America. I propose that articvles that do not deal exclusively with samples from Europe are not taken into account. Jandemorepeichen

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.153.32.131 (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

And there is more
This article introduces the genetic section. How come? Have you people read it? Mnay of the participants in the study were actually Americans. Yes, you think it is incredible? No, read it. Americans who just self identify with different European ethnicities. For this reason the article should not even be here. Americans cannot represent Eruoepan popualtions purely, no matter how they like to think so. In fact, these American based studies often seem to contradict Euroepan based studies. But how come? The text in the article does not even make reference to the fact that we are not dealing with Euroepans here,but in many cases just with Americans. So, the articles that deal only with European samples and that name Spain directly are being erased and those with American samples etc are being not only left, but presented as if they were only from Europeans, misleading the readers without mentioning that many of the samples were from America. I propose that articvles that do not deal exclusively with samples from Europe are not taken into account. Jandemorepeichen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.153.32.131 (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The image is not valid
Dali was catelonian, no? So what is he doing in this image?? This article is not about Spanish citizens vut about the ethnic group!!!

Catalan and Valencian
In following this article, I've noticed in the last week or so that there seems to be an editor that keeps trying to insert Valencian as a separate language of Spain than Catalan. Looking at the history or the reasons for the edits, the fact that the Autonomous Community of Valencia calls it Valencian officially instead of Catalan doesn't make it a separate language. It's just a different variety of the same language that is spoken from Valencia up through part of France and Andorra. To list Valencian as a separate language is misleading in my opinion. Just like others have stated in their edits, even the Spanish courts I believe have ruled that they are the language, but more importlanly linguists too. It should remain listed as Catalan with a mention that it's called Valencian officially in Valencia which I think it did already. People in Brazil speak a different variety of Portuguese, but it's not listed as Brazilian. I'm not an expert on the Romance languages, but I do know enough about them and felt strongly enough to make an account for a comment here. Flaquito76 (talk) 23:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Germanic y-chromosome haplogroups?
I was wondering if anyone knows the percentage of spainish males who have a germanic y-chromosomes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.106.197.253 (talk) 01:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ther are no Germanic Y chromosomes. Germans themselves are very mixed, so it is imopossible to kmnow which are Germanic or not. See> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.33.232.147 (talk) 12:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

being germanic is a question of language, not of dna. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.59.166 (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Germanic y-chromosome haplogroups?
Does anyone know what the percentage is of spanish males who have germanic y-chomosomes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.106.197.253 (talk) 01:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ther are no Germanic Y/Chromosomes. The Germanic areas are very mixed and all chromosomes come from somewhere else. See a haplogroup map of Spain, Europe and the world and note that the red makes reference to R1b, the most common in Spain. It is native to Spain, so it is the other way around, a lot of Germans have Spanish Y/Crhomosomes.

See.

http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf

In short, Spain has been much more a point of departure than of arrival, as it was traditionally believed before the advent of genetic research. The peoples who have historically settled in Spain have just left a minor input. Most Spaniards are of Paleolithic orogins. Neolithic origins comes next and very little is left for historical migrations. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.33.232.147 (talk) 12:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism again
Watch out. There is a vandal again trying to delete studies with arbitrtary comments with the excuse of an 18% figure agaisnt 8%. He is right on that small detail, but he is using it as a excuse to delete entire paragraphes with arbitrary excuses, while the studies that he tries to keep are even older etc. Anyway, I have tried to put back the 18% figure, which is right, but does not go for some reason. Watsch out that this user does not make misleading changes. I bet he is Burgas again, obessed with some Spanish things. We are probably dealing here with a sick person, so be patiant if you can. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.12.158.241 (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

E-M81
The article claims that:

"Iberia is the only region in Europe with a presence of the typically North West African Y-chromosome haplotypes E-M81..."

If this is the same "E-M81" I am thinking of, then this is not true. Cruciani et al. (2004) found it among Italians and the French:



Just my two cents: this haplotype probably has nothing to do with any alleged Muslim genetic legacy, since it showed up at somewhat higher frequencies among the French, Catalans, Asturians, Basques and Central Italians than among Southern Spaniards, Southern Italians (0%) and Sicilians. Southern Spain, Southern Italy and Sicily having been part of medieval Islamic civilization for longer periods of time one would expect that the higher frequencies should have showed up among them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennis sinneD (talk • contribs) 10:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Subhaplotypes Va and Vb
The line mentioned in the section above, namely:

"Iberia is the only region in Europe with a presence of the typically North West African Y-chromosome haplotypes E-M81 and Haplotype Va"

is also mistaken regarding subhaplotypes Va and Vb (even in the linked summary of the study it clearly says that it was found in Italy as well.) I have read parts of this study. It used Spanish, French, Italian and Portuguese samples. The subhaplotypes were found at varying frequencies in all the four countries involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennis sinneD (talk • contribs) 11:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You are all right. The only reason it was like that it was because some users, one in particular, insisted on enphasizing the North African influence in Spain. It got to a point when people were more or less accused of racism for deleting the information and it was left, but it is completely wrong. It should be corrected.

By the way here you have a very recent study.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/science/13visual.html?_r=3&ref=science&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Again it confirms that all Europeans are quite similar, with some distinct features if they are analysed by smaller and smaller regions. Only the Finns are a bit more separate, but much less that it may seem. If non European populations were shown they would be much further away. The Spanish have a typical South Western position. Still the best way to trace ancestry is the y/chromosome. This other map shows clearly the Western European lineage that originated in Spain and which is consistent with the north up spread of this lineage in the first map.

http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf

On the ohter hand tis is another example of the same user who wrote those things>

This region also has the highest frequency of haplogroup L of Sub-Saharan origin (especially in southern Portugal and to a lesser extent Andalusia) mostly as a result of Berber colonisation and, to a lesser extent African slavery, both during and after Muslim rule.[40][41]

In fact this usue is mainly a south Portuguese one, but this user used it here in the Spanish poage, while this has never been confirmed by most studies. Again, it was the will of this user to try and enphasyse certain things. A new version of this part should be written. Go on and do it. I support a change that is more accurate and neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.35.76.160 (talk) 09:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Jan the crazy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.35.76.160 (talk) 09:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Jan: yes, I have noticed this too. Why this suspicious fixation with this genetics thing in this article? In fact, why is it even here??? If you go to the section on Italian people there is no single word about genetics. Shouldn't Wikipedia also start putting a section on "Middle Eastern, Asian, North African and sub-Saharan legacy in Italy", and start showing all the studies that have detected haplogroups originating in these areas among Italian populations? The same for other European groups. Seems pretty fishy to me. I hope more people start noticing and complaining. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennis sinneD (talk • contribs) 15:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's because some people just want an anti-Spaniards propaganda article. It is pretty clear. Felve (talk) 13:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and about this line, which you quoted from the article:

"...mostly as a result of Berber colonisation and, to a lesser extent African slavery, both during and after Muslim rule."

This seems like another strange claim. Where is the evidence that "Berber colonisation(sic)" is responsible for the majority of haplogroup L in Iberia? This makes little sense. Southern Spain was part of the Islamic world for a longer time than Portugal was, thus it was liable to have a more prolonged presence of Berber population (which, by the way, was only a minority, most Muslims in medieval Iberia being native converts), yet the frequencies of haplogroup L are smaller there than in Portugal. If I remember correctly, at least some of the genetic studies on Portugal that I read do suggest that this might have been mostly due to the slave trade (and in part to recent immigration from Africa or black populations from the New World as well.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennis sinneD (talk • contribs) 16:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as said that part of the article has always been subject to manipulation by a few, especially one, that we al know. If you want to make changes that can be backed I support them. Fishy has been this article all the time, like many article on the Spanish in the English speaking Wiki. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.39.42.114 (talk) 12:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Pagemove
I am requesting a move of this page to Spaniards, as this is the more common name for Spanish people. If there are any objections, please let me know in the next three days or so before I request deletion of the redirect to make way for the move. Marcus2 (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I object! All the ethnic groups articles are named X People, and sometimes Spaniard is seen as pejorative by Spanish People. The Ogre (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. And Spaniard is never seen as pejorative by Spanish people!. Jan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.39.42.114 (talk) 12:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Just as The Ogre stated, most articles in wikipedia are named "X people", so I don't really see the need for the move (there are some exceptions such as Germans instead of German people). Even though I don't think a move is necessary, I've never heard of the term Spaniard as being pejorative. Kman543210 (talk) 12:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Global Genetic Maps
I have added a new section in the genetic section called global maps. The reason is that, as most users have been able to see so far, this section has been subject to a lot of debate, with some users wanting to stress one aspect and other users other spects, etc. The advantage of global maps is that they take into account many other studies, in the case of sex related or lineage related markers and many genetic markers in the case of autosomal studies and put them in perspective in relation to other populations. That is, experts draw final global conclusions. This is the best way to avoid half lies and manipulation. As we all know we can all cherry pick articles on this or any subject, taking them out of context, or stessing just small parts, to write a biased article. That is why global genetic maps are always better. In this case I have not even added any comments. They are there as very informative global genetic maps for the users to see, placing the Spanish genetically in relation to other populations. Another advantage is that all samples were taken from Spain, Europe etc, not like some studies, that use many Americans who just identify as Europeans. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.37.47.86 (talk) 11:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jan,

I see there has been alot of activity on this page. You seem to be deleting a particular genetic study. I can infer from the above statement that your reason for doing so is that you believe that it involves Americans who claim Spanish/European descent as opposed to Spaniards. I am afraid you have misread the article.

If you read it thoroughly you will see that it involves "162 western European Americans (see Methods for description of populations), 41 central European Americans, 27 eastern European Americans, 86 Italian participants, 74 Spanish participants, and 90 Swedish participants.

For this reason I am reverting your removal of this perfectly valid source.

--Alverstone81 (talk) 20:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

As you say, the only European participants are the Spanish, the Italians and the Swedes. All the others are in fact Americans. The article is not valid as it aspires to represent Europeans, while it actually represents a lot of Americans. Besides, the text chosen is misleading, because it speaks of Europeans while, as we can see, they are Americans in all the cases mentioned. Anyway, I am not reverting you anymore. If you want to leave that article, it is up to you, if the other users do not mind. Still, as said, that article cannot be representative of Europeans with so many American samples. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 13:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Genetic continuity in Iberia
Here is another article that points to genetic cotinuity in Iberia since pre-Roman times, indicating that historical population movements have been very limited. It maybe of use for the article. See:

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bsc/ahg/2005/00000069/00000005/art00005;jsessionid=29x1lkgnamphn.alexandra

Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.33.232.174 (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Penelope Cruz
Why has the photo of Penelope Cruz been replaced by that of Raffa? There were already too few women shown in relation to men. As she is a well recognised contempory personality, she should be re-instated here. Raffa is so well recognised as a Spaniard, it is all but redundant to include his image here. Also, despite the Spanish half of his heritage, Charles I (V of Holy Roman empire), is probably too controversial - he grew up and lived much of his life outside Spain - I think we need another figure here - perhaps a scientist or philosopher or inventor? Provocateur (talk) 04:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

DIALECTS OF SPANISH LANGUAGE
It is not true that there are two variations of Spanish language spoken in continental Spain. The Spanish spoken in Andalucia and Extremadura differenciates from the one in the north only because of the accent, but that is all, an accent, the differences are not strong enoucgh to consider it as a dialect.

In fact different accents exist all around Spain, also in Galicia, León, Asturias, Cantabria, Basque Country, Navarra, Aragón, Catalunya and Valencia Spainsh is spokenwith a different accent in every one of this regions. Some of this accents exist because of the influence of other Spanish languages, and others, such in Aragon or Cantabria not.

And the Spanish sopken in Madrid si nowadays, much more closed to the neutral accent ( the one spoken in Castilla la vieja or eastern Castilla y León and La Rioja, than to southern accent ).

SPANIARDS ETHNICALLY ARE NOT LATIN PEOPLE
The word "Latin" is referred to the language, not to the ethnos, to say another thing is a great concept error. A fellow, always places this falsehood and he doesn't mention sources. Wikipedia should demand that he/she mentions sources, but truly he/she doesn't have them.

190.43.231.98 (talk) 23:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)Gonbal2

Of course Spaniards are ethnically Latin peoples. Ethnic group is not the same as racial group if that is what you mean, not to say that "Latin-European" is not so much a racial definition, but linguistic and cultural. I'm not going to post sources, just google "Latin Europe"--62.57.172.151 (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

New study
The Genetic Legacy of Religious Diversity and Intolerance: Paternal Lineages of Christians, Jews, and Muslims in the Iberian Peninsula

I have added a vew comments to this study:

However a very recent study (december 2008) that analysed 1140 unrelated Y-chromosome samples in Iberia found a higher contribution and indicated "a high mean proportion of ancestry from North African (10.6%)" and that "high proportions of men from Galicia and Castille in northwest Spain boast a North African heritage" (21.7% in Castile).

Stephen Oppenheimer, of Oxford University and author of Origins of the British, calls the paper's data "a tremendous addition". However, he says much earlier migrations, 5000 to 10,000 years ago, from the Eastern Mediterranean might confound Sephardic estimates.

"They are really assuming that they are looking at his migration of Jewish immigrants, but the same lineages could have been introduced in the Neolithic," he says.

This is coherent with the fact that this study shows a much higher percentage on North African and Jewish ancestry in the North than in the South of Spain. ..........................................

I think the study is very interesting. The obvious problem has already been discussed here. According to this study the North African and Jewish ancestry is much more significant in the North of Spain than in the South. In fact, Galicia and Asturias, along with Castille, show the largest percentages (about 50% of Yewish ancestry in Asturias!). The question is obvious? If these percentages are linked to the Muslim occupation we should expect them in the South. As we know, the Muslim occupation was very short lived in the North. Another problem is related to the fact that according to this article, the Jewish presence was much more important than the Muslim one, something difficult to understand. So, it seems a bit strange. Oppenheimer makes a comment about it. In any case, I think the article is interesting. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.144.238.176 (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've got the study which is really interesting and the first of this kind. Other studies only analysed small samples, only reported frequencies of haplogroups (not contributions) and never made admixture analysis. This one analysed 1140 individuals. I just put your comments in note and mentionned they were related to Jewish ancestry (not North african). Concerning the "much higher percentage of North AfricanJewish ancestry in the North than in the South of Spain". The authors explain :

"North Africans entered the Iberian Peninsula from the south, and after a rapid northward expansion soon retreated southwards, being finally expelled from Andalusia over 700 years after their arrival. Thus, they apparently spent the least amount of time in the north, and we might therefore expect a south-north gradient of North African ancestry proportions. However (and in agreement with studies of independent samples, we find no evidence of this. Indeed, the highest mainland proportions of North African ancestry (>20%) are found in Galicia and Northwest Castile, with much lower proportions in Andalusia. The most striking division in North African ancestry proportions is between the western half of the peninsula, where the proportion is relatively high, to the eastern half, where it is relatively low (Figure 4). This distribution could reflect genetic drift, as well as the history of enforced relocations and expulsion of moriscos. The entire large community of moriscos in Granada was relocated northward and westward following the war of 1567– 1571 (Harvey, L.P. (2005). Muslims in Spain: 1500 to 1614). In addition, the final expulsion of moriscos, ordered by Philip III and beginning in1609, was highly effective in some regions of Spain, including Valencia and Western Andalucia, but less so in Galicia and Extremadura, where the population was more dispersed and integrated."--90.28.232.105 (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It is a very interesting theory and indeed it goes against what was believed for centuries. Although the Jewish percentage given is highly controversial and Oppenheimer may be right, I think it is also worth mentioning, because it is really a surprising discovery (even if it is conroversial) so am I also adding those data. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.34.123.111 (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have seen it has been introduced in the notes. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.34.123.111 (talk) 22:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I have been trying to fix a bit the Muslim part. It contains important contradictions, depending of the article cited. We cannot simply say in one part that Southern Iberia has the most North African ancestry and then in the following that is is actually Northwestern Spain. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.187.137 (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Article in doubt.
The above article is very much questioned. Just another piece that analyse the Spanish out of context with a preconceived goal. It would be interesting to see the results if these individuals had also examined other Europeans. Doubtful articles should not be included, but I leave it up to people to leave it here or not. See:

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2008/12/major-study-of-iberian-y-chromosomes.html

See also Oppenheimer comments:

Stephen Oppenheimer, of Oxford University and author of Origins of the British, calls the paper's data "a tremendous addition". However, concerning the Jewish contribution, he says much earlier migrations, 5000 to 10,000 years ago, from the Eastern Mediterranean might confound Sephardic estimates. "They are really assuming that they are looking at his migration of Jewish immigrants, but the same lineages could have been introduced in the Neolithic," he says.

As to the theory of the North having much more North African influence than the South, Galicia much more than Andalusia, it is ver very suspect of the quality of the paper itself. But we all know how eager some people are to put up here some articles and erase others. This is Wikipedia, a place that loses credibility every day in relation so certain types of information. As said, I am not erasing anything myself. By the way. Anyone noticed how the part of that article that measured not only Spaniards but also Europeans in Norh African and other contributions has been erased. It is being erased again and again and I do not care to put it back again. We k now how this goes, right. Jan.

This is bullcrap!! Whyin{t there an Italian or French article? Can you say bias? R1b is at a MUCH higher frequency in Iberia than in Italy. There is twice the E1b1b and J in Italy than Iberia.

The E1b1b in Iberia is the SAME or less than in France. Not to metion that the entire report is fradulent. Can someone please erase ALL this, or Add a page for ALL of Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.179.169 (talk) 00:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

From the E1b1b article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_E3b_(Y-DNA)#E1b1b1b_.28E-M81.29.3B_formerly_E3b1b.2C_E3b2

This haplogroup is also found in significant amounts in the Iberian Peninsula, Italy and France[1]

Why in the E1b1b article that sourced sentence has never been controversial, but in the Spanish people article says that E1b1b is only found in Iberia? And why is reverted when it gets corrected?

As for the J in Iberia being of Jewish origin outrightly contradicts the historic record and completely ignores the neolitic (Most of J lineages in Southern Europe were introduced at that time) ignores the Phoenician, ignores the Roman colonization(I would say that a few Romans are needed to change the language and romanize the entire peninsula, and there's no record of the Roman settlers being expelled), ignores the Greek contribution...

And the reasons of why Northern Iberia has more "Moorish" ancestry than the South is still a debated subject, many studies (that are also cited in this article) pointing to a pre-Moorish-invasion explanation instead of huge population movements after the Reconquista (It's very strange that we have no historical records of such massive migrations at a time when the Inquistion and the central and local authorities tracked exhaustively all the movements of the New Christians, no records of conflicts with the locals arised when they settled in the new areas, etc...) probably those lineages being introduced during the neolitic or even the pre-neolitic. There's no mention of that debate in the section of "Other Historican Influences", and I'm guessing that if I tried to correct it would get swiftly reverted. This article is a joke.

Also, it's amazing the mediatic repercussion the conclusions of that study has enjoyed, I don't know of *anyone* with even a basic knowledge of the matter that agrees with them. --62.57.241.127 (talk) 13:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, but you know the agenda of many users here. Non-Palelothic contributions are in fact smaller in Spain than in any other region of Europe (peaking of course is the Basque country), with the possible exception of the British Isles. Still reading this article you get the wrong impression. It also seems that there was no Neolithic one. It is really a joke and a bad one. By the way, if this continues like this most of the article will be devoted to the supposed North African contributions, which are also present all over Europe. But you know, we all know the story. It seems that a lot of people are uncomfortable with the fact that Spain has among the highest concentrations of Paleolithic European genes and the fact that they seem to be the oldest Europeans. Who? 2 types of people, Nordicists, usually from Northern Europe and Afrocentrists, the same types of wannabes from Africa and above all both of them from the US, who like to take their racial stupidty elsewhere, and I mean those fanatical ones, not the majority of people from those places who are of course very decent people. But this is a never ending story becasue these people abound in the English speaking world (outside of it they barely exist) In fact let them be, and in few months the article will look like at the beginning. 75% devoted to supposed North African influences. In genetics there are in fact contradictory studies, cherry picking them you can actually argue the even opposite of mainstream schorlaship at the moment, that is why these people do not like global studies that analyse all Europeans at the same time. Just those partial ones that taken out of context can suit their aims. Again, what a joke? but this is a popular encycloppeadia, I mean the one that anyone can edit. Personally I edit less and less, tired of all these agendas, but like to participate in discussion to expose this kind of people. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.16.16.121 (talk) 12:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Improper weight
There is an important principle in Wiki which is to avoid improper weight. Right now the genetic section devotes more space to minority issues than to the main issues, causing a distorted perception of reality. The space devoted to the "Muslim legacy" section is absolutely unnecessary, especially in combination with the sections devoted to other influences, etc. I propose to summarise it all into a section like the one already in existence. The "Muslim" section should go into a general "other influecnes section" and be something like that:

According to several genetic studies the North Africans contributions can be estimated between 5 and a 10 percent. (Leaving here some links).

As to articles and studies that are questioned and not duplicated and confirmed by other studies, they should not be included (and there was a consensus on that before. In fact an articles that gave a value of about 30% of the I haplogorup in Castille was left out becasue of that. In short, quite suspicious how eagerly strange, not duplicated articles are left or erased according to content), like the Jewish influence article, that is the only one among dozens of studies that claims such a strange point. I will wait for other users for comments and since it is me who makes the proposal I will not make any changes myself. Just this proposal. See also other articles that concentrante on other European peoples, to see the strange case that can only be seen in this article that seems to be interested in devoting more space to minority influences than to majority ones. See, open your eyes and judge yourselves. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.41.154.58 (talk) 12:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I changed my mind I made those changes myself. Why on earth to say that there is a 5 to 10% North African influence we need half of the section? It makes no sense at all, unless there are agendas behind, as usual. As to the recent study erased. Among scores of studies about the Iberians it is the only one that accounts for such a strange theory. There is absolutely no single other serious study that duplicates that theory. Why is it then included?. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.12.153.54 (talk) 21:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Well my changes were reverted, therefore I will not make those changes anymore. See please is there is any reason to the way the space is dedicated to the information given and how the information is chosen. And by the way, if you mind look at how the Mulslim section will continue growing and growing, all that to conclude that there is a 5 to 10% influence. What a great article, what mastery of rhetorics. Bye and good luck. Jan.

Update
''A 2007 European-wide study including Spanish Basques and Valencian Spaniards, found Iberian populations to cluster the furthest from other continental groups, implying that Iberia holds the most ancient European ancestry. In this study, the most prominent genetic stratification in Europe was found to run from the north to the south-east, while another important axis of differentiation runs east-west across the continent. It also found, despite the differences, that all Europeans are closely related.[34]''

This is a bit of an outdated view. Many studies have been published which view Basques as nothing unique, their genetic pecularity is the result of generations of endogamy. The view that they are a virgin vestige of palaeolithic europeans has been seriously challenged Hxseek (talk) 04:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

That is a very personal opinion, just that. By the way you call 2007 outdated? In any case, sorry to contradict you, but that is mainstream theory right now. Of course you can always find dissidents in the field, but most agree on that. If you were more familiar with that you would know that they always take Basque samples as a reference to speak about European paleolithic populations related mainly to Western Europe. All major studies do that. So, sorry, but it is you who should get un apdate. Jan.

OK, not outdated, but perhaps one-sided. you shouldn't accuse people being biased, for i have no reason to be. I am probably a lot more familiar with this field than you, Jan. (You're that guy who keeps pushing the view that Europeans are from Asia, right ?). If you knew what you were talking about, then you would know that the fact that Basques represent an ancient vestige is based on an assumption becuase they are geographically isolated, and speak an ancient non-IE language, etc. A valid assumption, but one which has been challenged. There is no "mainstream theory" in population genetics, actually, as scientists are split on virtually every issue. It is our job as editors to provide all the information, not only the views which sit better with our personal ideals

see Levy-Coffman (2006) and Hxseek (talk) 04:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but it is mainstream. All studies use Basques samples as a reference for Paleolithic European (Even this last piece of research about Spain that divided the samples betweeen Sephardic Jews, North African and European. Guess which were the European samples: Basque of course. Check all those things again. And it is Mainstream that R1b related populations went from Iberia to the North after the Ice age, the same as I related ones went north from the Balkans, etc. Basques happen to have the highest percentage of R1b for males and the same goes for the equivalent mitocondrial DNA etc. I mean, I will not discuss basics that anybody knows in genetics. Too boring. You seem to represent weird and marginal points of view. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.12.153.54 (talk) 10:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but it is mainstream, and all field have dissidents. All studies use Basques samples as a reference for Paleolithic European (Even this last piece of research about Spain that divided the samples betweeen Sephardic Jews, North African and European. Guess which were the European samples?: Basque of course. Check all those things again. And it is Mainstream that R1b related populations went from Iberia to the North after the Ice age, the same as I related ones went north from the Balkans, etc. Basques happen to have the highest percentage of R1b for males and the same goes for the equivalent mitocondrial DNA etc. I mean, I will not discuss basics that anybody knows in genetics. Too boring. Anyway, the paleolithic-neolithic controversy is also in the article, read well. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.12.153.54 (talk) 10:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not up to you, someone who obviously has no background in genetics, to judge that the theories presented by a bona-fide geneticist, published in an internationally renowned science journal as "weird" and "marginal". . Hxseek (talk) 07:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Latest study introduced.
By the way I have put back the genetic map for Spain from the very Jewish and North African influence article. It is useful because it shows that according to these authors, virtually all that is not R1b in Spain must be either Sephardic Jewish or North African, including Haplogroup I, which is the largest in Spain after R1b, or even R1a, small but present.(No surprise because the article only allowed for those three possibilities). It seems that Celts, Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans (who left the most important and lasting cultural legacy that turned the Spanish into a Latin people), Alans, Visigoths, etc, not to speak about the Neolithic, must have left zero genetic influence, since they claim that the Jewish influence is 20% and the North African 10%, while R1b alone, that is considered Paleolithic and native to Spain, stands for an average of about 70%. It is one of the most incredible conclusions that I have seen so far. Note that R1b is divided in subclades.

See it here: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ro2ijOk8JWc/ST5ONRBvNdI/AAAAAAAAAcE/pbcSablyx50/s1600-h/0.jpg

Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.12.153.54 (talk) 10:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I have introduced Sephardic Jews in the section of Related Groups and it has been erased several times. I have had it. I disagree. One thing is the crazy conclusions of this latest piece of research and another thing is to deny what is obvious. Jephardic Jew means Spanish Jew in Hebrew. They continue to speak a form of ancient Spanish and of course they are related to the Spanish. One of the problems here in Wiki is that people often go to extremes asserting or denying 100%. It is true that in the German article people will not allow Azkenazi Jews to be introduced as related, but that is due to racism and we all know how racists Northern Europeans are, due to their tribalistic spirit, without any doubt still a remnant of their relatively recent entry into the civilized world. Let us not make the same mistakes. And about your comments about Germans and Jews, I think they are clear enough about you. According to you neither Sephardic Jews are related to Spaniards nor Askenazi to Germans. Interesting point of view. By the way, I never made those edits, I just told you to try and we can already see who would revert it. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.12.153.54 (talk) 10:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I have made a minor change merging the Muslic section with the other influences section, without deleting any information. It was incoherent to keep that section apart from the one one. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.12.153.54 (talk) 10:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

no offence, but your knowledge on the matter is so simplistic and agenda-driven, it would really be better if you didn't make edits. Stop making your own conclusions. we cannot say that the genetic make-up of spanish people is 80% 'basque' and 20% 'jewish'. do you not know that y-chromosome hgs only speak for a limited picture of the total genetic diversity of a people. or is your poor understanding also 'mainstream theory'. what's more, your accusatory comments about europeans is only a reflection of your biasesHxseek (talk) 03:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Really! Go and tell the people of the latest study. Your comments deserve no more responses. What a wannabe!. This guy is incredible!. That is precisely what the authors of the commented study have done, use exclusively the Y-chromosome for their conclusions. Please forget to address me anymore, I am not used to talking to people with this level of (I have no words to describe it). -About my accusations_ I am justg stating a fact that everybody knows. go and try to introduce in the German people' s article the Askenazi Jews as a related ethnic group. Just try it. And you coming from Australia! A country that up to 1973 separated mestizo children from their native mothers, or shall we talk about the apartheid practiced not only in South Africa, but also in the US until very recently or the beautiful custom of classifying people in races since they are children in all those places in official documents, including school documents. Shall we talk about Nordicism, Nazism. All those places are a nest of the worst mankind has ever given in relation to racism. The utmost representation of Barbarism. The problem is that people coming form the North of Europe and Anglo Saxon countries should all abstain from editing articles related to race in any way. We all know the type of people that we are talking about. But again, forget about it. This is not the place to discuss this point, although political incorrectness is sometimes necessary to call things by their names. And of course, I am just telling a lot of tales. Anyway, going back to the main issue, forget about me. Your comments make no sense. And I know that users here will say that all these comments of mine disqualify me. OK, I prefer that to being a hypocrite. But anyone who takes the little effort of following people like you will know directly that you are a Nordicist. Therefore my angry reactions. Because I am more than tired of dealing with the same people in Wiki coming always from the same places. Even being of Balkan origins Australia has turned you into what you are, as all those places make with all those people who call themselves white and identify so strongly with being that thing called white. Did I get anything wrong? You know I did not. So, forget about me.But to uncover users like you I urge people here to see your comments in the Genetic History of Europe, to see the kind of information that you have targeted and the kind of information that you have waited to sneak in and delete. What a coincidence! articles that deal with the Asian influence in Northern Europe and which you seem to hate so much. You can cheat a lot of naive users here but not me¡. Anyway, no more time to waste here with people like you. I just hope that other users can finally see your kind and open their eyes. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.34.123.45 (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way Jews are Semitic, Germans are Germanic. That is probably why other editors have rightly reverted your bizarre edits.

Wow. Such an angry individual. I'm sorry if you have been discriminated against by some white people, but wikipedia articles are not a place to spread racial hatred on. You make personal attacks about my "Balkan Nordicism", althouugh I find such a charge quite self-contradictory, I am attacking your interpretation of genetic studies, because you simply lack the full understanding. THe Y-chromosome is 1 out of 26 chromosomes. It does not tell eveything about a population.

Remarks ''The use of the Y chromosome to investigate human population histories (Jobling and Tyler-Smith 1995) is increasing as convenient polymorphic markers become available. However, the effective population size of this chromosome is one-quarter that of any autosome, and this means that it is particularly influenced by drift. Effective population size may be further reduced through the variance in the number of sons that a father has and perhaps by selective sweeps (Jobling and Tyler-Smith 2000). Conclusions about populations on the basis of this single locus must therefore be made with caution''. Rosser et al 2000. Not only that, you are equating the presence of Haplogroup E1b soley to Jews, which is simplistic. There are more than one different subclades of E1b1 in Spain, and Europe. THe different ones, and within each one, there have been multiple demographic events responsible for its introduction into SPain. Yes, cetainly, perhaps the presence of Jews was one of these events, but there have been others. So you cannot simply conclude that Spanish people are 20% Jewish. ANyone with an ounce of common sense will not listen to anything you say.If you want to learn about genetics, that's cool, coz its interesting stuff, but people like you give such studies a bad name because you misunderstand it (intentionally or not) and falsely use them to push your own agendas Hxseek (talk)

Man, this is surrealistic!. Read the article that we are talking about. They claim that Spanish people are 20% Jewish. Oppenheimer and others have already pointed out how crazy the conclusion is, not me, I am just stressing how an article that has never been duplicated about these conclusions has been introduced in the body of the Wiki article. There were other articles with other results not duplicated or confirmed by others and long ago it was agreed not to introduce them. You know that some studies come to different conclusions right now, therefore it is logical that only those with at least two confirmations should be accepted, but some people are only too eager to cherry pick some. In conclusion, you are not following me, because in your latest response you are saying what I say. About my observations, I am sorry but they are sadly true and you know it, and I am tired of confirming it in Wiki articles. The funny thing is that when one highlights this issue, some people think: Wow this guy must be a nigger!. Why! Still the tribalistic spirit!. A white person, If I have to use that infamous terminology for the sake of communication, cannot strongly criticize that infamous part of human history and nature, that has been especially nurtured in some places!. Of course this would belong elsewhere if it did not influence so much many Wiki articles. As to your comments about Askenazi Jews, Sephardic Jews are not related either to the Spanish!. A people who have lived for centuries with the Germans and who speak a Germanic language, Yiddish, are not related to the Germans! A people who have lived hundreds of years with the Spanish and who speak a Spanish language, Sephardic, are not related to the Spanish! As I said, the primitive and barbaric tribalistic approach again and again. A clear example of the approach of the Anglosaxon culture that you live in to peoples and race, racist to the bone, and all this permeating Wiki!. By the way I never made those edits, I just knew the result. Jan.

And the article itself states Despite alternative possible sources for lineages ascribed a Sephardic Jewish origin. Nothing else needs to be said. Hxseek (talk) 15:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible vandalism?
There are some users that are repeatingly making drastic, very bizarre changes to this page: stating that the ethnic makeup of the Spanish people is a "Composite of Mediterranean and Nordic types" (?), erasing (without giving any reason) the very important fact that Spanish people are Latin Europeans, they also puzzlingly remove that the Spanish people are a composite of different ethnic groups (Catalans, Galicians, Castillians, etc), write some rewording of the phrase "Latin-Americans can be considered also Spanish people"... and many more nonsensical changes.

-The "Composite of Mediterranean and Nordic types" edit, usually with a myriad of "sources" (they are all actually referencing the exact same sentence from the exact same unique source, not different studies that reached the same conlusion. That's not how sourcing in Wikipedia works): That definition comes from the CIA World Factbook, and goes back as far at least as the 1992 edition:

http://209.85.129.132/search?q=cache:tP2VKOfR2wsJ:www.umsl.edu/services/govdocs/wofact92/wf930225.txt+%22Ethnic+divisions:+composite+of+Mediterranean+and+Nordic+types+%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3

This is an oldfashioned (1992!), inaccurate and even crass for todays standards ethnic definition. It doesn't have any Anthropological basis anymore with the current knowledge. What means "Nordic"? The (probably few) Vikings and Visigoths that settled in Iberia? How can we quantify them? And the "Mediterranean" element? R1b (The main haplogroup in Iberia)? It's scattered in all of Europe, not just the Mediterranean!. The J2 and E-M81? They account for 10-15% and it's not even clear from were it comes (There's still much debate about a possible Neolithic origin, Roman, Greek, Phoenician, Jewish, Berber...)

-Spanish people are Latin Europeans. Why the hell they systematically erase this very important information? or put something like "they are usually classifed as..." The Spanish people ARE Latin Europeans. Period.

-Latin-Americans can't be Spaniards (sigh) because they were not born in Spain, and most likely have other cultural/biological origins. Spanish people means people from Spain. An African-American, A Dutch-American, a Chinese-American, all they may have some English ancestry in varying degrees, speak English and form part of a cultural tradition that derives many elements from the old colonial masters, but they can not be considered British. This is so incredibly basic that I feel stupid just explaining it.

They also erase "they have somewhat varied origins" for "they have varied origins". The core of the Spanish ancestry is R1b and other typical European haplogroups, with minor (either recent, very ancient or a mix) Northern African (5-10%) and Levantine (7-10%) influences. That's what the "somewhat" means. --62.57.173.123 (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, those nonsentical edits keep coming (every day, and all of them at once!). He doesn't even at least try to refute what I posted above, he just pushes obsessively his views bot-style.--62.57.242.9 (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

North African contribution
Yet another big surprise comes from the newest studies about the North African contribution, showing that it is largest in the North West, substantially larger than in the south in general or Andalusia in particular. It seems a big news because contradicts traditional views, yet this issue is barely mentioned and not elaborated. It deserves more elaboration in my opinion. On the other hand a lot of data is being piled up about the North African influence. A summary should be done. Someone do it if hey agree. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.22.111.143 (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is worth noting that this new study by Capelli et al 2009 Moors and Saracens in Europe estimating the medieval North African male legacy in southern Europe that analysed 717 Spanish found a higher frequency of North African haplogroups than Adams et al. 2008 as they also included not only M81 but a subclade of M78 which is also considered as north-african by geneticists. This average frequency of 7.7% north-african haplogroups which, adjusting for the haplogroup’s frequency in North Africa itself, would correspond to a contribution of about 14% which is a little bit higher than Adams et al 2008 (10.6%). So it is important not to mix frequency and contribution. A low frequency always means a higher contribution as it depends also on the haplogroup’s frequency in North Africa itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.113.20.177 (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I do no agree with the latter. A lot of original research-thinking. It does not address the main issue of this section. Higher in the North. Which is in contradiction with history, therefore those markers may be more ancient than the Arab period. In any case, all those comments to speak of a 5-10% contribution is too much. A summary should be made. Undue weight right now given to a marginal or minority influence, difficult to justify from a neutral point of view. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 11:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Concerning frequency and contribution Adams et al. 2008 say "The Y chromosome provides the phylogeographic resolution that might allow the disentangling of past admixture events, and studies have focused on haplogroup E3b2 (also known as E-M81), common in North Africa and found at an average frequency of 5.6% in the peninsula, which, adjusting for the haplogroup’s frequency in North Africa itself, would correspond to a contribution of 8%–9%." so it is clear that the frequency of 7.7% found by Capelli et al. 2009 would correspond to a contribution of about 13%.
 * About the recent origin of North-African haplogroups and and their higher frequencies in the Western-half Adams et al 2008 clearly answered : "It has been claimed that there is some archaeological evidence to support prehistoric African influence in the Iberian Peninsula, and a single mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplotype of North African origin found among ancient DNA samples of Iberian Bronze Age cattle from northern Spain has been taken as support of this claim. However, we observe low diversity of the prominent North African lineage hg E3b2 in Iberian populations, which argues against a prehistoric origin for the majority of chromosomes chromosomes in this lineage, the low diversity being more compatible with their arrival in more recent times. North Africans entered the Iberian Peninsula from the south, and after a rapid northward expansion soon retreated southwards, being finally expelled from Andalusia over 700 years after their arrival. Thus, they apparently spent the least amount of time in the north, and we might therefore expect a south-north gradient of North African ancestry proportions. However (and in agreement with studies of independent samples), we find no evidence of this. Indeed, the highest mainland proportions of North African ancestry (>20%) are found in Galicia and Northwest Castile, with much lower proportions in Andalusia.The most striking division in North African ancestry proportions is between the western half of the peninsula, where the proportion is relatively high, to the eastern half, where it is relatively low (Figure 4). This distribution could reflect genetic drift, as well as the history of enforced relocations and expulsion of moriscos. The entire large community of moriscos in Granada was relocated northward and westward following the war of 1567–1571. In addition, the final expulsion of moriscos, ordered by Philip III and beginning in1609, was highly effective in some regions of Spain, including Valencia and Western Andalucia, but less so in Galicia and Extremadura, where the population was more dispersed and integrated." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.28.96.57 (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It should not be forgotten the following:

A study (published 2007) using 6,501 unrelated Y-chromosome samples from 81 populations found that: “Considering both these E-M78 sub-haplogroups (E-V12, E-V22, E-V65) and the E-M81 haplogroup, the contribution of northern African lineages to the entire male gene pool of Iberia is 5.6%. ”[50]

In terms of the number of samples much bigger, even 10 times bigger, than the others. Anyway, again, summary needed. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 12:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong, 6501 includes 81 populations for all Europe not only Spain. See Cruciani et al.2007. Concerning Spain, only 263 Spanish individuals (Pasiegos from Cantabria 56, Asturians 90, Southern Spaniards 62, Spanish Basques 55) were analysed which is very small. The same applies for the other study "Prehistoric Admixture on the Genome of Europeans"  as  only 360 spanish individuals were analysed (including 126 from unknown origin !). Adams at al 2008 in  comparison analysed more than 1000 individuals from every regions of Spain and Capelli et al. 2009 more than 700. Moreover  both these studies used a combined SNP-STR approach which is the most efficient way of giving good estimations. Therefore all references to studies that analysed only small samples (< 500) should be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.28.96.57 (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * About your comments on the "frequency in North Africa itself" adjust and frequency/contribution, and despite your authoritative tone, I'm afraid you don't really quite grasp anything about how those estimations work. That adjustment is not made on every Y-DNA study as you seem to think, and was not done in the 10.6 obtained in the Adams et al study since it already covered enough haplogroups: it was directed towards data from another study that only looked for a single haplogroup (E3b2m, with a frequency of 55% in NWA) instead of comparing the most common haplogroups of Iberians and North African populations like they did. The Capelli study doesn't need that adjust neither since it already covers the main NWA haplogroups, and in fact shows that the Adams et al result had sligtly overstimated the NWA contribution because they didn't searched for specific NWA haplotypes: "Therefore, following this, European Y chromosomes within the three haplogroups identical to, or with one mutational difference from, NW African STR haplotypes were considered compatible with an MNA ancestry. In Iberia and peninsular Italy, they account for 90, 78 and 42% of the E1b1b1b, E1b1b1a-b and J1 chromosomes respectively." For example, all E-M78 in Iberia was regarded as North African, but this study demonstrates that this is not really the case (There is an European variety of E-M78 scattered in many parts of Europe and peaking in the Balkans) Except for the J1, that means that 10% and 22% of the M81 and the M78 of what was regarded as "North African" in Adams et al wasn't really. The Cristian Capelli et al. study is the best effort by far at stimating North-African lineages in Iberia. (And, by the way, if 5.6->8%-9% then 7.7->11%-12%, not 14%, you got a little overexcited there chap). Now, regarding those massive migrations of North African Christians towards the North-West: they are -completely- undocumented in Spanish historical studies, either by local or foreign historians. They must have caught the Inquistion sleeping, such a vast wave of migrations (and I mean vast in the sense of hundreds of thousands) of the hated and heavily monitored conversos going undetected. You seem very interested in the genetic make up of Iberians: please find reliable sources about those population movements. I have searched and still could't find any reference, maybe you can help searching in the French-language internet. You may find some trouble though, since it's not even some fringe theory about Iberian history that Adams et al ressorted to, it simply was unheard of until the study was published in december 2008. Don't forget that those are the same guys saying that all the J2, I, G, K, Q in Iberia can only be "Jewish genes" (In the Sephardim sample, J1 (named JxJ2 in the table, and the *only* haplogroup that was specifically Jewish of all the compared) and J2 had a similar frequency. In the Iberian samples J2 is eight times more common than J1!. As the ancestry section of this article states, Celts, Romans, Greeks, Phoenicians, Scandinavians, Arabs and Slavs have influenced Iberia. How can they still find plausible to consider Iberian J2, I, G, K and Q, Haplogroups carried by most of those peoples and very present in the rest of Europe, as Jewish?!. And to boot, in Capelli et al much of that J1 in Iberia, instead of being Sephardim, is proved that is a specific haplotype from North-West Africa...!) Not to say that those same guys, two months before they published Adams et al, presented other paper making even more delirious historical assumptions, all necessary to prove that J2 in Iberia and the Mediterranean is... Jewish? no: ...Phoenician. Geneticists are trained as geneticists, not as historians or archeologists, add to that the spectacular intellectual dishonesty showed by that team and you will get theories like the phantom massive migrations of Moriscos in times when they were most heavily controlled, or that Crete was a secret Phoenician colony.
 * Also, many genes associated in those two studies with Muslim occupation could have entered Iberia during Prehistorical times. Contrary what you may think reading the Other Historical Influences section, that posibility is a hotly debated subject in current anthropological scholarship.--62.57.95.74 (talk) 06:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * About "my comments" on the "frequency in North Africa itself", please again read carefully, these are Adams et al.2008 comments not mine : "The Y chromosome provides the phylogeographic resolution that might allow the disentangling of past admixture events, and studies have focused on haplogroup E3b2 (also known as E-M81), common in North Africa and found at an average frequency of 5.6% in the peninsula, which, adjusting for the haplogroup’s frequency in North Africa itself, would correspond to a contribution of 8%–9%" (page 2). And they say the same for Mtdna U6 "Although the overall absolute frequency of U6 is low (2.4%), this signals a possible current North African ancestry proportion of 8%–9%, because U6 is not a common lineage in North Africa itself.". And this is very simple to understand. For sources about relocations of Moriscos you can read "Harvey, L.P., Muslims in Spain: 1500 to 1614, University of Chicago Press, 2005)." and many other books. And Yes I am quite interested in Spanish history as my paternal grand father immigrated from Barcelona to France in the 20th century"--90.14.110.100 (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I always assume good faith, so there I go again: The hgs analized in Capelli et all are much more representative of the genetic heterogeneity of NWA populations than those two studies Adams et al mention, since they analized only a single NWA marker. Your point was that the same adjust done with the 5.6 result (that being the frequency of one haplogroup) needed to be done with Carelli et al (that being the frequency of the three major haplogroups in NWA) so the total contribution would ammount to a 14%. If you still can't understand why your frequency/contribution calculations about the Capelli study are wrong, you should refrain from editing this page altogether. Take studies like this one that also detect a significant presence of E1b1b1b (E-M81) in France. In this case it could be argued that such adjust would be needed (like in the 5.6% Spanish result), since the result is the frequency of only one NWA French haplogroup (with a frequency of 56% in modern North Africans). Not to say that they are really, and I mean really assuming that contemporary North-Africans and the historical Al-Andalus Moors from more than a millenium ago (or North-African Roman soldiers or Carthaginian Berbers) shared exactly the same Y-DNA composition, which is nonsense, since there has been admixture with other populations during the last centuries in the Maghreb, to the point that descendents of the expelled Moors in Tunisia (called there "Andalusians") are still more genetically homogeneous than other North Africans. And Muslims in Spain: 1500 to 1614 as a matter of fact argues against the "huge exodus" case made by Adams et al. Have you read the the book? The very few mentions of relocations of cheap labor mentioned (and usually as a sidenote) were never above the few hundreds (and many of those being Muladis: ethnic Iberians converted to Islam during the Al-Andalus period) towards populations centers of hundred of thounsands of inhabitants. And many of those relocated Conversos were expelled later. Those small movements simply can't explain, for example, the Galician case. Other studies like this one presented with the same problem choose a pre-Muslim dominance explanation, because the results can't be explained with the current historical data.--62.57.89.201 (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion.

1. Most studies fall within the 5-10% range for North African influence. The exact time of its arrival being debatable.
 * Yes, average frequency of North African in Spain Hg falls between 5-10% but with with wide geographical variation, ranging from 0% to 19%. Also dont mix frequency and admixture. Adams et al. 2008 did an admixture analysis based on frequencies (please read carefully the study) while Capelli at al. 2009 only reported frequencies and did not make any admixture analysis.
 * About the exact time of its arrival, it is true it was debatable until recently. But one of the main interest of these 2 analysis is that they used a combined SNP-STR approach to clarify this point. That was not the case for older studies which used only haplogroups’ occurrence. About this, Capelli et al. 2009 says "To address the degree of historical NW African contribution, we used a combined SNP-STR approach. The coalescent times for the three NW African specific haplogroups ranges between 5000 and 24 000 years, spanning a number of historical scenarios each potentially explaining their presence on the Northern Mediterranean shores. It follows that estimating Male North African genetic legacy on the basis of haplogroups’ occurrence only would be misleading. To avoid this limitation, we have extended our analysis to include STR data whose high mutation rate allows one to focus on more recent events".--90.14.110.100 (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In the abstract of the Capelli et al study, they use the word "contribution". Dienekes, who has access to the paper wrote: "In Portugal, the total contribution is 7.1% and in Spain 7.7%." Have you read the study? I already explained to you why the "in North Africa itself" hack doesn't apply in this case. It's hard to assume good faith with users so pushy like you.--62.57.89.201 (talk)

2. It seems that the greatest influence is in the North and in the West, especially in the North West, contrary to what was traditionally believed and to what history might suggest. (For example, as a result, R1b is more frequent in the Meditterranean "Iberian" part than in the Atlantic "Celtic part". In fact it is lowest in the most "Celtic" part, the North West, like Galicia, Cantabria and Asturias. This is most interesting, and according to this most information being published in Wiki on the subject is wrong. Look in related articles. And needless to say that popular believe and culture, as expressed in music, architecture, tradition, and common thinking, in Spain contradicts all this 100%. If you tell a Spaniard that a Cantabrian has more North African ancestry than an Andalusian he or she will take you for a fool.
 * Yes right, but again dont mix Cultural influence and Genetic influence. --90.14.110.100 (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

In short, if these articles represent the main view on the subject now, a lot of information should be changed. Still, in relation to this article, the space devoted to the North African influence should be summarized in a few lines. Right now the article is not balanced in content and form. As to the Jewish part, to introduce an article like that, a single one never again replicated with those results is more than undue weight. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.33.213.138 (talk) 10:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.57.95.74 (talk)
 * Dont forget that Muslim rule lasted from 711 to 1492 (and "influence" until 1609), so just a "few lines" would seem not really objective. But I agree as I said before that the two studies (5 lines) that used only small samples (Cruciani et al .2007 and Dupanloup et al.2004) should be removed.--90.14.110.100 (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We are talking about genetics, not the history section, so a few lines stating the results of the studies of course will suffice. Right now something that accounts for about 8% of Spanish acestry has more space in the article than the other 92%. This is biased and gives a distorted view, not to say that this is the only page of any ethnic group where something as disproportional happens. I can't understand how someone would try to argue for the contrary. And the result of those studies that you are so eager to erase need to be mentioned too, later stating that Adams et al covered more Haplogroups and a major population sample and the result of Carelli et al being much more precise than Adams et al at discriminating NWA contribution.--62.57.89.201 (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have the Capelli'2009 s study and he says "We screened more than 2300 South European samples (Figure 1; Table 1) to identify those haplotypes which are evolutionary close to NW African chromosomes. Total frequencies for these chromosomes range between 0 and 19% across southern Europe, the highest being in Cantabria (...). Our estimates of NW African chromosome frequencies were highest in Iberia and Sicily, in accordance with the long-term Arab rule in these two areas". In this case Capelli use both frequency and contribution to mean exactly the same but it is clear that Capelli reported only frequencies and did not do any admixture analysis with involves the use of parental populations and is much more complex. Up to now, only Adams et al 2008 made an admixture analysis based on frequencies of E-M81 only and if they had done the same based on frequencies of E-M81, E-M78-b and J1 reported by Capelli 2009, admixture would have been of course much higher. Adams et al 2008 says "Previous genetic studies of the Iberian Peninsula included analyses of classical marker frequencies, autosomal Alu insertion polymorphisms, mitochondrial DNA variation, and Y-chromosomal haplotypes. In general, these surveys have paid little attention to the issue of admixture. (In our study) admixture proportions were estimated with mY statistics implemented in Admix 2.0. This coalescent-based estimator takes into account allele frequencies, as well as molecular information. All potential  parental populations are expected to be sampled and constant in size, and the effects of genetic drift or gene flow since the admixture event are considered negligible. We have used three parental populations: Basques, Moroccans, and Sephardic Jews."  So again do not mix frequencies and admixture. Admixture analysis are based, of course, on frequencies but are much more complex.--90.28.232.23 (talk) 10:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This part is about genetics. 5-10% does not deserve 50-60% unless you have a big agenda, which we all know you have, with your maximalist approach to all that is North African. 711 to 1492? Where? In what percentage of Spain?, etc. You know that it is much more complicated than that. Still, this is about genetics. Read the heading of the section well. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.33.213.138 (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I notice that the following change has been made to the line where the Capelli et al study is mentioned:

"In January 2009, a study by Capelli et al. that analysed 717 Spanish individuals found the total contribution of specific North African male haplotypes in Spain as 9.7%..."

However, all the references I found to this study on the Internet coincide in saying that the total contribution claimed by the study is 7.7%:





Which is how it was originally written in the Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennis sinneD (talk • contribs) 15:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Page protected
Page sysop protected due to edit warring. Tan  &#124;   39  19:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * this page may probably also need permanent semi-protection.-- Andersmusician  NO  00:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

What about haplogroup I.
This haplogroup is the second largest in Spain. Why is there no information whatsoever about it?. The fact that it is relatively small is just because R1b is the largest by a huge margin. Still, I is the second largest. It can be seen in this study, or better said in this map which is a compendium of studies, and also in many other studies.

http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf

Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.33.213.138 (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess that's kinda implied in the peoples listed in the "Other Historical Influences" section, since many of them are I carriers. There's no need to expand that section even more. The way I see it the ancestry section is way bloated and I'll even say it smells of racialism. By the way, note how from all the people making systematic, drastic POV edits to this article inthe last months, only the Catalan/French guy has at least the decency to try to argue for his case (We must stress that Catalonia has low NWA markers but exaggerate the results for other Iberians.) in the discussion page while the page is protected. The guy with the IPs from Peru to whom I refered in the "Possible vandalism?" section is just waiting the green light so he can continue his crazy edits. This page needs indeed permanent semi-protection, that meaning: I should get an account!. And about the Sephardim Jews in the "related ethnic groups", if we include them then we should include also Gitanos and Hispanics.--62.57.89.201 (talk) 06:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this article attracts a lot of people with strange agendas, but, I am sorry, you seem to be one of them, always so interested in adding comment to the North African section and so interested as well in ignoring all the rest. In your opinion the North African contribution deserves 50% of the section and the I haplogroup, none at all, even if it is the second largest haplogroup in Spain after R1b. Humm. Quite smelly my friend. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.33.213.138 (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm afraid you are now confussing me with someone else. I've already posted my opinion about that issue: "Right now something that accounts for about 8% of Spanish acestry has more space in the article than the other 92%. This is biased and gives a distorted view, not to say that this is the only page of any ethnic group where something as disproportional happens. I can't understand how someone would try to argue for the contrary". And about the I in Iberia, if you feel it needs to be included go ahead.--81.184.130.252 (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As you can see in my two posts above I have dynamic IP, that may be the cause of your confusion. I just created a wiki account to make things clear.--Kg34 (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To say "something that accounts for about 8% of Spanish acestry has more space in the article than the other 92%" is meaningless. The first are mainly of historical origin while the second are mainly of Paleolithic and Neolithic origin . They just have to be put in 2 different sections and the "Other historical influences" should be renamed only "Historical influences". Concerning the Y-dna North African numbers, to say "Mean North African admixture is 10.6%, with wide geographical variation, ranging from 2.5 in Catalonia to 21.7% in Northwest Castile." as stated by Adams. et al 2008 should be enough. By the way, it was like that at the beginnning and many people like Kg34 started to add useless comments, references to old studies that studied only small samples (they also changed the numbers like for Cruciani et al. 2007 where 260 spanish became 6501 spanish individuals, "10 times bigger, than the others" as Kg34 said) etc ... which created a lof of confusion.

--

Sorry for the confusion. I made the mistake about those numbers, not Kg. So sorry again. In any case we all agree about a summary, but to try and imply that a summary is the result of a single study is outrageous. Let's be serious. A summary of a few lines, of course, but not cherry picking the results of a single article, which is being questioned a lot, on top of that. Obviously I made a mistake about users, but someone here is clearly trying to cherry pick information about the North African influence from a maximalist point of view. I think it is more than obvious. Right now most studies talk of 2,5%, 5%,7%, 10% North African Influence. Most of them fall within that range, therefore a few lines should just state that this contribution is between 5-10% according to most studies (not necessary to say it is x here and y there, because that depends on the study) And although there are studies that talk of about a 2%, I think the 5%-10% would be most representative. So let us be serious and leave our personal issues and agendas at home. A short summary leaving the links to the articles should suffice, not the results of the single article that we like, for some reason.Jan.
 * It is not a question of agenda. What kind of agenda is that ? I read Afro-centrist ? Well North-Africans are not sub-saharan africans as Americans seem to think. Most North-Africans are white caucasians (In comparison, Greece has much more E-M78, the other subclade of E-M35, which is also caucasian like E-M81). Many of them in France are even more lighter tham I am... So don't mix everything. But we need to be objective. And up to now, there is only one study that covered all regions of Iberia and made an admixture analysis. This is the one by Adams et al .2008 which is the most important paper on Iberia (they analysed more than 1140 individuals from all regions). All other studies reported only frequencies for a few numbers of regions and more important did not do any admixture analysis. So to be objective we have to say that frequencies range from 0 to 19 % (and mention the most important regions) and mention as well the admixture numbers reported by Adams et al. 2008 (10.6%, with wide geographical variation, ranging from 2.5 in Catalonia to 21.7% in Northwest Castile). Mentionning both frequencies and admixture numbers is objective (not only one of them). So I would suggest the following lines for both Y-dna and mtDna:
 * "In Spain, North African y-dna haplogroups are found on average at 5-10% ranging from 0% in Basque country to 19% in Cantabria. As for admixture level, Adams et al. 2008 found a mean of 10.6%, with wide geographical variation, ranging from 2.5 in Catalonia to 21.7% in Northwest Castile. Some mtDNA studies find evidence of the characteristic North African haplogroup U6 within Spain. Although the overall absolute frequency of U6 is low (2.4%), this signals a possible current North African ancestry proportion of 8%–9%, because U6 is not a common lineage in North Africa itself." (with links to the most important studies : Adams 2008, Capelli 2009, Flores 2004 for Y-dna and Pereira 2005, Plaza at al. 2003,  Gonzalez et al. 2003 for mtdna )
 * I'll reply to a previous comment you made in other section here:
 * "Up to now, only Adams et al 2008 made an admixture analysis based on frequencies of E-M81 only and if they had done the same based on frequencies of E-M81, E-M78-b and J1 reported by Capelli 2009, admixture would have been of course much higher."
 * Take a look at this table from the Adams et al. study. Notice how J1 (in the table named JxJ2) and M78 were also analzyed and accounted.
 * Actually, the Capelli et al study found that Adams et al wasn't very precise since they just looked for haplogroups instead of specific NWA Haplotypes: "following this, European Y chromosomes within the three haplogroups identical to, or with one mutational difference from, NW African STR haplotypes were considered compatible with an MNA ancestry. In Iberia and peninsular Italy, they account for 90, 78 and 42% of the E1b1b1b, E1b1b1a-b and J1 chromosomes respectively." That means that some hts that were identified as North African in Adams et al were misidentified, so it should be mentioned that the new study was more specific at determining NWA contribution. Just compare the M78 frequencies in Iberia and NWA on the table I linked and you will notice how it's obvious that Adams et al missinterpreted Balkanic M78 as NWA. As for your persistence in the frequency/admixture issue, I'll repeat for the last time some points I made in my previous posts that maybe you didn't notice: Capelli et al reported frequencies of the three major hgs in NWA being that very representative of modern-day NWA haplogroup composition. That's why they alternate between "NWA contribution" and "frequencies": in a study like this, it esentially means the same. Please reread those two last senteces and try to understand them. The "admixture analysis" Adams et al made with the 5.6% M81 result from other study was: If that single haplogroup has a frequency of 55% in North Afica itself and a frequency of 5.6% in Iberia, then we can estimate a 8%-9% NA contribution in Iberia. France in this study boasted a 3.5% frequency of E-M81, so that would mean that the total contribution found in that paper of NWA Y-chromosomes in France would be 5%-7%. If that 3.5% was the result of the three main haplogroups in NWA (including E-M81) as in the carelli et al study, then you pretty much would had obtained the total contribution, and no adjust would be needed. You need to take into account how representative of the parental populations are the haplogroup(s) being analyzed. It's not the same looking for frequencies of just one haplpogroup, than the three largest (and the more specific to the parental population, allowing to discriminate between haplotypes). You seem to not have any problem with this paragraph: "Although the overall absolute frequency of U6 is low (2.4%), this signals a possible current North African ancestry proportion of 8%–9%, because U6 is not a common lineage in North Africa itself." when what they did was esentially compare the frequencies of U6 in NWA and Spain and adjust it to determine contribution. In the Adams et al. study is stated: "Haplogroup frequencies in these Iberian, North African, and Sephardic Jewish populations are displayed graphically in Figure2. Now please notice how if you add the results of frequencies of NWA haplogroups in Iberia you will have the total contribution (10.6%). Admixture analysis of course are complex, but they esentially consist in comparing the frequencies of certain markers from the studied population with frequencies in a parental population taking into account a given time frame. Not to say that admixture analysis (specially if we take modern-day representatives for historical populations) can be very misleading. Anyway, I would only make minor changes to the summary that you presented. As for the Sub-saharan contribution, I think that paragraph is more about Portugal than Spain, so maybe should be removed. I agree about renaming "Other Historical Influences" to "Historical Influences". Also we need to mention the Sephardim interpretation from Adams et al, and why that interpretation is controversial, but not in such a convoluted way as it is now. --Kg34 (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

-

I do not agree with you on a few points which I am not going to repeat. Anyway, let us wait for Kg. I support him and what he may propose, just for the record, because I am now turning off. I have other things to do. So, go ahead Kg, I think you know more than any of us here on the subject. See you back in a few weeks, I hope you have come to a good and balanced version and not the mess the article looks like right now. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.33.213.138 (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The whole “Other historical influences” section is one giant mess. I agree it should be changed to “Historic Influences”. Furthermore, it should deal with the factual, historic interactions between Iberians and Greeks, Romans, Phoenicians, etc. and not genetic ‘fluff’. Also the paragraph revolving around admixture in Portugal should be deleted, because well… they are not Spanish. The section attempting to link Sephardic Jews to Iberians is also inappropriate. That study is not cutting edge but a rather flimsy analysis. --Missileblues (talk) 12:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no hope for improving (that is, now, reducing) the "other historical influences" section. It would be reverted fast no matter what, and no matter what consensus has been reached in the talk page. I don't know either why genetics are so crucially important to gain knowledge about the Spanish making it he longest section in the article, specially when most population's articles don't even have a genetics section. I guess this page is more about certain obsessions about the Spanish in the English-speaking world than the real subject.--81.184.132.77 (talk) 10:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm going to at least delete a paragraph that is repeated verbatim in two sections. --81.184.132.77 (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Related groups - Sephardim
After following this article for quite some time, I am growing frustrated with repeated edits designed to erase a key part of Spanish history. Those who remove Sephardim from the grouping of related peoples are ignoring basic historical (not genetic) facts. From the Sephardim article of Wikipedia:


 * "A Sephardi is a jew in the Iberian Peninsula (modern Spain and Portugal)and Maghreb. This includes both the descendants of Jews expelled from Spain under the Alhambra decree of 1492, or from Portugal by order of King Manuel I in 1497 and the descendants of crypto-Jews who left the Peninsula in later centuries. In modern times, the term has also been applied to Jews who may not have been born Sephardi (or even Jewish) but attend Sephardic synagogues and practice Sephardic traditions. Today there are around 12,000 Jews in Spain and 500 in Portugal. There is also a community of 600 in Gibraltar.


 * The name comes from Sepharad (Hebrew: ספרד, Standard Səfarád Tiberian Səp̄aráḏ / Səp̄āraḏ ; Turkish: Sefarad), a Biblical location.[2] This was probably the "Saparda" mentioned in Persian inscriptions: the location of that is disputed, but may have been Sardis in Asia Minor. "Sepharad" was identified by later Jews as the Iberian Peninsula, and still means "Spain" in modern Hebrew."

The section is titled "Related people" and under that idea, "Sephardim" clearly belong. Please let us not get into unwinnable edit wars based on genetic studies when concrete and historical-linguistic evidence is looking us straight in the face. I had hoped that we could get way beyond discussion over "limpieza de sangre" or cleanliness of genes. Danwalk (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If you check the history of this article, the inclusion of Sephardim as related to Spaniards came as a consequence of the disputed interpretations of a single genetic study. Before that, the "concrete historical-linguistic evidence " was still there but no one thought of adding them as related. Ashkenazi Jews are not being pushed as related in the German People article or Eastern European groups, even though they have more cultural links to modern day Germans or Eastern-Europeans, since they lived in that part of Europe for more centuries than the Sephardim did in Spain. The Sephardim Jews of centuries ago living in Spain were indeed somewhat related to the Spaniards of that age (even though sharing the same space, their cultures were very different, Spaniards belonging to a culture derived strongly from Catholicism and the Sephardim from a Hebrew tradition), but after the diaspora, they are now clearly two very differenciated groups. The vast majority of Sephardim Jews have assimilated well to their new country many generations ago. A Sephardim living in the US, Belgium, France or Turkey is culturally related to other Jewish groups and the people of their home country, not Spain anymore. A Sephardim Jew living in Latin-America is already mentioned as related as Hispanic. Modern-day Sephardim living in any other country than Spain for generations and moder-day Spaniards are not related ethnic groups culturally. In any case, Sephardim living in Italy or France are already mentioned as related as Italians or French people. As for the other thing being pushed here: Spanish people being either mostly Catholic, and then Atheist or Jewish: is totally false and shows a profound ignorance about Spanish society (which makes me wonder why are they editing this article in the first place). A negligible minority of Ethnic Spaniards have converted to Judaism. Still being in minority, there are more ethnic Spaniards converted to Protestant churches, Islam or Eastern religions. This is not "limpieza de sangre" idiocy, (check how Gypsies are considered Spanish people in this article, and the picture of the Valencian girls shows ethnic Iberians and Gypsies as Spanish people), it's common sense. --81.184.132.77 (talk) 04:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your common sense view. I think Sephardim can technically claim “relation” to just about any country on earth. By that standard, so can the Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Greeks, English. --Missileblues (talk) 13:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not just common sense, all the anthropological studies and books about Europeans in general and Spaniards in particular I've read relate them to other Southern European groups and Hispanics, not Jews, not only due to both groups having different origins but because even in the time they shared the peninsula they had very different cultural and religious backgrounds (and at the time Jews and Spaniards lived together religious meant cultural). For example, in the "related peoples" box in the Ashkenazi article says "Sephardi Jews, Mizrahi Jews, and other Jewish ethnic divisions. Other Semitic peoples.", and most of them lived in Europe until recently. If this article was about medieval Spaniards then the inclusion of Sephardim as related could have at least some basis (that would be the same as saying that if Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs spoke dialects of the same language while retaining all the other cultural differences, and instead of both groups being Semitic either Jews or Arabs where European they would be related peoples, something that at least could be debatable) but as I mentioned before: stating that modern-day Spaniards and modern-day Sephardim living outisde Spain (as most do) are as today culturally related is totally misleading. By that logic you could also add for example Filipinos as related peoples, since there are more Spanish and Chabacano-speakers there than there are Ladino-speakers, a language sadly almost completely lost, since most Sephardim nowadays speak the language of the nation where they live. --81.184.132.77 (talk) 06:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The Ladino language is almost a Spanish dialect, and it's central to the Sephardi identity, while Spanish is a marginal thing for Filipino identity. You can add Chavacano people to the list, if you like so, even though Chavacano is impossible to understand for a Spanish speaker. --Jotamar (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

FIRST PARAGRAPH WITHOUT APPOINTMENTS
The first paragraph doesn't have bibliographical appointments and however it continues without being varied. Wikipedia should correct with the alternative text of this first paragraph since appointment numerous reliable sources. Nevertheless, there is a fellow that continues maintaining a text without bibliographical appointments. I hope they take out this individual of the edition. Gonbal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.121.206.50 (talk) 03:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

GRISELDA
L'informe que s'esmenta en una entrada del nom Griselda, emès per EEUU, ajunta Espanya en un sol bloc, sense tenir en compte que, a "Espanya", o estat espanyol, s'hi parlen diverses llengües. Entre d'altres, la llengua catalana. En català, l'onomàstic "Griselda" és ben freqüent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.0.147.193 (talk) 11:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Franspanol en Montreal: dudoso
La parte del supuesto idioma franspanol adoptado en Montreal es más que dudosa. Pues yo he vivido aquí por más de seis años, y estoy metido en la comunidad latinoamericana, pero una sola vez en el autobús he escuchado dos niñas que mezclaban severamente el francés y el español. Salvo excepción, el franspanol no existe en Montreal, como idioma común entre personas. La gente normalement habla español, pero usa vocabulario francés para referirse a cosas relacionadas al trabajo, la escuela, o para cosas que sólo existen en Québec (como las cabannes à sucre, porque llamarlas cabañas de azúcar realmente suena feo). Pero por más de que la gente use alguna y otra palabra en francés, el idioma sigue siendo claramente español. No creo que el uso del franspanol esté suficientemente documentado y/o sea tan importante como para que aparezca en esta pagína. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.59.198.40 (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Spanish People Population is too big
"Total population Spanish approx: 135 million Descendents" I think 135 Milion is too much since most of "spanish" that lived for example now in South America still consider themselfs spanish? Ancestry and nationally are two different things maybe many of those people have big spanish ancestry and more or less have "pure" spanish ancestry without mixing like the "mestiços" but they probaly think themselfs as Argentines ,Venezuelans or other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RomanSoldier9001 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Spanish is not Spaniard
What is Spanish? All people living in Spain or a nation?Because in my view Galician for example isnt spanish its Galician a separate altough related ethnicity.Catalonia, Basque Country and Galicia are not Spain as is said in constitution so should their peoples also be consider spanish in this article and be counted as such? In my view they are separate ethnicities with history and different languages so they should be consider different peoples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RomanSoldier9001 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Do not make people laugh. Provincial Nationalist talibans are not taken seroiusly here. Kun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.144.235.8 (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Spanish" or "Spaniard" is the English term for people of Spanish nationality. From the outside, the finer distinctions of sub-nationalities aren't usually made, so "Spanish" includes all of them as an umbrella term. --dab (𒁳) 08:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment
No 135 million is fine, people in Latin America still consider themselves what they're ancestors were. Im a Spaniard yet my family is from Mexico. I think it depends on the country and its people, you can also say Im Spanish Mexican, almost like Mexican American for example, but you put your ancestry from Europe (Spanish) than the country to which your family immigrated to my case (Spanish+Mexican) I dont ever say Mexican American because you cant forget what part of Europe you came from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caminosoto (talk • contribs) 06:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Basques are just like other Spaniards
A new study shows that Basques are not a genetic isolate and in fact are very similar to other Spaniards.

See:

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/05/basques-are-not-genetic-isolate.html

I think it is important because the Basque issue is often exaggerated. Kun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.185.0 (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Dna study proves so called white people in Latin America are Mestivos who have happen to have light skin
http://www.laboratoriogene.info/Cientificos/African_Americans.pdf Sincerely The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 00:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC) otherwise known as Sophian. Also you can read this study to see how closly related the Spanish people are to the British people. Sincerely The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Links do not work on this page so name=DupanloupT03>The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 00:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Some interesting aspects.
Often the stereotype about the Spanish is about a short and swarthy person, stereotypes that have often been elevated to the categories of racial features.

Like the field of genetics is presenting important surprises, other studies are doing the same in relation to body height and skin pigmentation.

About body height, recent studies show that the average young Spaniard is even taller than the average Briton, and young Spaniards are still growing.

See: http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12501087

From there I cut and pasted this:

"The improvement in Spaniards’ lives is instantly visible. Many elderly people are short, stunted by the hunger they suffered as children in the hard years of fascist autarky after Franco won the civil war of 1936-39. Young Spaniards are strikingly taller than their grandparents, exemplified by Pau Gasol, who measures seven feet (2.13 metres) and was voted the most valuable player when Spain won the latest world basketball championship."

See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height

About skin pigmentation, in a 21st century study that disregards the effects of tanning, Spaniards have some of the lighest skins in the world.

See page 18.

http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/chem/faculty/leontis/chem447/PDF_files/Jablonski_skin_color_2000.pdf

If are too lazy to read it here is a summary. The link is to a page that is controversial but the summary is good. In fact you can check it in the original paper if you are diligent. I include it here for those too lazy. You can also see some shocked reactions that reflect the preconceived vision of reality and its reactions before facts.

http://racialreality.blogspot.com/2006/01/skin-reflectance-of-selected-world.html

In short, it seems that some features that were related to race have more to do with the environment and living conditions than with anything else.

I think that this scientific information should somehow be in the article, especially taking into account the incredible stereotypes existing in the English speaking world. Nudge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.33.212.11 (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I have never heard of a "short and swarthy Spaniard" stereotype, and if you want to "debunk" such a stereotype in the article, it would be a good idea to establish that it exists in the first place. If I was asked to name a "Spanish ethnic stereotype" I would probably think of Astérix en Hispanie which depicts "Iberians" as tall, haughty, extremely macho and very irascible, but hardly "short and swarthy". --dab (𒁳) 12:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree with you. That stereotype is very widespread. One of the things that I observed, for example, during my trips to the US is that several times people asked me if I was really Spanish and I think that it was simply because I look like any other average white person and because I am 1,93 cm tall. Believe me, that stereotype is quite common. Nudge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.33.212.11 (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

no problem. In that case it should be very easy to discuss this stereotype based on WP:RS. --dab (𒁳) 14:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the relevant article is Black Legend. It appears that this is essentially a legend among Spanish people, to the effect that they are seen as "cruel and fanatical" (not short and swarthy) from the outside. This appears to have roots in the hostility between Habsburg Spain and the emerging British Empire in the 16th century. Here is an illuminating account,
 * cultural critics and historians such as Roberto Fernandez Retamar, Benjamin Keen, Patricia Shaw, David J. Weber, and, most recently and convincingly, Eric Griffin, have dedicated hundreds of pages to understanding the development and persistence of the Black Legend in Europe. In his excellent study, Eric Griffin outlines the evolution of English anti-Spanish sentiment from the early modern period to the present and discusses how an uncritical acceptance of many ethnic stereotypes that began in the sixteenth century can be traced to the present day. He begins by mapping out the Black Legend as it appears in Christopher Marlowe's The Jew of Malta, in which one can see an essentialized representation of the Spaniard as "other." In Marlowe's work, as in the contemporary European films I shall discuss in this essay, the villain utters Spanish phrases at key moments in the articulation of the plot. Griffin insists that by emphasizing the villain Barabas's Spanish-ness, Marlowe reinforces through literature the stereotype of the avaricious Spaniard that was already widespread as a result of the translation and diffusion of Bartolome de las Casas's published accounts. Griffin then points to Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice, which dramatizes "much the same kind of ethno-nationalist problem", concluding that "in the English public mind of the 1590s, anti-Semitism and Hispanophobia seem to have been two sides of the same coin".

--dab (𒁳) 14:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Without any doubt you are right. I am sure that the stereotype has been influenced by the Black Legend. This legend continues today even stronger in the US, and although it as passed on to focus on Latin Americans, the Spanish have not escaped it. The attempts at trying to represent them as others, went so far as trying to represent the Spanish as non/white, with the stereotypes that I mentioned. Of course short, dark people are all right, and often are more beautiful and stronger, hardier, than taller people, but this all has to do with the birth of this ideology that ended up in Nordicism. So, for example, the Englishman was a good example of the Nordic man, who was tall, strong and white(with whiteness went the identification and appropriation of European culture)and the Spaniard short, swarthy and treacherous. These ideas were reinforced by the fact that late 19th century and early 20th century Spain lagged behind other countries, living conditions were hard, people grew short, most of them worked in agriculture, under the scorching Spanish sun, tanning very dark. So, all these elements contributed to attributing to these features racial values. Today, in the light of serious science, they are shown to depend on living standards and environment. Moreover, the fact that the Mediterranean Spaniard can actually be taller and even lighter skinned than English people (again ignoring tanning) is just something that most people will automatically discard. The stereotype has been created, Hollywood has reinforced it. In fact it is a form of racism. Again, not because shorter or darker people should be consider inferior (what a profoundly stupid ideology) but because the people that have carved these stereotypes, giving them racial value, believed so. In fact, XVI and XVII century Spain was a tremendous superpower. It was a way to try to put down the enemy, and the stereotype continues with a rationale that incredibly most people do not see. For example, an English speaking Pakistani or Jamaican would never be considered English, but a Spanish speaking mestizo, or Amerindian is automatically called Spanish. This ideology has many ramifications and in fact a lot of people in the US still do not know were Spain is, confusing Spaniards with Hispanics. Interestingly they usually do not confuse English people with non English people. In any case, I think that this type of information, based on recent scientific studies, is very informative and somehow should be included here or elsewere, especially since most people ignore it and actually have a very different view of reality in this issue. But I am just presenting the information, so that others can develop it. I am not introducing it myself, since I think that Wiki is a public enterprise, so I let others do the next step if they consider it right. Nudge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.33.212.11 (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC) Oh its just Ancient brother groups having sibling rivalry ;) name=DupanloupT03>The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 00:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Some good parralels would be problems between the Northern-Irish and the Catholic-Irish or Problems between the Bohemians and Silesians or Problems between the Russians and the Poles or problems between the Cataluns and Basques.

The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 01:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What you have said about stereotyping is true for my ethnic group as well, the Turks. I live in the UK and people seem really surprised when I tell them that fair skinned light eyed and light haired Turks are common. I'm a olive skinned Turk myself and clearly look nothing like a native English person (I think I may be able to pass as Spanish though ;) ), but my sister looks totally white British. It is these stupid colour racial categories propogated for the most part in the Anglosphere. Turkish people are unified and very nationalistic, but ironically vary greatly in appearence, which according to Anglo definitions of race would mean Turks would have to be split as a nation due to differing characteristics. Race does not exist, only ethnicity!!! 94.193.167.69 (talk) 21:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Related ethnic groups.
Scientific research shows, that DNA proves that the People of the British Isles, the Portuguese, the Northern Italians and to a lesser extent the French, the Germans, and the Swiss are genetically closely related to the Spanish. Wheather or not Nordicists have a problem with this is irrelevent. Also it is important to note that there are basically no (if any) White-Spanish people in Latin America it seems as (according to DNA) if the so called whites in Latin America are desendents of Light skinned Native-Americans (Women) and Spanish people (men)and therefore should be considered Mestizos http://www.laboratoriogene.info/Cientificos/African_Americans.pdf My theory for the so called whites in Latin america being maternal desendents of light skinned Native Americans comes from the above source as well as (notice how many so called whites there are in Southern South America see how light the native american populations are there) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Biasutti_skin_color_map Sincerely The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

why do you keep blathering about "Nordic", "Nordicists", "whites" etc.? This is the "Spanish people" article, not some article about genetics or race. --dab (𒁳) 06:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

But a huge proportion of Chileans are of full European origin!86.170.128.102 (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

why do people always assume that "related ethnic groups" refers to genetics? Nobody disputes that most Chileans are significantly descended from European settlers. What is your point? --dab (𒁳) 15:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Dennis sinneD
Editor Dennis sinneD, whose fabulous list of editions looks like this, is repeatedly erasing a sourced passage. I didn't write the passage and I don't have any special interest in it, I just checked that the sourcing is correct. In addition to removing the passage without further discussion, Dennis sinneD has the nerve to comment in his/her last deletion Undoing persistent, unexplained & suspicious alteration to original passage. Unless some kind of satisfactory explanation is given, I'll have to take measures. --Jotamar (talk) 11:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Editor Jotamar, whose record of changing things and the complaints of others can be appreciated here [], is repeatedly trying to erase a "sourced passage", containing reference to no less than the very words of one of the geneticists who participated in the "study" in question. The "mysterious" change was first made by (apparently) someone else on 13:32, 30 July 2009, with hardly any convincing arguments and no discussion whatsoever, plus the peculiar contradictory "detail" of leaving the words of someone who does not appear anywhere on the list of the paper's authors, despite his/her own "advice" of excluding such quotes, and yet arbitrarily eliminating all others, including those of one of its very authors. Starting on 13:41, 5 August 2009, this "Jotamar" now has "mysteriously" taken up the cudgels for the unexplained & indiscussed arbitrary change to the original passage, despite his protestation of not having "any special interest in it", yet until now he has remained as silent as the (apparently) other person who instituted the original unexplained, arbitrary & contradictory change. As if all this wasn't enough, this fellow now has the nerve of issuing threats to "take measures". --Dennis sinneD (talk) 03:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've just checked, to get rid of any doubt, that Dennis sinneD's changes consist exclusively of the deletion of a sourced passage, plus a revert of my rewording The Sephardic result has been said to be in contradiction for the original The Sephardic result is in contradiction. I'll continue with the usual procedure. --Jotamar (talk) 13:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you are still missing the point that it is not I who is instituting any "changes" out of the blue and without any discussion. I am merely: 1- Recovering a passage that was arbitrarily deleted by someone else. 2- Giving this person a taste of his own strange "advice" by eliminating the words of someone who, despite claims to the contrary, is not on the list of the paper's authors. If you want to leave Chris Tyler-Smith's words that's fine, but I don't see why Oppenheimer's words should be eliminated either. Neither one of them was an author of the paper in question.--Dennis sinneD (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC).

Third Opinion
I'm here following a request on WP:3O for comment, and I think you guys both could use a nice cup of tea. The talk page is supposed to be to allow editors to collaborate and discuss the article in question. Instead, you two have essentially edit-warred on-and-off over the past week, and used edit summaries as proxies for discussion. When the discussion was finally brought to the talk page (which should have been done on August 5th) it was not to discuss the article, but rather to make veiled accusations toward one another, with conduct thankfully remaining on the acceptable side of WP:CIVIL. As far as I can tell, you guys haven't even tried to talk to each other about the paragraph.

In short, is there any reason why you two can't work together? The two paragraphs (one "supported" by each of you) don't need to be mutually exclusive, and in fact should probably be presented together, in a more concise form. The two sentences detailing the contradiction to previous works is useful, but the sources are not accurate. All they show are older works, leaving it up to the reader to discern the contradiction, which constitutes WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR. One way to begin rewriting might be "...argues that the individual differences in Y-chromosome markers suggest that Iberians and Sephardic Jews must share ancestry more recent than several millennia. This stands in contrast to previously published works (REFERENCE about the contradiction), as well as traditional historiography.  The editors of the paper themselves suggest that their study may have overestimated the amount of Sephardic ancestry due to..."

Does that make sense guys? You both have put a lot of effort into this, so why not combine forces and try to hash out a system that presents the study yet notes how unique it was without giving undue credit to the opposition? All in all it's an incredibly small portion of the article. I'll be away for the weekend, but will be back Sunday so feel free to ask me a question or anything else. I have high hopes! ~ Amory ( user •  talk  •  contribs ) 14:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The fact that Adams et al. is a somewhat more recent paper does not by any means make it more "accurate" or credible than previous studies. Nothing "magical" happened in 2008 that made haplogroups like J and J2 necessarily "Jewish" in origin, which is what this rather sloppy paper with an obvious agenda is trying to push, despite the fact that even one of its own authors has obviously acknowledged that they have no evidence to warrant such a peculiar conclusion. Calafell's statements, by the way, are not limited to just "overestimates" of the alleged "Sephardic" results, but, as already pointed out, even the very origin of the haplogroups they are trying to attribute to them. Another thing: this gimmick of trying to attribute such haplogroups to this or that population to fit any given agenda is nothing new. A number of years ago such haplogroups were used in an attempt to claim that "half of all Europeans may have Arab genes" --Dennis sinneD (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC).

ANOTHER OPINION.

One of the disgraces of Wiki is that it is used by a lot of people with a lot of strange agendas. That article is certainly one isolated study in terms of its conclusions, not replicated and questioned. Yet you can find it everywhere, even in places where it does not make any sense. Check the article on Spain and the Minority Group Section. Bambo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.24.178.59 (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I just would like that someone takes the time to check that I never removed sourced passages, in fact I never removed anything in the edit war with Dennis sinneD, I just recovered sourced material. This is the list of my editions related to this discussion:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spanish_people&diff=307744683&oldid=307674607
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spanish_people&diff=307543335&oldid=307458470
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spanish_people&diff=307383458&oldid=307349293
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spanish_people&diff=307175196&oldid=307132454
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spanish_people&diff=306608685&oldid=306310209
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spanish_people&diff=306207223&oldid=306205999
 * --Jotamar (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Can I kindly request that you two stop arguing? It would be far more beneficial to the project if you managed to work together. I'd be glad to assist in any way, but let's try and keep the discussion to the talk page, and keep the discussion ON the talk page to content, not each other. Thanks. ~ Amory ( user •  talk  •  contribs ) 04:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)