Talk:Spaniards/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

[No title]

There should be an explanation of the relation between the ethnicity of people speaking Castilian and those speaking e.g. Catalan or Galician. If they are integrated, how much is that because of ethnic origin and how much is it because of the nation state? --Joy [shallot] 03:05, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Native language of how many?

"There are around 31.6 million people native speakers of Castilian Spanish in Spain, and a total of 42.5 million of the Spanish nationality."

I don't think that's entirely true. Many (most?) bilingual speakers of Spanish and a regional language could/should be considered native speakers too.--Pecholobo 22:28, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I extracted that from Demographics of Spain, take it up with the CIA... :) Seriously though, you could merely add the word "only" to the first clause (...speakers of Castilian Spanish only in Spain...) to get that point across. --Joy [shallot] 00:21, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(in Spain there are around 32 million first-language speakers of Castilian Spanish, and a total of almost 43 million of Spanish nationality)

It is not the true. The other fist-languages in Spain are: Catalan (4,5 millions), Galician (2,5 millions) and Basque (0,7 millions), total: 7,7 millions. Spanish population is 43,9 millions, there are 0,8 millions with other languajes (chinese, arabe, romanian, russian, etc.) 43,9 millions - 7,7 - 0,8 = 35,4 spanish speakers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.120.24.85 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 29 November 2005

Maybe it is a novel concept for some people, but one person can have two first languages. Diglossia is just one of these cases. If we used the line of thought used for the languages of Spain, we could as well conclude that there are very few native Italian speakers, as most of them have a regional language as one of their first languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.2.44 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 14 December 2005

[No title]

Is the article saying the roman influence on spain is most important then moorish is second or are they both of equal importance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.78.141.30 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 18 September 2005

Anyone who knows Spain, its culture, language, history, will see that it is a Latin nation. In fact, no other influence can be compared to that of Rome. Spain became a fully Roman province and stayed like that. With the exception of the Italians, no other nation can claim to be more Latin. And by the way, anyone who speaks Spanish or Italian will see how close both languages are, communication being perfectly possible between both communities. Besides, Spaniards and Italians are so alike that most people would not be able to tell the difference.

The Spanish are Latin because their language, culture, religion was brought to Spain by the Latins, also called the Romans. Besides, the Spanish are also Mediterranean, like the Romans themselves. The Mediterranean is a race that is spread around the Mediterranean and the Middle East. Most civilizations have been Mediterranean: The Summerian, Babylonian, Hittite, Assyrian, Persian, Phoenician, Carthaginian, Iberian, Tartessian, Hebrew, Arab, Egyptian, Etruscan, Greek, Roman, Christian, Western... civilizations. No other race comes even close to it in terms of creating great civilizations.

Latin Nation?

I'm sorry, but Spain and other countries are not considered "Latin Nations" just because they speak a language that extended from Latin. I'm not trying to be rude, but that's such a wrong misconception. We don't call the US or any other country where English is the dominant language a "West Germanic Nation" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Espanal22 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 17 October 2005

Actually Spain is a Latin nation because it has ethnic, cultural and language ties with other latin nations. Using the US is a bad example mainly because the US is a "young" nation composed of a multitude of ethnic groups/cultures.--ManjiOne 19:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

ManjiOne TALKS UTTER NONSENSE. ROMANIA IS ALSO A ROMANCE LANGUAJE SPEAKING NATION WHOSE HISTORIC TIES HAVE BEEN QUITE LOSE. (THEY ARE BECOMING RELEVANT IN THE LAST FEW YEARS FOR REASONS REALLY DIFERENT OF "LATINNESS"). PROPER LATINS ARE THE NATIVES FROM THE LAZIO REGION, OTHER UNACCURATE USES OF THE TERM ARE NOT SUITABLE FOR ENCICLOPEDIC PURPOSES. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.16.170 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 6 December 2005

Anyone who knows Spain, its culture, language, history, will see that it is a Latin nation. In fact, no other influence can be compared to that of Rome. Spain became a fully Roman province and stayed like that. With the exception of the Italians, no other nation can claim to be more Latin. And by the way, anyone who speaks Spanish or Italian will see how close both languages are, communication being perfectly possible between both communities. Besides, Spaniards and Italians are so alike that most people would not be able to tell the difference.

The Spanish are Latin because their language, culture, religion was brought to Spain by the Latins, also called the Romans. Besides, the Spanish are also Mediterranean, like the Romans themselves. The Mediterranean is a race that is spread around the Mediterranean and the Middle East. Most civilizations have been Mediterranean: The Summerian, Babylonian, Hittite, Assyrian, Persian, Phoenician, Carthaginian, Iberian, Tartessian, Hebrew, Arab, Egyptian, Etruscan, Greek, Roman, Christian, Western... civilizations. No other race comes even close to it in terms of creating great civilizations.

Numbers

Is everyone sure 10 million Mexicans and 8 million Colombians are ethnically White Spainard?!?! Antidote 03:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes Colombia is about 20 precent white. Mexico also has about 9 to 10 precent white. (24.60.161.63 21:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC))

Edits to this page

I edited this page and gave the references, both online and books and it seems this is not good enough for some people. Until there is COUNTER evidence to support some Germanic origins of the Spaniards exclusively, I believe my edits are quite valid. Thanks. Tombseye 00:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not know what you mean by Germanic influence. There was certainly some Germanic influence, but Spain is basically a daughter of Rome. Along with Italy, the most Latin nation in the world.

Edit warring

Guys, are you looking for a consensus or just not? This is how i see it:

• NPOV - The article doesn't say neither Spaniards are Nordic nor other! It presents history as it is, with no emphasis on any single point, and the reader would not be ignorant enough to understand that!
• Nordic and Mediterranean (What should come first) - Chronologically and as a matter of fact is that the Nordic stock doesn't represent the majority. Mediterranean and then Nordic. Don't forget that by Mediterranean we refer to almost around a dozen of ehnies whereas by Nordic we only refer to the early Germanic tribes.
• Redundant cat - Please read this: Cycles should usually be avoided. Category:Major European Ethnic Groups already includes Category:Ethnic groups in Europe.
• Please avoid tagging {fact} when it is obvious. I don't understand why we don't tag the info about the Romans, the Moors and the rest! Cheers -- Szvest 01:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Thank you. Anyways ya we should tag them. (XGustaX 01:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC))

Actually, the problem is not a concensus issue so much as reality. Presenting records of Germanic invasions doesn't mean that genetic research and the preponderance of historical information regarding the Spaniards can be refuted. I mean I'm reasonable here. If I thought that most Spaniards were Germanic I'd have no problem believing it. I've been to the country myself, but that's not even what I am basing the article's points on. I presented neutral information that is actually found in most encyclopedias as well AND not 1 but 4 different genetic studies including work by Spaniards and academic journals. I'm not sure what kind of concensus there can be here. How about we do a vote as was done recently at the Macedonians page or something. This guy is even trying to edit the Germanic peoples page to include Spaniards! I mean you tell me how do you reason with that kind of lapse in logic? Tombseye 01:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I see what you did as neutral and encyclopaedic. I've seen and read that study at least twice in my life and I was thinking about finding it again and present it. Good job. Cheers -- ^{Wiki me up™}

The Spanish people, if you can call them that, are, lke the portuguese, basically a mediterranean people. It would be ridiculous to include them in the germanic group. There is naturally a relatively large minority who looks germanic. But such minorities are to be found in every mediterranean country and even in countries such as Lebanon. There is a large physical difference between regions in Spain due to history: catalans, Basques and Galicians are on average fairer than castilians and andalusians. The reason being probably that they were under islamic control for much briefer periods of time. The genetic aswell as cultural input from the middle east and north africa after 8 centuries of Islamic rule is undeniable in all but the northernmost parts of the peninsula.--Burgas00 15:53, 3 January 2006 (U

The Spanish people are probably the most homogeneous people in Europe, pure mediterranean, with some minor non-mediterranean influences, thanks to God. Other assertions show a lack of serious knowledge of the matter.

I see a lot of people express opinions here that are very funny. First of all, Spain is a nation that has experienced a lot of influences, but the dominant one was the Roman, to the extent that Spain became a Roman or Latin nation. Neither the Germanic invasions, nor the Islamic invasions could destroyed this main heritage. Spain is a Roman/Latin country, and anyone who wants to be serious about this should just learn Spanish, go about the country, learn Italian, do the same in Italy, and then write with a knowlegde of the matter. So, to those who are just trying to relate us to Germanic peoples, no offense meant, stop talking nonsense.

"Moors"

The term "Moors" has been described as "a disparaging Christian term for Muslims", akin to calling African-Americans the N word. "Muslim" is the term preferred by academics, while the word "Moor" has ceased to be used by scholars. DelDav 06:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a good point actually. The term Moors was actually just Spanish for Muslim as they used that term for Malays in the Phillipines too. Probably a good idea to still mention that they are popularly known as Moors, but were just Muslims originally mainly of Berber-Arab origin and then later mostly native Iberians. Tombseye 08:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The term Muslim adds nothing to the article. The term Moors gives something respecting the context. We don't call Vandals Pagans as well. Cheers -- "Szvest 09:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)"

Current academic usage favors the use of "Muslim" over "Moor" for two reasons, first because Moor is usually recognized as a pejorative, if not racist term. Secondly, the use of the word Muslim places the conquest and settlement of al-Andalus into the context of the wider Islamic history, of which it was certaily a part.

As for the the Vandals, they were they a seperate and distinct Germanic tribe (and Christians, not pagans). By comparison, "Moor" is a very vague term, something applied to Berbers, Arabs, and Iberians (at least those who converted to Islam) without distinction. This is why scholars have moved to the word "Muslim", further qualifying it with specific indications of ethnic or geographic origin. In general, specialists in the field do not use the word "moor". DelDav 14:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I did a compromise edit and simply included Moor as the popular term while clarifying that Muslims in Spain weren't entirely Arab Berbers, since actually most weren't. The term Moor does simply mean Muslim and a few Spaniards I've talked to just say Muslims when speaking in English and not Moros so this usage may in fact have changed in Spain as well, but I didn't ask people when I was there so I'm not 100% on that. Tombseye 18:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response and i still remember i still owe someone a barnstar. The reason I gave was about contextuality. However, i agree now. It makes sense. Especially when clarification is needed. Great job guys. Cheers -- Szvest 01:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Muslim, Arab and Moor aren't the same. Moor is the same as people from Magrehb, muslim or not. Arab are people from Saudi Arabia. Muslim are people who follow Mahoma's religion. Spain was conquest by muslim moors leaded by muslims arabs from north Magrehb. All these words are used by everybody in Spain today and doesn't mean the same, for example, King Faud of Saudi Arabia when comed to Spain was called Arab, and he was muslim, but moroccan are Moors. There are spanish muslims, that aren't nor arab nor moor nut who had converted to muslim. Felipealvarez 17:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting to konw that the word moors (moros) comes from the latin mauros, meaning related to Mauritania Augusta, province of the Roman Empire which included the nowadays north of Morocco and west of Argelia. So, even if its use is pejorative what it is not is unaccurate.

Other ethnic groups

Epf, it is better to mention that info in the article instead of erasing it. Most people do not know about Aragoneses or maybe Catalans. Maybe they got a small space withjin the article. Szvest 02:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

It is interesting to konw that the word moors (moros) comes from the latin mauros, meaning related to Mauritania Augusta, province of the Roman Empire which included the nowadays north of Morocco and west of Argelia. So, even if its use is pejorative what it is not is unaccurate.

Khoikhoi

Castillians are very few in Spain. The largest group are the Andalusians ( 7 to 8 million), but if you add these to the Basques, Catalans (including Valencians and people from Baleares), Galicians, Canarians, Asturians, Aragonese...you have well over half of the population. Plus inhabitants of the Madrid region (around 5 million) are by no means all of Castillian origin, Madrid being a region of immigration from all parts of Spain. So.... Castillians are a minority in Spain. Another thing is the issue of Castillian/Spanish speakers. They are a majority ofcourse... even in the Basque country, who's independence you support 8-)--Burgas00 20:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Source is on the page now khoikhoi...--Burgas00 09:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! --Khoikhoi 00:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

This comment is ridiculous. This guy does not know what he says. He confuses the term Castillian with the present regions of Spain that bear the name Castille. Castillians include all the people form Andalucia, Cantabria, Asturias, etc. Learn please a bit about Spain before writing things that make no sense,

Cantabria is Castilian, Burgas does not deny this I think. Asturias has its own language (I think there even is a wikipedia in Asturian) so I dont know how we can call them Castilian. Andalusians are not Castilian, ask any Andalusian, starting with me!--Cassius80 15:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Spanish is a nationality, not an ethnic

Hi Epf! As in the French people page, to be Spanish is not to be member of an alleged "ethnic group" of Spanish but to have the Spanish nationality. Catalans, or Basques, may be qualified as "ethnic groups". Not "Spanish". This explains why there is no link to the Spanish Wikipedia here: this entry simply doesn't exist overthere, with good reasons. 81.64.152.126 16:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Right now one can assert that Spanish is an ethnicity of Roman/Latin origin. Maybe this will change in the future, due to the large amount of immigration the country is receiving now, but that is not a fact at the moment.

This article can reflect a Spanish group that encompasses the Castillians and others who have been assimilated with them. Obviously, this would leave out at the very least the Catalans and Basques who are the main regional groups who continue to speak their regional languages and view themselves as somewhat distinct from the Spanish. Otherwise, the article does mostly focus upon the Spaniards, but does need some changes that may not be easy to make such as the population stats. Many Spaniards who immigrated to the Americas came from a varied background and weren't all Castillians/Andalusians etc. No easy way to determine these stats either. I suggest we go with the 3 regional groups as distinct: Spaniards, Catalans, and Basques. The other regional groups, aside from occassionally claiming some distinction from the Spaniards, speak Spanish and are largely assimilated such as the Galacians, Andalusians etc. Tombseye 23:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a big mistake Tombseye and probably very offensive to most Spaniards. Spaniards are all the peoples within the Spanish state, Castillians, Andalusians, Basques, Canarians, Galicians, Catalans, Valencians etc:

• In Spain (and I think everywhere else) one never refers to "Spaniards" excluding the Catalans or the basques.
• Not even the nationalists talk of "spaniards" generally but rather "Madrid", refering to the political centralism of the spanish state.
• Perhaps the most ardent "spaniards" are extreme right basques (which are not few I assure you) who are adamantly against any basque nationalism. Whether someone is Spanish or not is more a matter of political choice...

Also Tombseye if we consider that the Catalans are notSpanish what shall we do about the Valencians who are ethnic Catalan but are on the whole not nationalist and feel Spanish? Or the Navarrese... (same problem)

I am not saying the Spaniards are not an ethnic group. They are, in a way, and we should not make things too complicated... They are an ethnic group which is the product of Castilian cultural dominance in ALL regions. You should see the page on Castile.--Cassius80 15:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I know as I've been to Spain myself, but I was referring to language use and assimilation within the Spanish cultural group as well. It's a dicey issue regardless. Obviously, of the people in Spain, the Catalans and Basques exhibit more nationalist tendencies and continue to speak regional languages alongside Spanish. I was drawing this arbitrary line simply because otherwise we might as well scrap the article on the Spanish OR use it as a national and not ethnic group article and then write articles on the various peoples of Spain. I do believe that there should be an article on the core people who identify with Spanish as a language and an ethnic group, while giving the other peoples their own articles. This arrangement won't please everyone, but then that's what happens with these peoples articles, you can't please everyone. Tombseye 19:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess the only way forward is using the Spanish constitution of 1978. Spain is a "nation" encompassing "nationalities" and "regions" The Spanish can be considered to be an "ethnic group" readily distingushable by outsiders based on national and linguistic sources. (see definition of ethnic group) This ethnic group or nation encompasses nationalities such as the basque and the catalan. All catalans and Basques speak castellano aswell as their own language, which is a co-official language in their region.

I agree that it is impossible to have a Spanish identity which does not include the basque and catalan identity. Although I have been accused of not knowing much about Spanish history;-) I can tell you this: Spain is the fusion of the kingdom of Castille and the kingdom of Aragon (an essentially Catalan kingdom) through the marriage of Isabel and Fernando. The proverb known by all Spaniards says "Tanto monta, monta tanto, Isabel como Fernando." So there is no Spain nor Spanish without Catalonia.

Spanish ethnicity is simply a complex and heterogenous ethnicity which has to be explained to the outsider!!--Burgas00 22:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The Spanish are Latin and Mediterranean

The Spanish are Latin because their language, culture, religion was brought to Spain by the Latins, also called the Romans. Besides, the Spanish are also Mediterranean, like the Romans themselves. The Mediterranean is a race that is spread around the Mediterranean and the Middle East. Most civilizations have been Mediterranean: The Summerian, Babylonian, Hittite, Assyrian, Persian, Phoenician, Carthaginian, Iberian, Tartessian, Hebrew, Arab, Egyptian, Etruscan, Greek, Roman, Christian, Western... civilizations. No other race comes even close to it in terms of creating great civilizations.

Spaniards are of several European subraces, and the Mediterraneans are a subdivision of the caucasoid race not a race Digitalseal 11:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• The Spaniards are largely of an Iberian Mediterranean type dating back to Neolithic times in Spain. They are quite distinct in this respect from the Basques but very similar to both the Portuguese and Catalans. The influence of the Romans, Greeks and Phoenicians was largely insignificant in a physical/racial sense and the later settlement of Germanic peoples and Arab-Berbers also had a fairly small impact on the population. These later invasions/settlements have not altered greatly the predominantly Iberian Mediterranean population. One should also remember there are various Mediterranean sub-races as well as local types/variants of these respective sub-races. [1] Epf 03:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

That they are quite distinct form the Basques is just you saying so. Genetic analysis is proving otherwise. If you have scientific citations that prove that difference use them.

• No, various respected physical anthropological studies and many population genetic studies (although early in development) have shown the Basques to be quite distinct from pretty much every surrounding group in many cases, including Spaniards. Epf 16:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, give citations then, because otherwise anyone can say just the opposite.

"Spaniards" are definitely heavily Latin by culture - but on the whole they don't look like Italians and less like Berbers and certainly not at all like Arabs 210.49.196.39

Genetic Research

As I was saying, it is better to go straight to the source i.e. the genetic studies themselves than going to this site which is clearly "racialist" if not racist and has the political agenda of dispelling "beliefs of nordicists, afrocentrists and multiracialists", whatever that means. In any case I have found the source of the study u wanted to add and inserted it into the article. As for the Anthropometric "proof" used on your site, this is not considered a science since the 1940s and can certainly not be used to discern the origin of a person. It reminds me of the Nazi Soviet pact, where Hitler measured Stalin's nose to see if he had any jewish blood before going ahead with the pact. You can use the info on what the people look like present on your site if u want, but not with the intention of proving that they have this or that origin. Btw howbout u sign up with a username to wikipedia ?--Burgas00 11:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• I will sign up for a page soon. As for Carleton Coon, his studies actually refuted much of the pseudo-science of his age and his work on the indigenous people of Europe remains to this day one of the most detailed physical anthropological works ever made. With the advent of population genetics, his studies have been discarded or rendered obsolete in some anthropological circles, however, there are studies going on right now showing the connections between findings in modern population genetics and some of the works of Carleton S. Coon and others. Obviously much of his work has seroius flaws but it also has much validity. I am not an avid Wikipedian (not enough time!), but I do know that User: Epf is also a student in biological and cultural anthropology with similar views if you wish to discuss more on it. 69.157.121.76 16:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Racial Reality Source

I have eliminated the racial reality page from the sources as it does not look like a reliable source.It clearly has a political agenda, using information in a more or less tendentious way to prove a point. It is not, in any case, a neutral article. Its aim, as awhole, is to prove that southern Europeans are as "white" or "whiter" than northern europeans. Many of its claims may be correct (some of them are not) but the nature of the article in itself invalidates it as a reliable source. The issue on genetic influx from north africa in Spaniards is an example of this. Multiple sources (from scientific journals) have been added to the "spanish people" page by wiki users which conclude that there has been a considerable influx. All the articles quoted by the racial reality site minimise or deny this influx. I dont know which position is correct since I am not an expert on the issue, but the latter position is, for the moment, suspect due to the political agenda clearly stated on the source used. The section on Italian people is similar, it aims to prove that the divide between Northern and Southern Italians is minimal. It probably is, I have never been to Italy myself, but the writer of the article is clearly being political, making use of genetics to combat the sense of superiority held by northern italians. The use of "random pictures" on the sight is also clearly manipulative. (It was noted that all the pictures of "spanish crowds" came from the strongly celtic northwestern region of Galicia.) In any case, it is silly, in my opinion to combat racism using racism and quite pathetic to use the "But we ARE white" argument. As if it mattered! Anyways this is not the reason I oppose the use of the source. I oppose it simply on the grounds of its lack of neutrality.

Cheers from Paris. We are under snow right now!--84.101.86.170 10:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Typical from latin nazis, defending their supposed white purity, whatever that stupidity could mean.

I think the last contribution is pretty confused. To claim that Galicians are any different from the rest of Spaniards shows little knowledge of the Spanish. In fact Spain and Portugal are very homogeneous countries. As far as how people look, it is impossible to tell any difference between a bunch of people from Galicia or any other Spanish region, or from Portugal. It would be also extremely difficult to distinguish the Spanish from the Italians in any crowd. So, this is a fact based on simple observation. Besides, various DNA studies are actually showing that these populations are closely related, which is no surprise to anyone.

• In response to the numbered user above, the link to the web page "racial reality" is merely a collection of reliable genetic and anthropolgical sources and it is your own POV that it is biased just because it disagrees with your own views. Once I gather all the sources collected on that page, then those sources will be referenced individually and entered into the article. The web page itself is not a reliable source for an article here, but it is allowed to be used as an external link and for now I think it should be. From what I've seen on the web page, there is no "racist" ideology and that term is too easily applied to ethnic studies. The web page is a collection of information refuting most biased ideologies on the topics of ethnicity and "race". It is not trying to say any one is "white or "whiter" and such a term doesnt have any relevance in anthropolgical or ethnological studies and can refer to peoples ranging from Europe and Africa all the way to India. The link to the web page is only temporary until I gather all the data, but again it is not fighting "racism with racism" as the numbered user strangely says above, but fighting several racial ideologies with truth and facts from reliable and neutral sources. Epf 23:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• • I agree completely with the numbered user from Paris I dont see where he has shown biased opinion, he even claims he does not have one on the subject but is simply noting bias on the racial reality source.

As a spaniard living in Spain I can tell you that there is a Galician type, an Andalusian type, a Catalan type and a Basque type. Basques are so different that I can recognize a majority of them from any crowd (except those who descend from "Maketos"). Catalans are a Mediterranean looking people although it is true that they are generally taller and fairer than other Spaniards and look more like Italians or French (long noses etc). Galicians are generally much fairer than the rest, the blonde blue eyed type being very common. Andalusians are very diverse although people with North African and Gypsy traits are common among them. Canarians are also diverse (some being strikingly blonde, others very dark skinned) but "Guanche" traits are very common.

This is what I have noticed having lived most of my life in Spain and having travelled to every region of the country.--Ismael76 11:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the Spaniard here and the traveller show a lot of fantasy. One does not have to be very intelligent to figure out that the so-called Spaniard is one of those Regional Nationalists who is just spreading fantasy. He is probably from the Basque country, with his reference to Maketos, an offenssive term applied to immigrants to the Basque country during the sixties and seventies, and who came from other parts of Spain. This just shows one of the dangers of these articles dealing with peoples. One has to put up with stupid nationalists and racists interested in pushing foward political agendas. That he can distinguish the Basques from the rest of the Spanish in any crowd! Do not make people laugh. I am a Spaniard, so be serious.

Dude, I am from Madrid and certainly not a Basque or a Nationalist. Of course one can tell Basques apart from other Spaniards (at least a large percentage of them). I use the term "Maketo" because I am not basque and thus it is not offensive. Denying differences between Spaniards (we are a heterogenous country) will not help fight nationalist movements. You should be proud of the diversity of your country instead of denying it.

Dude, you have no idea of what you a talking about. You can say you are from wherever you want. If you are from Madrid, and taking into account that a substantial part of the population of Madrid actually comes from other regions of Spain, maybe you can sit down in the Plaza de Espana and tell the Madrileños who originated in one region form the others apart. Do not say stupid things. To claim that there is a Catalan type is so ignorant that it reflects how realiable your information is.

I know everyone in Madrid comes from all parts of Spain. My family, for one, comes from Málaga and Guadalajara.

I probably could not tell who originates where, in the same way as you could not tell sitting on that same spot who comes from Spain and who comes from Bulgaria, Rumania, Italy or Greece. But there are certain types which are recognizable and are more frequent in certain regions. Could you really not tell that Javier Sardá or Pau Gasol or Duran i Lleida are Catalan?? Or Mercedes Millà? Could you not tell that Indurain, Arzallus, Arguiñano or Clemente are Basque?You must be very blind.

You must really have a eye for that which I do not. You could be an extremely good detective I guess.

There are not 15 millions Spaniards in the U.S.

Sounds like nonsense to me, according to spanish history books not many did immigrate to the U.S., Did a bunch of mestizos and unmixed amerindians from mexico immigrate to the united states and lie about being spaniards? Digitalseal 22:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

That figure does not make any sense or a lot of sense, it depends how we interpret it. If it means Spaniards, who have recently come from Spain, it is obviously wrong. But if it means people with Spanish ancestors, it may be quite true. Of course many or most of these people are probably mixed, with Spanish, Amerindian and Black African ancestors. But why should a person with a Spanish ancestor and a non-Spanish ancestor not be considered of Spanish origin. Once again it seems here as if we want to apply the infamous one-drop rule. A person of European and Black-African ancestry is not an African-American, he or she is just a person with both, European and Black-African ancestry. The same applies to a person with Amerindian and European ancestry. Though that opinion, tinted with the infamous one-drop rule, is unfortunately quite widespread in some places, we should not deny the diverse origins of people.

Invalid research

Regarding this study [2], it seems that markers like p49/TaqI do not accurately reveal sources of gene flow, e.g.:

The study also included a kind of Y chromosome marker (49a,f/TaqI) that is not an STR nor an SNP. It's not included among the UEP markers that define the YCC haplogroup tree because it mutates fast enough that its mutations cannot be considered unique events. (So sometimes a later mutation occurs that "undoes" the original mutation). The R1bs in Iraq turned out to have a different 49a,f/TaqI haplotype than that of the R1bs in Europe. The authors interpreted this to mean that the R1bs in Iraq are probably descended from an earlier "version" of R1b than that in seen Europe. [3]

This would explain why other studies on Iberians using Y-chromosome haplogroups and autosomal DNA yield vastly different results.

Then what explains the geographic cline of decreasing frequency?

I'm not an expert, so I can't really speculate about that. But when you've got a result based on a questionable marker that contradicts virtually all other evidence, then you probably shouldn't use it.

The same goes for the study quoted right before, which not only looks at questionable blood group markers [4], but can't seem to differentiate between an "ancient common substrate" and recent admixture.

These "blogspots" from the "racial reality" webpage do not invalidate genetic studies (using a variety of different markers) made by different prestigious European universities.

Don't rename my discussion to conceal the point being made. That's pathetic. You clearly have an agenda to make Spaniards related to North Africans, and you want to protect the two inconclusive studies that suggest so while ignoring all the rest. You shouldn't be permitted to contribute to this article. You're far too biased.

Please remain civil. I dont think anyone contributing on this article has a hidden agenda and contributing university studies on both sides of this particular issue are not a sign of bias. Each side supports their case with evidence and thats it. All genetic studies are inconclusive being to support or to deny a strong genetic impact from North Africa. It seems that some studies find no support for this impact whereas some do. In any case no studies are "invalid" because they do not concur with our point of view.

The p49/TaqI marker is clearly unreliable. It cannot demonstrate Spanish "affinities with North African populations" as is claimed in the article. Including that study is misleading.

And it's also biased to include the blood group study without mentioning the Simoni paper I posted that uses the exact same markers (plus 4 more) but arrives at different results.

Ok!!! I get it now!!! The studies you quote are reliable and the rest are not...

Numerous genetic studies on the Spanish

• Comas et al. (2000) Alu insertion polymorphisms in NW Africa and the Iberian Peninsula: evidence for a strong genetic boundary through the Gibraltar Straits. Hum Genet; 107(4):312-9

An analysis of 11 Alu insertion polymorphisms...has been performed in several NW African...and Iberian...populations. Genetic distances and principal component analyses show a clear differentiation of NW African and Iberian groups of samples, suggesting a strong genetic barrier matching the geographical Mediterranean Sea barrier. The restriction to gene flow may be attributed to the navigational hazards across the Straits, but cultural factors must also have played a role. ... Iberian samples show a substantial degree of homogeneity and fall within the cluster of European-based genetic diversity.

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/2867/pcplot0gd.jpg

• Bosch et al. (2001) High-resolution analysis of human Y-chromosome variation shows a sharp discontinuity and limited gene flow between northwestern Africa and the Iberian Peninsula. Am J Hum Genet; 68(4):1019-29

The most striking results are that contemporary NW African and Iberian populations were found to have originated from distinctly different patrilineages and that the Strait of Gibraltar seems to have acted as a strong (although not complete) barrier to gene flow.... The Islamic rule of Spain, which began in A.D. 711 and lasted almost 8 centuries, left only a minor contribution to the current Iberian Y-chromosome pool.

This source is already included in the article

• Flores et al. (2004) Reduced genetic structure of the Iberian peninsula revealed by Y-chromosome analysis: implications for population demography. Eur J Hum Genet; 12(10):855-63

Coincidentally, spatial analysis of genetic distances points to a focal distribution of Y-chromosome haplogroups in this area. These results indicate that neither old or recent Levantine expansions nor North African contacts have influenced the current Iberian Y-chromosome diversity so that geographical patterns can be identified. ... The Y-chromosome variation landscape in Iberia was also evaluated using principal component analysis, which included samples with highly resolved Y-chromosome data from Europe...Near East...and Northwest Africa.... The first two components of the analysis accounted for 83.9% of genetic variance, and produced three well-separated clusters of populations, evidencing the sharp differences between the Y-chromosome pool of Western Europe, Near East and Northwest Africa (Figure 4).

http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/8581/iberians.jpg

• Nasidze et al. (2003) Testing hypotheses of language replacement in the Caucasus: evidence from the Y-chromosome. Hum Genet; 112(3):255-61

Andalusians and Catalans both cluster amongst other western Europeans:

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/2316/plot3ua.jpg

• Hammer et al. (2000) Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes. Proc Natl Acad Sci; 97(12):6769-74

Spaniards (Spa) cluster right next to Germans (Ger) and far from North Africans:

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/9948/plot20uj.jpg

And finally, this study looks at the exact same blood group systems as this one [5] (plus two more, and two serum protein systems), yet finds North Africans and Iberians to be unrelated:

• Simoni et al. (1999) Patterns of gene flow inferred from genetic distances in the Mediterranean region Hum Biol; 71(3):399-415

Here, we present an analysis of a data set of 10 allele frequencies in 39 populations of the Mediterranean region. ... The main boundaries separate the northern and the southern coasts, especially in their western portions; in addition, several localities appear genetically isolated. The comparatively high genetic differentiation across the western Mediterranean, where the sea distances between localities are shorter, strongly suggests that the sea distance by itself can hardly be regarded as a major isolating factor among these populations. On the contrary, the decrease in genetic resemblance between populations of the 2 coasts as one proceeds westward may reflect an increased genetic exchange in the eastern Mediterranean basin or independent human dispersal along the 2 coasts or both. ...

The 5 strongest barriers inferred from Prevosti's distance divide the Mediterranean area into 2 large clusters, a northern cluster and a southern cluster. The first boundary, in particular, separates Morocco and Algeria from Spain, France, and Sardinia, despite the fact that sea distances between the 2 main coasts are much shorter than in the eastern portion of the region. ...

The genetic boundary separating northern Morocco and Algeria from southern Spain appears as the zone of sharpest genetic change using Prevosti's distances and as the second most significant zone of change (after the zone separating Israeli Jews from all their neighbors) using Nei's distances.

One more study according to which:

...new data are consistent with a main north to south genetic differentiation in the Mediterranean region. However, with regard to other European groups, the La Alpujarra (southern Spain) population shows a particular affinity with North Africans... (oh no!!! :-) )

[6]

--Cassius80 18:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• umm, Cassius, that data is only from a very small section of our DNA. RELIABLE testing on other more important areas including autosomal and x-chrom. haven't or currently can not be carried out. The Y-chromosome data is inconclusive and unreliable and is such a small part of paternal genetic inheritance, let alone our total inheritance. Epf 21:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Epf questions the validity of DNA testing. The question is then obvious: Why is it included in the article?

As to the Alpujarra studies, everyone who is familiar with Spanish history knows that it is a small region inhabited partly by the descendants of the Moriscos, a Moorish people who stayed in Spain but where later expelled from the country in the XVII century, though probably many managed to survive in that region. Anyway, it seems that the majority of the Spanish population comes from the early inhabitants of the Peninsula, dating back to Paleolithic and Neolithic times and were of the so-called Mediterranean race. This race spread across Southern Europe, problably into the Middle East and the North of Africa. Present DNA testing seems to imply that this race also occupied important parts in Europe North of the Pyrenees and in the British Isles. As far as the Berbers are concerned it seems that they also belong to this Mediterranean Substratum, so I think it would not be strange to find genetic similarities between Berbers, Spaniards and other Europeans, like Portuguese, Italians, French, important portions of the British Isles, etc.

Brits Mediterranean, and French?? What r u smokin? hmmm... Maybe the southern french... Btw Alpujarras are really beautiful place. Worth the visit.--Cassius80 11:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• The Mediterranean Reemergence in Great Britain

• Celtic nations have more in common with the Portuguese and Spanish than with "Celts"

Cassius, I guess you did not add these links, but you should read them. In any case, it is obvious that you do not know much about the matter.

In response to the above links:

1) the minor Mediterranean elements (most notable in Wales and Cornwall) are still not Mediterranean in the same sense as Iberians, Italians and other Mediterranean peoples. This is mainly because of major Celtic and Germanic Nordic elements in the British populations (the photos themselves all show differences from true Mediteranean phenotypes. Also, those photos of certain Brits cant be considered reliable because we dont know their source or the ethnic origins of those photographed. As well, the photos themselves are of extremely poor quality.

2) This Y-chromosome genetic lineage is again only a small portion of our DNA and linkage with Iberian populations obviously does not make the Celtic peoples "mediterranean" in any form and Celtic areas of Britain retain largely "Nordic" or much older (Upper Paleolithic) elements. Studies have also shown that there is some affinity with modern Celtic peoples and the Basques, a people quite distinct from other Iberians. Links with other Iberians were far less in that study, so again, the reliabilty and usefulness of current studies comes under scrutiny. Epf 00:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

That is your respectable opinion Epf, but it should be noted that Dr. Bradley, from Trinity College Dublin, and others think differently. On the other hand I think that DNA in more reliable than looks. But we can also use looks of Irish people:

http://www.limerick-leader.ie/issues/20021130/index01.jpg

These people look quite Mediterranean to me. And, of course, it does not mean that all Irish look like that, but it seems that the Mediterranean influence is much stronger than it was previously thought. And the picture is not just cherry picking, you just need to type Irish People, or Welsh people in the Google search-images bar and you will get lost of results to look at.

Is the section genetic affinities balanced?

After reading the section "Genetic affinities" I think it does not really reflect the main points. It seems obvious that there are genetic affinities with both Berbers from North Africa and with people from Northern Europe, but while that seems to be the case, those affinities are not the dominant ones. The most important genetic affinities link the Spanish to other European populations, especially the Italians and also the Portuguese, of course. I quote this part from the Italian people article:

When focusing in SW Europe, very small (0.1%), non-significant differences were found between Iberians and Italians, in agreement with the large mtDNA homogeneity described in Europe (Simoni et al. 2000a, 2000b; Helgason et al. 2000; see also Richards et al. 2002).[11]

So, I think there is a lack of consistency between the Spanish people article and the Italian one. This part of the article should therefore be redone, balancing it properly, placing at the center the main genetic affinities, and mentioning also the genetic affinities with other peoples, like Berbers and Northern Europeans. Right now, as you can see, the amount devoted to both North Africa and Northern Europe eclipse the main Genetic Affinity with other Southern Europeans.

i agree although the reason is that Spain's Southern European Mediterranean ancestry is taken for granted. The other norther european and north african ancestries, being less impotant yet more controversial are argued in detail. perhaps you are right that spaniard's basic origins should be highlighted more clearly at the beginning of the section.--Cassius80 15:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think that an Ecyclopeadia should not take anything for granted. It should explain everything to present the issue as clearly as possible. If anyone here has some knowlegde of journalism, they will know the close relationship between content and form. A piece of information is not transmitted per se. How a piece of information is preceived will depend very much on how we present it, how much space we devote to each concept, where we place those concepts, how we relate them, etc. The article does not comply with those simple rules. On the other hand, if there are people who think that there are controversial issues, those issues should be debated in the discussion section, not in the article, I think.

I agree, although before doing anything too drastic, I think we should discuss the basic structure of the section here.

Well, then you can propose something. When I have time, I will try to propose something myself.

On the Ethnic Spanish in Chile

This issue has been debate in quite great length on the talk page of user Epf. Please feel free to go there and read, and if need be import the discussion here to continue it if any users sees it necessary.

My last remark on the matter, after having successfully made my case on the Chilean population, is user Epf's now change of strance. From Epf's edit summary; "this is not stating that the majorityo f Chileans are wholly European or not mestizo, of course not, it is just saying that the majority have primarily or partial Spanish ancestry" I already answered in my edit summary, 95% of Chileans are mixed. 60% of Chileans are visibly mestizo & the average admixture in that visibly mestizo population is 57% European & 43% Amerindian. That admixture average does not equal "ethnic Spanish" no more than 41% European, 56% Amerindian and 3% African in the AVERAGE Mexican mestizo would equal an Amerindian. The difference among the visibly mestizo Mexican and mestizo Chilean is not that large, both cluster around 50%, one just beneath the other just above. Both can truthfully be stated as being more Spanish or more Amerindian, since one goes slightly over 50% on the Spanish side, and the other slightly over 50% on the Amerindian side. Neither of the visibly mestizo population (whom are the majority), however, can be stated as "PRIMARLY" Spanish or Amerindian. Those Mexicans who are of primarily Amerindian ancestry are indeed already excluded from the uninflated mestizo population (60% uninflated, when inflated it is given 80% including phenotypically Amerindian people by virtue of distant European admixture). Likewise, those Chileans who are of primarily Spanish ancestry are indeed already excluded from the mestizo population (60% uninflated, when inflated it is given 95% including phenotypically White people by virtue of Amerindian distant admixture.)

The following is my concern. As the ethnography of Chile has already been succesfully pointed out, and now the stance of the user has changed to wanting to continue stating 10 million "ethnic Spaniards" in Chile, based on that they are of primarily or partial Spanish ancestry, then I forward the suggestion of also incoporating all other mestizos (those of partial Spanish ancestry) into the percentage given of "ethnic Spaniards" in all the other Hispanic American countries. Honestly, the fact that any Hispanic country is at all quoted with a percentage for "ethnic Spaniards" is quite ludicrous. There is no defined line as to who is or isn't "ethnic Spanish" in Latin America. There are just those who are phenotypically white, and identify as such, usually belong to a higher class, but their ethnicity remains Mexican, Chilean, Paraguayan, etc. Almost everyone who isn't predominalty Spanish (whatever the proportion in any given Hispanic country) is of visibly partial Spanish ancestry anyway (except perhaps Bolivia, Peru and Guatemala). Al-Andalus 22:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC).

The max Spanish or predominatly Spanish population that could be quoted for Chile is 30% (4.5 million). Let's not play ourselves here. Anything above that and you are including people who are visibly mixed, and whose average of Spanish ancestry, although over 50%, is nonetheless 57%, not significantly high either, but "higher" than other visibly mestizo populations. What are we to do with Paraguay and Costa Rica, they are in the same boat as Chile. Around 30% of their populations are phenotypically White (ie. Spanish), and pure White number under 5% in both. Not only is almost 70% of their entire population not quoted (including all mestizos), as done with Chile, but neither is their 30% which is phenotypically white. Al-Andalus 22:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC).

The Ancestry section is not "getting better"

It's just getting longer, more confused and less accurate, not to mention embarrassing. Every single sub-section is severely flawed:

• Spaniards: A Southern European and Iberian Mediterranean People

Spaniards are not "southern European" genetically. They're western European. They're related to Portuguese, Basques, Britons etc., but not so much to Greeks, Sicilians or Balkan peoples.

• Affinities with North African Populations

The emphasis here should be on the absence of strong North African affinities in the general population because that's what most research shows. And why is the study using p49/TaqI still there when that marker has been proven to be totally inconclusive?

Also, genetic data on Canary Islanders belongs in that article, not this one.

• Affinities with Northern European and Celtic Populations

Spaniards don't have "northern European affinities." Rather, it is some northern Europeans (like Celtic Brits) who have southern European affinities owing to ancient northward migrations from Iberia.

• Physical Appearance

A subjective description that emphasizes "Nordics" does not reflect anthropological reality. And random links to photos of soccer players and an online TV website are not appropriate for this or any other encyclopedia.

The revision I'm proposing to fix this horrible section covers all of the main points in the current version (and uses most of the same sources), only in a more concise, straightforward and accurate way. But since no one will leave it up long enough so that people can read it, I'll put it here for now:

---

Ancestry

Spaniards are a homogenous group of Caucasoids who share similar phenotypes throughout the country. In a detailed survey of all regions, anthropologist Carleton Coon noted: "Despite the complex political history of Spain, the living population is basically and almost wholly Mediterranean." [7] Hence, brunet traits predominate everywhere, though as with many European nations, rates of blondism are slightly elevated in the north.

Genetically, Spaniards belong to what is sometimes called the "Atlantic zone." Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b, which is the most common in western Europe, reaches frequencies of 79% in northern Spain and 66% in the south. [8] In terms of mtDNA, the most widespread haplogroups, with a combined frequency of about 68%, are H and U, [9] both also of Paleolithic derivation and typical of Atlantic populations. Accordingly, recent discoveries have pointed to strong affinities between the Iberian peninsula and the Celtic nations of Britain. [10]

There seems to be a general consensus that the long Moorish occupation of Spain did not have a significant demographic impact, even in Andalusia, because of cultural differences engendered by the Mediterranean Sea barrier. [11] [12] [13] One of the better known studies on the subject concludes the following:

The most striking results are that contemporary NW African and Iberian populations were found to have originated from distinctly different patrilineages and that the Strait of Gibraltar seems to have acted as a strong (although not complete) barrier to gene flow.... The Islamic rule of Spain, which began in A.D. 711 and lasted almost 8 centuries, left only a minor contribution to the current Iberian Y-chromosome pool [which] may be summarized as follows: 5% recent NW African, 78% Upper Paleolithic and later local derivatives (group IX), and 10% Neolithic (H58, H71). No haplotype assumed to have originated in sub-Saharan Africa was found in our Iberian sample. ... A small NW African genetic contribution in Iberia is also detected with mtDNA, the female counterpart of the Y chromosome. [14]

However, some research does suggest a certain North African component in the Iberian gene pool, often in isolated locales where Muslims are known to have taken refuge from the Inquisition. [15] [16] Though it should be noted that many of the sources holding this position admit an inability to distinguish between recent admixture and prehistoric ancestry shared by Iberians and northwest Africans. [17] [18]

---

Comments please.

• Thats probably the most accurate and best quality version for the "origins" or "genetic/racial classification" section. I've long studied several of these sources your quoting, both genetic and anthropological, and its fairly conclusive. We need some more feedback but I think it should replace whats currently in place in the article. Epf 09:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I also agree that this contribution is much better than the one in the article now, therefore I suggest changing it. In fact, the section, such as it is now, is of extremely poor quality.

Genetics and appearance

Hello everyone! Well here is my input into this debate (As a Spaniard). I have been reading the discussions on this page. Firstly I would like to point out that Spaniards are a Southern European people (not Western European) except perhaps for Galicians, Basques and Asturianos. Our main heritage is Mediterranean and thus southern European. We are not homogenous at all, Basques, for example, being naturally quite distinct both physically and genetically. Us Canary islanders also tend to be quite distinct as we have a large aboriginal genetic imput (I noticed it is mentioned on the page). This is a reality we accept and dont find offensive. As for the Andalusians, EPF and others may be fans of this character Carlton Coon (sounds like a cowboy) but it is true that there is a visible "moorish air" among many of them and the general Andalusian physical type is quite oriental. I have lived 2 years in Seville and 6 months in Granada and know the whole region quite well. Whether this is due to the islamic period or to the fact that Southern Spain has been linked to North Africa and to the Eastern Mediterranean for Millenia (since the time Tartessos) I dont know. In any case it is silly to deny the impact of 8 centuries of our history, this was done by Francoist historians (more out of complex than anything else) but whoever claims the "demographic impact of this period was minimal" knows very little of Spain. Al Andalus was for a large part of its existence recipient of immigration from all over the muslim world (including even slavs-see the taifa kingdoms of albarracin). But this debate could go on endlessly I guess. My points are the following:

• Spaniards are NOT a homogenous ethnic group in the way the English or the Germans are.
• Spaniards have no close relationship with British people. Attempts to link Irish to Mediterranean peoples are silly. I have been to Ireland (once and not for long) they are not a Mediterranean people. Also those who link the Spanish to the Irish use the same kind of vague genetic evidence which they deny the validity for regarding other affinities.
• If you want to define the Spanish racially using the terms employed by Epf I would advise something on the lines of the following: "Spanish/Iberian ethnicity is the product of the migration south of western European peoples from the northern third of the peninsula to the south during the reconquest (Galicians,Asturians,Castillians, Basques and Catalans) these mingled with the southern-European mediterranean populations of southern half of the country.
• My advice is that references to genetic studies be scrapped all together since none of them are conclusive, many seem to contradict each other, and the only other solution is to include all of them.
• I think the section on with the pictures of the Spanish national footbal team and a link to rtve.es is quite cool. I don't know why it should be criticized. Although the photo of puyol is quite unfortunate.
• Finnally, the "imagination" by pseudo scientisis of a homogenous "Spanish"ethnic group is illogical in a nation which has too many "others". There is no "Spanish" ethnicity in the terms you are attempting to define it. Whoever claims there is does not know my country well enough.

I hope my contribution helped!

--El chicharrero 22:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Well. I respect your comments Chicharrero, but I think they are all flawed. Precisely the Spanish are probably more homogeneous than the nations that you have mentioned. Anyway, that is not the point here. The Spanish are a Mediterranean people, no one is denying that, but they seem to form an Atlantic subgroup. Traditional anthropological methods and modern DNA analysis seem to come together on this point. Your analysis, and I present my apologies if you find this offensive, is a typical one that is being sometimes heard in Spain these days, fueled by the numerous growing Nationalist-Regionalists movements in many regions of Spain. Those arguments are based on manipulated Nationalist political agendas, and they are being told so many times, that even some non-Nationalists are beginning to believe in this newly invented Myth. Do not confuse race with ethnicity or language. In spain there are four languages and you could even argue several ethnicities, but not four races. Although if we follow Nationalist-Regionalist we will end up now with one race in each region. I am also a Spaniard and have travelled the country extensively and lived in different places and do not agree with you at all. But of course we can spend hours debating our own subjective perceptions. Therefore, let us use objetive research.

Thankyou for disagreeing with me so politely! Im sure what you say is true. There were a primitive people in southwestern Europe - the original iberians i guess, and that their genetic legacy is still existant among spaniards today. What do you think about the rest of my comments? Oh and one thing. Remember that comment made by Arzallus about the RH positivo (or negativo cant remember) of basques?). The whole of Spain laughed at him for using such silly genetic "evidence" to justifying the uniquness of the basque people. Considering how serious we are taking genetic studies on this article I guess we are going to have to include a section on the blood type of basques. Do we have to fall so low? I am also against nationalism, without reaching the alarmism of some of our politicians:-). Although I agree with the guy who said basques are visibly recognizable. I add one more person to his list of recognizable basques: "Iñaki Gabilondo". I hope you are not basque and do not find this offensive. For me, basques could have 2 heads they would still be spanish.

One last thing, for the south american spaniards debate. I have a solution: Why not consider Spaniards in latin america those who have spanish nationality or are eligible to apply for it. Basing it on race is STUPID!!!! hehehe Who is 100% and who is 98%? sounds like a commission in apartheid!! Fidel Castro would be eligible ( his father, a gallego, had spanish nationality.) So would Compay Segundo, even though he is visibly black (his father was andaluz spanish national). Many (perhaps most) white people would not be eligible. Its not about the number of white people its about the number of recent immigrants from spain (or their children) in south america. I am sure that the original statistics used in the article were based on this criterion and were correct. There may be 10 million Spaniards in Chile because there are 10 million people immigrated from Spain, or sons of Spaniards (or grandsons maybe) living there. We have to check the criteria used in the stats. Spanish nationality law should be the basis of establishing the exact figure.

Does anyone agree ??

ok thats all I have to say. Hope you guys work everything out!--El chicharrero 11:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

When I hear these comments about how one can distinguish Basques from other Spaniards I really do not know what to think. Maybe I am too thick, but as hard as I try I do not get the difference. I really do not see the special Basque features in Inaki Gabilondo, or in some of the Basque individuals that have been mentioned here. But as I said, I must be of dense understanding. As to the RH+ theory, this blood group appears sporadically among very distant groups that have nothing in commom. It is not a racial marker. On the other hand, it has been stated that the Basques have an unusual high occurrence of the hg 1 Y chromosome, using this feature as something that really sets the Basques apart. Well it happens that the figure is 89% for the Spanish Basque country, 79% for Northern Spaniards and 66% for Southern Spanierds. I do not call that a significant difference.

Ok I am going to have a description of basques to end this argument (what fun!). They generally have much bigger noses than the rest of Spaniards. On the otherhand, blue eyes are more common, although the typical basque is also brunet. they also have thick eyebrows and forehead. The one thing that distinguishes them is that they have this brutish, caveman thing about them. They are also quite large people. On the whole they are not well endowed esthetically (probably due to inbreeding), although there are always exceptions.

.:-) anyways....now seriously, I vote to scrap the ancestry section altogether. This is getting too complicated. There are political implications and apparently ALL genetic studies are a load of bull. You cannot reconcile studies which claim that Spaniards are a homogenous group genetically intact since the ice age with other studies which say the exact opposite. This is not science... My opinion is that Spaniards must have a genetic legacy from all peoples who have lived in its borders... Even if only because of the common practice of "rape and pillage" practiced by invaders. For this reason I dont quite agree with the new version proposed as it seems slightly biased, presenting a Spanish people,racially pure since time inmemorial. But i am no expert and i see nobody is. Best is to be as vague as possible and keep everyone happy.--Cassius80 00:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, if this comes down to voting, I think that the new proposed version is quite good and balanced, and I do not think that anyone here is implying anything related to purity or not-purity. I think that comment is just ridiculous.

Facts better than opinion

Thank you Chicharrero for lowering our Spanish banner concerning anything serious to its usual almost ground-touching position... So you've been to Ireland and reckon those aren't Mediterranean types... Good eye you have...! Man, someone deals/tries to deal with scientifical data and you come up with that! Arzallus isn't either a reliable source of opinion on Genetics and the things he says are rubbish... we agree very much on that last. But this doesn't automatically disqualify Genetics as a whole just because he ridiculously used it as a political weapon!! And you think taking random football players is a very good way to show to the world how Spaniards are as an average... Is our national team really so genetically levelled? Well,

Including now Cassius80, I was quite skeptical when I saw this page about Spaniards being genetically uniform and forming and ethnicity, probably because I've been born in a country where nowadays so-called "self-determination" and its ally "others-deprecation" is quite hip, my dear unknown countryman stated this also before; so that everyone tries to focus on the differences rather than the common ground. However, I'm keener to accept the views of someone who puts forth one or several studies than one who advocates with his own personal experiences.

Now, the figures on "Spanish population" outside Spain are, in my humble opinion, through and through wrong and should be adjusted, I take also, as mentioned above, the US-figure for specially inconsistent... But I wouldn't know what to edit.

MiG-25

Ancestry section debate, part 2

I see no one has angrily refuted by description of basques... that must mean something...:-)

As is stated in the Italian people page, "it deserves mention that population genetics is a science quite early in development with conflicting studies and limited testing on only a few sections of human DNA that can not be considered fully conclusive in any shape or form."

Population studies are almost unanimously conflicting and cannot be taken seriously (yet), in my opinion. MiG 25, we are falling to subjectivism and personal opinions because no clear conclusion can be taken from these studies.

I disagree with the new version because it sounds to me like coming from a neonazi website and can be resumed in the following:

"Spaniards are homogenous, we are one people basques and catalans included, we descend from the celts of Great Britain (???), our blood was never stained by the arabs or any non-aryan people, we are as European as anyone."

Call that balanced if you wish. To me it sounds a bit tendentious. Definitely a tendentious way of selecting population studies to come to such a conclusion. No offense to the writer of the version...

As for his explanation of Spanish physical appearance it goes something like this: Spaniards are brunet/dark on average because they are celts and like the irish. And celts (including the irish) are also dark...

Who talked of an embarassing version of the ancestry secion? please! Lets get rid of the section... --Cassius80 11:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Could all contributors to this debate please sign up with a user name? It would make conversation much easier, and it is very easy to do.--Burgas00 14:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Cassius I think your comments are way off. You are really the one we should be careful about. I will not comment your assertions one by one because they are so stupid that they do not deserve wasting time. But I have to comment on one. Who one earth claims that the Spanish are celts in the new version? Either you cannot read or your view is quite biased. All the evidence points to the contrary. The Spanish are a Mediterranean people and at the same time are part of an Atlantic soubgroup. It seems that these Iberian peoples migrated North thousands of years ago, etc. Well, I do not have to go over all this. If all this eveidence does not suit you for some reason, do not try to manipulate it. I will sign by the same of Hc, until I take the time to sign in properly. Well, I have already signed in.

All evidence suits me. As of yet, I have not proposed to eliminate any sources or accused any of them of being wrong or invalid. How many sources do you propose to eliminate?--Cassius80 11:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I have already said that the present section is absolutely unbalanced. See that thread. What is balanced is to devote space equivalent to content. If those affinites are mainly X, we cannot devote much more space to affinities y, and almost nothing to affinities X. It is a basic concept easy to understand. The new proposed version looks much better to me. We may introduce some changes. For example, if we are speaking about affinities with other peoples, I think there should be more information about the Italians. See the Italian people page. In this case I see again a bit of lack of balance. If the already famous Y chromose in the Atlantic zone seems to be relevant, I think that the affinities with Italians are much more important.

I have added the section on affinities with italians but i cannot find the source. The link on the Italian page is bogus. Could someone add it?

Inflated Numbers

Including Latin Americans with "significant" Spanish ancestry greatly inflates pop figures. Another thing to bear in mind, for historical reasons, it has been normal down the centuries for Latin Americans to exagerate their Spanish ancestry at the expense of others. 210.49.196.39 04:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

On this I agree with el chicharrero comments above. However I dont know the source of the original figures.

Change in the ancestry section

I have made a change based on the new proposed version plus a contribution. The links do not go now. Can someone see to it?

Well user Alf has changed my version in two seconds. I propose a change to the new version with this inclusion:

The Spanish also have strong affinities with other Southern Europeans:

When focusing in SW Europe, very small (0.1%), non-significant differences were found between Iberians and Italians, in agreement with the large mtDNA homogeneity described in Europe (Simoni et al. 2000a, 2000b; Helgason et al. 2000; see also Richards et al. 2002).[19]

So, why can we not have this new version instead of the horrible one. Maybe user Alf can read tis talk page.

Reasons for the change:

1. Unbanlanced presentation of facts, in relation to content and form and space devoted to each concept.

2. Personal and subjective opinions, without citations:

a. North African and Middle Eastern admixture in Spaniards is a controversial and sensitive issue, the thorough islamization of Spain over eight centuries having been, in the past,problematic for Spanish identity.

Who says that it is or was, controversial, problematic or sensitive for Spanish Identity. Who says that it may be wider than was previously believed.

It has always been controversial and is a central issue in Spanish identity. Examples: Basque and Catalan nationalism, French orientalism in Spain etc...

b. A majority of gentic population studies (but not all) agree that the genetic impact on Spaniards of the Al Andalus period is more pronounced in some regions than others and may be wider than was previously believed.

3. Random pictures of football players.

see below

4.Statements like: Another study from the University of Chicago elaborates as to the north-south divide as northern Spaniards also show a degree of similarity with their northern neighbors in France and reveals the extent of "Celtic" contributions to the Spanish population.

What celtic contribution? Those genetic studies point to a indigenous population that was there much before the Celts migrations.

As to the North-South divide The source quoted does not say anything about any such divide.

Look again!

5. As the space devoted to the concept can proof, some kind of obsession with the North African affinities, in spite of clear evidence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cavalli-SforzaMap.jpg

Or maybe some people here think that Cavalli-Sforza is an amateur.

Dont know who he is.... These are just examples that reflect the quality of the section right now.

Could I add that the section starts of mythically with "the thorough Islamization of Spain over eight centuries" Firstly - by 1248 nearly ALL the peninsula had been reconquered, only the small state of Granada hung on until 1492, that's a little over 5 centuries. In the north large swathes of the country were under Islamic rule for from a few decades to several centuries, and in many of these areas there was barely any direct Islamic influence. That bring me to the point - that the article seems to imply that "Islamization" equates with mass settlement by North Africans. It didn't. In fact Islamization happened very gradually, through RELIGIOUS CONVERSION - and it was the nobility and wealthy who were most prone to convert first to escape the disadvantages of dhimmi status. It in fact took centuries of conversion before Muslims began to match or outnumber Christians - in the south. The Islamic conquest of Iberia was achieved with a small army. Even in the south, large Christian populations continued through up to 1248. And finally, even upon conversion people were aware of distinctions between the tiny Arab elite, the Berbers, and the Iberian converts at the bottom. As for making sense of the seemingly conflicting genetic evidence on the connection of the southerners with North Africa, that should be spelt out from the beginning of this section. 210.49.196.39 02:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello. In my opinion, this last comment shows supeficial knowledge of this period of our history. Muladis were an important component of Spain's islamic population but as some one said before, immigration continued after 711 from all over the islamic world practically from the end of the conquest (which lasted only 7 years and was carried out by a small army). For example, the first berber revolt led to the arrival of a large number of Syrians to help defend the Omeya dynasty. As for islamization, perhaps the correct word should be arabization. Even the christians were called Mozarabes from mustarabi (which means arabized) and many Christian liturgies were held in arabic in Spain long after 1492. The impact of arabic on spanish is testimony to this islamization where even the spanish word "marrano" (pig) comes from the arabic "moharram" (forbidden). (Sir, Mozarabs spoke Romance dialects that were heavily influenced by Arabic Provocateur 11:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC))

But there is no consensus on this issue in Spain even. A discussion on this subject would last FOREVER so lets not get into it. I agree that it should be written that the impact of this period "is greater than was previously believed", since during the Francoist dictatorship it was completely denied. The issue is clearly controversial and a central question to Spanish identity. if you want sources can be found as examples but it would be a waste of time.

especially rich in this regard - did u know the words "loot" and "thug" come from India? 210.49.196.39 04:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I dont think anyone has an obsession to prove north african affinities. It is simply an issue which is the subject of an argument here so all valid relevant sources are quoted in order to come to a balanced conclusion.

As for the random pictures of football players, they are less random than the pictures of Spanish monarchy from the 16th century, Picasso and other people. They are all members of our national football team. It is more coherent to have them than the image at the top of the article.

Sure, but maybe you want to comment also on Cavalli-Sforza's map of genetic diversity, because it seems that we are discussing here genetics, and not history.

It wasn't my intention to deny the Islamic period influence. It is just often overstated - like the Moroccan genetic study which focused on south eastern Spain - ie - around Granada - so its results are no surprise. I did greatly oversimplify but: 1. there was never a "thorough" Islamization of Spain, 2. the vast mass of the pop at the time were peasants - who ruled them only had a relatively small genetic influence, 3. there was contact and trade but this was restricted mainly to the cities, which made up a minority of total pop 4. words are borrowed from everywhere - "loot" and "thug" come from India - so the English must be related....

It is true that the ancestry section and the "north african affinities" section is perhaps too long. But maybe this is temporaliry necessary in order to create a correct version to which everyone agrees. Once this is done it will be much easier to summarize it in a short version.--Burgas00 10:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone here has been adding comments on my points refuting the genetic affinities section. He should do it properly, because otherwise my statements become unclear. Anyway, he says that he does not know Cavalli-Sforza. Well, anyone who does not know Cavalli-Sforza should not be writing about genetic affinities. Maybe he could write about soccer or something like that.

I dont know what the source of the argument is here. Everyone agrees that Spaniards are a European and Mediterranean people and that the genetic impact of the islamic period existed but was limited and not large enough to change the basic ethnic composition of Spaniards. Any further argument related to this issue is a question of degrees and it is silly since it is impossible to determine and we all agree on the basics. There seems to be only a diametric opposition on the question of the genetic homogeneity of Spaniards. This should be the focus of discussion on this page.

I think soon through constructive dialogue a succint version of this section can be quickly made, to which everyone will agree. It is important to be careful with the wording not radically denying or exagerating either foreign affinities or homogeneity. Try to focus on what where you agree rather than on what you disagree.--Burgas00 20:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

See my comments below, about the main issue and the marginal issues in List of sources.

There are many other studies that you are not mentioning, and indeed we could flood this site with them all, but you are fogetting a fundamental one, Cavalli-Sforza's, probably the most important authority in genetic research in the world, whose work is considered a standard for geneticists. His map of human genetic diversity has been a milestone in the genetic research of modern human populations, and as of yet, no serious geneticist has questioned his research. His Map of Human Genetic Diversity is especially relevant in this discussion about the global genetic placement of the Spanish people.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cavalli-SforzaMap.jpg

And why is it so important? Because it does not only come from an authority like that, but also because it presents a global conclusion about the Spanish, not partial conclusions. As I have already said, we should devote the main part of the article to the main issue of the article, and then close it with the marginal issues, devoting the space that we should devote to a main issue and the space that we should devote to a marginal issue. I have already said it several times here. That concept is so simple that I do not understand why some people here still do not understand it themselves. On the other hand, if we continue discussing marginal issues here with partial studies here and there, we will be discussing here till the end of times.

In my opinon there is a limited number of studies and we have done a good job collecting most of them. Cavalli Sforza is a great scientist and the only reason I didnt put the map on his list is that I found it a bit simplistic. A map which puts Syrians in a European group, Jordanians in an Asian one and Egyptians in an African group as if they were completely unrelated people cannot help us with the issue at hand. It also puts Vietnamese in the same "group" as Irakis. Im sorry I just find it a bit infantile. We know Spaniards are European and no one is denying that. Please do not search for confrontation. I will put the map on the list anyways but if you can come up with anything better from Cavalli Sforza please do.--Burgas00 11:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Plus I am not sure if this map is a real study or just the image on the cover of a book (which contradicts his later work). --Burgas00 11:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Btw the list is an open list, please contribute to it all the sources you can. That was the basic idea.... If there are sources we havent added its up to u to do so. However try limiting it to genetic studies. --Burgas00 11:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Something smells rotten in the state of Wikipedia.

After reading many of the people’s articles in Wikipedia I have noticed something that cought my eye. In virtually all of the articles that I have read there is no “Genetic affinities” or similar section, in fact I can enumerate the following:

English people = None

Dutch people = None

Norwegian people = None

Swedish people = None

Danish people = None

Icelanders = None.

German people = None.

And I could go on…

Interestingly, what happens when we go to the two largest nations of Southern Europeans?

Italian people: One section. Space devoted to the section: about 25% of the article.

Spanish people: One section. Space devoted to the section: about 60% of the article.

You draw your own conclusions.

Yes and the article on Greek people has to explain that modern Greeks are the same people as the ancient Greeks in their ancestry section... In that particular case, I think it is very important to have an ancestry section, when one takes into account certain common-held beliefs existing in the English-speaking world.

In the English-speaking world? A lot of people speak or read English and do not belong to the so-called English-speaking world. English is the language of international communication. I think some people here should have a broader perspective. On the other hand, an Encyclopeadia is to instruct and educate, not to perpetuate or be the result of the same stupid mindsets.

List of sources

I think we should make a list of all sources for the ancestry section and then proceed to rewrite it on the discussion page before posting it on the article. Some of the sources need new links. The one on affinities with Italians is wrong since it directs you to "joining the pillars of hercules" which talks more about north african affinities. -- This is sorted out. The one on affinities with Italians is source N.16

List

• 1. Study "proving" that Basques with basque surnames are genetically distinct from other Spaniards from university of Bilbao.[20]
• 2. Basques different from Europeans, North Africans and Western Asians. Universidad del Pais Vasco.[21]
• 3. Basques different from other Iberians. University of Santiago de Compostela.[22]
• 4. Genetic analysis of Spain: NW populations close to European Atlantic populations, Central Spain populations lend support to Castillian repopulation of La Mancha, South-East populations' genetic record of Middle Eastern Populations is still present. University of Santiago de Compostela [23]
• 5. Comparison of lineage diversity with Italian (Tuscan) and Algerian populations. Spaniards closer to European pops although a small number of lineages traced to North Africa. Basques genetically distinct and there are genetic subdivisions in Catalonia and Andalusia. University of Oxford.[24]
• 6.Canarian gene pool halfway between its putative iberian and north african parents with minor sub saharan african imput.University Hospital of Santa Cruz de Tenerife.[25]
• 7.Decreasing frequency of haploype 5 from South to North: 68% Morroco,40% Andalusia, 36% Portugal, 12% Catalonia, 11% Basque country. Such a cline clearly establishes a gene flow from North Africa towards Iberia. International Institute of Anthropology, Paris, France. [26]
• 8. Analysis of 14 Alu insertions in Iberian and N Arican populations show Southern Spaniards closer genetically to Morrocans than other Spanish populations. Supports major genetic influx across the straights of Gibraltar, consistent with most (but not all)previous genetic studies. University of Barcelona.[27]
• 9.Alpujarra population (South Spain) has particular affinities to North African populations with regards to other European Groups. The study used eight erythrocyte genetic markers. Universite Chouaib Doukkali, El Jadida, Morocco.[28]
• 10. Approximately 78% of contemporary Iberian Y chromosomes originated in an Upper Paleolithic expansion from western Asia, along the northern rim of the Mediterranean basin. NW African populations may have contributed 7% of Iberian Y chromosomes.Am J Hum Genet. 2001 Universitat Pompeu Fabra.[29]
• 11. Analysis of CD4 STR/Alu variation fails to indicate any particular relationship between South Spaniards and North Africans. University of Barcelona.[30]
• 12. Multiple genetic marker systems indicate a shared ancestry throughout the Atlantic zone, from Northern Iberia to Western Scandinavia, that dates back to the last Ice Age. Am. J. of H. Genetics. University of Leeds.[31]
• 13. An analysis of 11 I Alu insertion polymorphisms. Iberian samples show a substantial degree of homogeneity and fall within the cluster of European-based genetic diversity. Universitat Pompeu Fabra.[32]
• 14. Analysis of 26 Y-chromosome biallelic markers from 11 Iberian population groups compared to published data on Basques and Catalans. Study shows a limited heterogeneity between regions. The focal distribution of y-chromosome haplogroups indicates that population expansion from Middle East has not influenced current Iberian Y chromosome diversity.[33]
• 15. Phylogenetic analysis of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) performed in Western Mediterranean populations. Despite the shared haplogroups found in both areas, the European V and the NW African U6 haplogroups reveal the traces of the Mediterranean Sea permeability to female migrations. Universitat Pompeu Fabra.[34]
• 16. Full version of previous study of Mediterranean populations. In pages 9, 13 and 14 Italians and Iberians are shown to be extremely similar. [35]

Erasing comments

I think it is important that people in this talk page knows that someone is erasing my comments. I have tried to put them back but they continue to erase them.

There are many other studies that you are not mentioning, and indeed we could flood this site with them all, but you are fogetting a fundamental one, Cavalli-Sforza's, probably the most important authority in genetic research in the world, whose work is considered a standard for geneticists. His map of human genetic diversity has been a milestone in the genetic research of modern human populations, and as of yet, no serious geneticist has questioned his research. His Map of Human Genetic Diversity is especially relevant in this discussion about the global genetic placement of the Spanish people.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cavalli-SforzaMap.jpg

And why is it so important? Because it does not only come from an authority like that, but also because it presents a global conclusion about the Spanish, not partial conclusions. As I have already said, we should devote the main part of the article to the main issue of the article, and then close it with the marginal issues, devoting the space that we should devote to a main issue and the space that we should devote to a marginal issue. I have already said it several times here. That concept is so simple that I do not understand why some people here still do not understand it themselves. On the other hand, if we continue discussing marginal issues here with partial studies here and there, we will be discussing here till the end of times

In my opinon there is a limited number of studies and we have done a good job collecting most of them. Cavalli Sforza is a great scientist and the only reason I didnt put the map on his list is that I found it a bit simplistic. A map which puts Syrians in a European group, Jordanians in an Asian one and Egyptians in an African group as if they were completely unrelated people cannot help us with the issue at hand. We know Spaniards are European and no one is denying that. Please do not search for confrontation. I will put the map on the list anyways but if you can come up with anything better from Cavalli Sforza please do.--Burgas00 11:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, Burgass, I respect your opinion as I member of this talk page, but you are no authority to question Cavalli-Sforza’s work. You cannot put yourself at the same level as the most important geneticist alive simply because it shocks you that Syrians and Europeans or others belong to the same genetic cluster.

It does not shock me that Syrians and Europeans belong to the same cluster. You are not taking the time to read what Im trying to say. Im just saying that the picture you are showing is not a study at all, it is just a picture for the cover of one of his books. Do you think that Cavalli Sforza would claim that Iraqis and Syrians are completely unrelated, as shown on the map? The reason is that you are mistaking Cavalli Sforza's works with a map probably not even drawn by himself but by someone from his editorial. AND I AGREE WITH YOU ON THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE SECTION. Pleaso lets not argue for no reason.

Well, you are right that this is not about confrontation. Obviously I do not agree on the Map. It is already quite a famous map that is part of his work. You are the only one that says that the map was drawn by someone from his editorial. Maybe you even think that without his consent. People should not confuse genetic ancestry with ethnicity: A complex compound of culture, language, religion...

Anyway, you are right that we are probably engaging in a confrontation that appears to be a bit senseless since we agree on the basic structure of the article. Therefore, let us go forward. My proposal is very simple, we should try to find a reasonable summary for the Genetic affinity part that deals with both the North African and North European affinities. I think that most people here agree that that part is too long. It should indeed be a short summary closing the genetic part of the article. This section of the article should not take more than 60% of the article, as it is doing now.

Yes. In my opinion it should take no more than 25% of the entire article. There are much more interesting things to write about. I propose we dont make any direct citations (as there are on the article), a bit on the lines of what you wrote, although making use of all sources and trying to be as neutral as possible.

Consensus version of ancestry section

The section could be structured like this

1st paragragh: I think everyone agrees that the Spanish are Primarily 1) European and 2) Mediterranean. This should be the 1st paragraph. Perhaps we need more sources on this important general section. I trust u on the cavalli sforza map so we can put it here.

Second paragraph should perhaps deal on whether Spaniards are homogenous. We have to work this one out... It is hard to be neutral on this one. Issue of Basques, North south division, Catalans and Galicians... We could say that:

...although genetic differences between Spanish regions do exist (citation x), particularly with regards to the Basque country (citations: e,f,g,h) but also with regards to Andalusia (citations: x,y,z), Catalonia and Galicia, (links a,b,c,d,) these differences should not be exagerated, particularly in the light of mass migrations which occurred during the period of the reconquest. In any case all Iberians are genetically similar and fall into the cluster blablabla (citation x).

3rd paragrapgh On other Affinities we can say something like: Although a majority (but not all: links a,b,c,d) of genetic studies point to a genetic relationship between NW Africa and Iberia due to the centuries of Islamic invasion ((links e,f,g,h,i,j), such a genetic influx should be considered to be relatively minor and not to have altered the basic ethnic makeup of the Spanish people (links x,y,z). +quick sentence about canarians with its link. Spaniards in general, but particularly Northern and North Western Spaniards, are also related to the celtic-speaking people's of the Atlantic rim of Western Europe.(links: a couple I think)

I think it is a goog structure. You can elaborate on that. I support it.

I also agree, Burgas has pushed for an agreement and this version is very neutral. I agree that perhaps more sources are needed for the 1st paragragh. --Cassius80 10:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok Im going to work on the second paragraf written by Burgas adding the footnotes. You can refer to the list of sources above to understand the numbers.

Párrafo 2:

Genetic differences between Spanish regions do exist (4,5), particularly with regards to the Basque country(1,2,3) but also with regards to Andalusia and Catalonia (5,7,8,9) aswell as Galicia(4). However, these differences should not be exagerated, particularly in the light of mass migrations which occurred during the period of the reconquest(4). In any case all Iberians are genetically similar and fall into the cluster of European based genetic diversity. (13,14,15).

Everyone agrees with me on this? I think it is ok to repeat reference to sources when we are talking about different things.--Cassius80 10:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

As a minor participant (a few minor edits & emphasising one study) I think you're doing well getting this mass of seemingly contrary stuff into a concise but meaningful whole. Cheers 210.49.196.39 11:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks 210.49.196.39, although I think it was you who pushed everyone into improving this terrible and chaotic section. I agree with repeating sources (even though we have 15!). Im adding the sources to the 3rd paragraph. Still have to work on the 1st (and final!)

Paragraph 3

Although a majority (but not all: (11,14)) of genetic studies point to a genetic relationship between NW Africa and (particularly southern) Iberia due to the centuries of Islamic invasion (4,5,7,8,9,10,15), such a genetic influx should be considered to be relatively minor and not to have altered the basic ethnic makeup of the Spanish people(10). This is not the case of the inhabitants of the Canary Islands, whose gene pool is halfway between its putative iberian and north african parents.(6) Some studies also link (particularly Northern and Northwestern) Spaniards to the celtic-speaking people's of the Atlantic rim of Western Europe.(4,12)

Anyone has any ideas for the 1st paragraph???--Burgas00 13:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Has somebody got access to Cavilla-Sforza - perhaps an appropriate quote of where Iberians fit in European - Mediterranean circumstance. I'm looking for some study, but this isn't an area of knowledge for me!

I do not have time to look into things in detail, but the article is looking much better now. In the first paragraph I would still mention the affinities with the Italian peoples, because it is an important piece of information and to make this article consistent with the Italian one. It could be introduced presenting the Spanish as a West-Mediterranean population with the affinities mentioned.

1st paragraph: Please add stuff if u want. Cant think of anything else to say..

Spaniards are a caucasoid, European and predominantly Mediterranean people originating in South-Western Europe(10). Both genetically and phenotypically, they are similar to other Southern European populations such as the Portuguese and Italians(5,16).

I still think one more source giving a general description would be good. Do you think this section is too short? Should we cut out the physical appearance bit as has been done on the Italian people page? Sources 5 and 10 were the only ones i found relevant to the paragragh.--Burgas00 15:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

This line from the Italian people: "When focusing in SW Europe, very small (0.1%), non-significant differences were found between Iberians and Italians, in agreement with the large mtDNA homogeneity described in Europe (Simoni et al. 2000a, 2000b; Helgason et al. 2000; see also Richards et al. 2002).[[36]]" establishes both European and Mediteranean connections -could you use that in the first paragraph ? 210.49.196.39 15:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I have been looking for that source since I joined the discussion. The problem is that I cant find that citation in the link. The article (which is on the list above, look at the last one) generally talks about population movements between the southern and northern shores of the mediterranean. Can you tell me on what page is the citation on iberians and italians on, in the article?--Burgas00 15:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It can be found in page 9 of 17, on the right column.

Thanks. You are right...better citation perhaps in pages 13 and 14. In any case I am adding the link...:-)

Consensus version of ancestry section Part II

OK this is it. I agree with this version... It is definitely as short as one can get it. Now I guess we should insert the sources...

Spaniards are a caucasoid, European and predominantly Mediterranean people originating in South-Western Europe.10. Both genetically and phenotypically, they are similar to other Southern European populations such as the Portuguese and Italians516.

Genetic differences between Spanish regions do exist45, particularly with regards to the Basque country123 but also with regards to Andalusia and Catalonia 5789 aswell as Galicia4. However, these differences should not be exagerated, particularly in the light of mass migrations which occurred during the period of the reconquest4. In any case all Iberians are genetically similar and fall into the cluster of European based genetic diversity.13 1415.

Although a majority (but not all:11 14) of genetic studies point to a genetic relationship between NW Africa and (particularly southern) Iberia due to the centuries of Islamic invasion 457891015, such a genetic influx should be considered to be relatively minor and not to have altered the basic ethnic makeup of the Spanish people10. This is not the case of the inhabitants of the Canary Islands, whose gene pool is halfway between its putative iberian and north african parents.6 Some studies also link (particularly Northern and Northwestern) Spaniards to the celtic-speaking people's of the Atlantic rim of Western Europe.412

Perhaps we should include the disclaimer on genetic studies stating that none of them are conclusive...--Cassius80 20:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think that this version looks now much better than the one in the article. In my opinion it should also include Cavalli-Sforza's map, and that should be it. Maybe someone could paste the new version, if everyone agrees.

I agree with adding the map, no problem. Even thouh I dont think its all that necessary... it would be more necessary if the European ancestry was more in doubt for cultural reasons (e.g. if this was the Turkish people page), Anyways Im not going to add it since Im not good enough at adding stuff to wikipedia yet...--Cassius80 12:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Copy paste of list of sources.

List

• 1. Study "proving" that Basques with basque surnames are genetically distinct from other Spaniards from university of Bilbao.[37]
• 2. Basques different from Europeans, North Africans and Western Asians. Universidad del Pais Vasco.[38]
• 3. Basques different from other Iberians. University of Santiago de Compostela. [39]
• 4. Genetic analysis of Spain: NW populations close to European Atlantic populations, Central Spain populations lend support to Castillian repopulation of La Mancha, South-East populations' genetic record of Middle Eastern Populations is still present. University of Santiago de Compostela [40]
• 5. Comparison of lineage diversity with Italian (Tuscan) and Algerian populations. Spaniards closer to European pops although a small number of lineages traced to North Africa. Basques genetically distinct and there are genetic subdivisions in Catalonia and Andalusia. University of Oxford. [41]
• 6.Canarian gene pool halfway between its putative iberian and north african parents with minor sub saharan african imput.University Hospital of Santa Cruz de Tenerife. [42]
• 7.Decreasing frequency of haploype 5 from South to North: 68% Morroco,40% Andalusia, 36% Portugal, 12% Catalonia, 11% Basque country. Such a cline clearly establishes a gene flow from North Africa towards Iberia. International Institute of Anthropology, Paris, France. [43]
• 8. Analysis of 14 Alu insertions in Iberian and N Arican populations show Southern Spaniards closer genetically to Morrocans than other Spanish populations. Supports major genetic influx across the straights of Gibraltar, consistent with most (but not all)previous genetic studies. University of Barcelona. [44]
• 9.Alpujarra population (South Spain) has particular affinities to North African populations with regards to other European Groups. The study used eight erythrocyte genetic markers. Universite Chouaib Doukkali, El Jadida, Morocco. [45]
• 10. Approximately 78% of contemporary Iberian Y chromosomes originated in an Upper Paleolithic expansion from western Asia, along the northern rim of the Mediterranean basin. NW African populations may have contributed 7% of Iberian Y chromosomes.Am J Hum Genet. 2001 Universitat Pompeu Fabra. [46]
• 11. Analysis of CD4 STR/Alu variation fails to indicate any particular relationship between South Spaniards and North Africans. University of Barcelona. [47]
• 12. Multiple genetic marker systems indicate a shared ancestry throughout the Atlantic zone, from Northern Iberia to Western Scandinavia, that dates back to the last Ice Age. Am. J. of H. Genetics. University of Leeds. [48]
• 13. An analysis of 11 I Alu insertion polymorphisms. Iberian samples show a substantial degree of homogeneity and fall within the cluster of European-based genetic diversity. Universitat Pompeu Fabra. [49]
• 14. Analysis of 26 Y-chromosome biallelic markers from 11 Iberian population groups compared to published data on Basques and Catalans. Study shows a limited heterogeneity between regions. The focal distribution of y-chromosome haplogroups indicates that population expansion from Middle East has not influenced current Iberian Y chromosome diversity. [50]
• 15. Phylogenetic analysis of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) performed in Western Mediterranean populations. Despite the shared haplogroups found in both areas, the European V and the NW African U6 haplogroups reveal the traces of the Mediterranean Sea permeability to female migrations. Universitat Pompeu Fabra. [51]
• 16. Full version of previous study of Mediterranean populations. In pages 9, 13 and 14 Italians and Iberians are shown to be extremely similar. [52]

Gitanos

Someone has attempted to erase the section on Spain's Gitanos. Spanish Gitanos belong to Spanish ethnicity and are not considered foreign by themselves or by other Spaniards. In Andalusia, where I am from, they are intrinsically linked to the identity of Andalusians, our regional music, culture and customs and the line between who is Gitano and who is not is, in many cases, blurry.--Cassius80 22:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I do not think that the line is blurry, maily because they continue to have a very distinct way of life. In any case, they are integrating now much faster than before and , of course, they are as Spanish as any other and they have contributed a lot to Flamenco music, a music specially linked with Andalusia, but that many other Spaniards consider part of their heritage.

They are still not of Spanish origin and they refer to themselves as a separate group. Although they may have a central cultural role in Andalusia's current identity, they still arent considered indigenous ethnic Spaniards. Gitanos and Roma have their own separate article and information on them can be viewed there. If you want to add more information on the immigration in Spain or on foreign ethnic groups there, please do so on Demographics of Spain. This article is about the Spanish as an ethnic group, not citizens of Spain. Epf 00:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

They are still not considered indigenous ethnic Spaniards by whom? By you and by a tin-pot racist writer from the 1930s?? The Spanish ethnic group, which is not based on race (neither is the French) includes the Gitanos more than anyone else, them being depositaries of much of our popular culture. There is no distinct way of life.

Epf, on these issues, when you are talking to Spaniards, please assume that you are in the wrong. I have never been to Canada but when I speak to Canadians I dont attempt to teach them lessons on themselves or on their country.

I think you are from Canada and you speak some French, I include an exerpt from a Canadian anthropologist who wrote her thesis on Gypsies in Seville.

http://www.pum.umontreal.ca/theses/pilote/thede/these_body.html

Les Gitans - et les Tsiganes en général - sont souvent abordés, tant par les chercheurs que dans l'opinion publique, comme un groupe dont l'identité ethnique est " évidente ". Leur mode de vie censé être radicalement différent de celui des groupes qui les entourent - leur nomadisme, leurs habits, leurs métiers, leurs rituels -, tout le regard des non-Gitans sur les Gitans est construit pour fonder cette différence radicale qui est censée être la leur, au point où cette différence est naturalisée, essentialisée. Mais voici un cas - celui des Gitans de la basse Andalousie (probablement un cas parmi bien d'autres) - qui nous permet de déconstruire cette différence naturalisée. Ces Gitans ne sont ni nomades, ni physiquement distincts de leurs voisins, ni radicalement différents dans leurs rituels... et pourtant, ils sont toujours Gitans, malgré plusieurs siècles de vie " intégrée " avec des non-Gitans. (These Gypsies are not nomads, not physically distinct from their neighbours, not radically different in their rituals...but anyhow they are still gypsies, even after centuries of "integrated" life with non gypsies)

Les Gitans de la basse Andalousie n'ont ni la tradition ni le contenu culturel que beaucoup de chercheurs de la question gitane supposent qu'ils devraient avoir pour ne pas perdre leur identité. Pourtant, ils ne l'ont pas " perdue ". Que se passe-t-il ici?--Cassius80 12:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think that everyone here is a bit right. The Gitanos are of course considered to be Spanish by the other Spaniards, but at the same time they are considered as a different group, obviously what we could consider a separate Ethnic group. The Spanish Roma are usually a very proud people and they like to point out the fact that they are Gitanos, not Payos (Non-gypsies), at the same time that they like to point out the fact that they are Spanish Roma when with other Roma people. Anyway, as I said earlier, they are integrating more and more nowadays but still constitute a distinct ethnic group. I think that to deny that has no objective basis.

• It doesnt matter where I am from Cassius, are you that close-minded ?. I have a long interest in the origins of European ethnic groups and the fact you say Spaniards arent an ethnic group is your biggest downfall. Yes they are and they are indigenous to Spain. The Roma are not and are considered a foreign group or immmigrant group as in any other European country. This article is NOT about citizens or Spanish nationals, this is about ethnic Spanish. Spain is not like France, does not anywhere deny the existence of ethnic groups and unlike France, collects data on different minorities and languages as is evidenced by the EU research paper I found on the Roma/Gitano minority in Spain. [53] The Spanish government does not consider them a minority, but it also does not consider them one of the native "Peoples of Spain". They are not considered ethnic Spaniards by most Spanish people, Gitanos and Romas themselves, as well as by most anthropologists and other academics as a whole. If they were ethnic Spaniards, they wouldnt need identification by others or themselves as a seaparate minority group. The Roma are a people across several countries but they are nowhere considered part of the native ethnic group of those respective countries. The article you quoted above is not needed as its opinion conflicts with that of Spanish officials and academics/researchers. Get a user page, read into what Im saying, let go of your view that Europe is a land of immigrants like the countries in the New World, and then a proper consensus can be reached. Epf 19:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Im sorry but I am going to have to intervene in this discussion on the Gitanos since this last edit by Epf seems to be, as Cassius claims, unfortunately based on a large ammount of ignorance and a pinch of racialism. Spanish gypsies are, of course an ethnic group, but are also members of the Spanish ethnic group. Never heard of multiple ethnicites, Epf? NO ONE in Spain considers Gitanos foreign. Much less the Spanish government. NO Gypsy consider themselves foreign. I would say that most Gypsies in Andalusia consider themselves Andaluz before Gypsy. I agree that Spanish ethnicity is not based on race. Perhaps you are right that in many places they are not considered part of the ethnic group of the countries in which they are (like in the Balkans). However Spain is an exception. No one says in Spain "the Spanish" as opposed to "the Gypsies".

Does this not imply the Spanish are not an ethnic group, at least in the terms you want them to be? Spaniards know that they are not. Canadian university students who read silly racial fantasy books written in the 1930s (on this I agree with Cassius) may perhaps not be aware of this...but its not up to me to enlighten you.--Burgas00 20:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Wow, you guys have issues, seriously. Where are you getting this "1930s books" Im supposedly reading on ? Where am I basing this on race ? Spanish people indeed do know they are an ethnic group with different regional identities (Castilians, Catalans, Galicians,etc.) You dont need to enlighten me and I would prefer you didnt as you know little on the subject area. The Roma are not indigenous to Spain, are not considered part of ethnic Spanish by either them or the wider Spanish population, and as I have shown in that EU study [54], they are not considered by the government to be so either. Ethnicity involves common origins and geneaology, regardless of phenotype or "race" as you like to put it. The Roma are indeed "foreign" and are not native to Spain or any other European country as has been proven by analyzing their origins. Catalans, Galicians, Castilians, etc. are part of the larger Spanish ethnic group and all trace their origins to Iberia. European citizens with racist, multiracialist, assimilationist POV because of their own personal issues regarding their own non-European origins may not be aware of this...but its not up to me to enlighten you. Epf 21:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Spanish ethnicity involves those Iberian peoples with commmon origins and its not based on "race" or genetics. However, common origins do present some genetic and phenotypic commonality within the group. Basques are an indigenous group that is distinct from the other Iberians while Roma/Gitanos, Jews, Berbers, French, Africans, etc. are all foreign groups that do not share the common origins of the Spanish peoples. Genetically and phenotypically, native Iberians share some commonalities from common origins and these are not shared with foreign or foreign-descended groups, including Gitanos who trace their ancestry to India. Epf 22:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the Spanish government started regarding the Gypsies as Spaniards somewhere around the 17th century... Your accusations of the Spanish government are ridiculous.

The Roma are not indigenous to Spain, are not considered part of ethnic Spanish by either them or the wider Spanish population, and as I have shown in that EU study. [55] Epf 23:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok perhaps I was slightly overly aggressive with you. It is difficult to explain... I guess that you are involved in all or many of these "people" pages and for you it is important for everything to be organized and hermetic. The Spanish have to be indoeuropean, european, latin etc... and they have to be a pure and homogenous race. That way you can move on to the Portuguese, the Greeks the English or whatever. The thing is that you cannot class a Spanish ethnic group. And if you did it would have to include the Gypsies. The question is, what do you base your criterion for a Spanish ethnic group? You say you are not racist but you end tracing all your arguments to a race based argument. And this argument is based on a supposed homogenous Spanish race which originates in Iberia. But who originates in Iberia? Where is your proof that modern day Spaniards "originate" in Iberia as if they had sprung out of the earth? They come from everywhere: Iberia itself, Italy, Northern Europe, Greece, Carthage, the Middle East and North Africa. Modern Spaniards are the product of waves of immigrants, the last of these (coming in the 15th century) were the Gypsies, who assimilated completely to andaluz culture while managing to mantain an identity and it is believed, mixed with the (also Spanish) muslims who were fleeing persecution. In any case they mixed with "payos" non Gypsies since they arrived and I wouldnt be surprised if a majority of andalusians had at least some gypsy origins. Spain is not Spain without Gypsies they are part of the culture of the country and part of its ethnicity and identity. So are the Basques and so are the Catalans. But in reality the paradox is that a Gypsy from Seville is 100 times more "Spanish" than a Catalan from Girona who speaks Spanish badly and as a second language and does not feel Spanish at all. The issue is how do we define "Spanishness". Your exclusionary way is not acceptable to Spaniards as it was not to the French (for their own reasons). The fact that you dont understand this, as has been said, only proves that you simply dont know the country well enough. Spain is a country with many dimensions, that makes it so unique, but it has an "oriental" underbelly which is shared by the Gitanos- who are as Spanish as you can get.

Finally I just have to tell you that if a Spanish person is telling you from Spain that Spaniards DO consider Gypsies Spanish and that Gypsies do so aswell, you who, do not know Spain or the Spanish language, should believe him rather than look for reports on the internet looking for evidence of discrimination against Roma. Gypsies are mistrusted and discriminated often, but they are done so as Spaniards. This EU study, which I have read, does not support any of your crazy claims...

Please stop reverting, unless you can garner some sort of credible support to your arguments. Otherwise it will be considered vandalism to an article which has been rapidly improving in the last few days.

I have one question for you: Have you ever seen or talked to a Gypsy?

I vote for the Gypsies to stay. And we could even give them a line in the ancestry section. --Burgas00 22:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Do not use the fact of being Spanish to claim that your arguments are better. I am Spanish too, and really, your arguments about the Roma people are far off. It is not a question of racism. I know a lot of Roma people and they are a minority in Spain. If they do not qualify as a distinct ethnic group in Spanish society, I do not know who does in any society. I really think that some of the assertions here are far from being reasonable. We should not confuse citizenship with ethnicity. Of course they are Spanish, but they are a distinct ethnicity. I really cannot believe that someone who says that he is Spanish and who knows Spanish culture can claim such things. I loathe a lot of the racism in Spain against the Roma, but unfortunately there is a lot, probably more than in most other countries towards other minorities. There are two very clear terms in Spanish to distinguish them, gitano (roma) and payo (the rest of the people) and I think that this term was even coined by the Roma people themselves, who are very aware of their ditinctiveness and besides very proud of it. On the other hand, it is true, at least I see it like that, that a lot of Roma people are increasingly integrating in the so-called payo society, and I do believe that it will come to totla or almost total integration in a near future, but unfortunately we are not in that situation yet and when that happens, they will eventually cease to exist as a distinct ethnic group and this conversation will have then no sense.

• Good point, but I think it will take quite a few more generations for all their ethnic traits to disappear or be integrated entirely.

In response to Burgas comments:

It does not matter if I've ever talked to a Roma person but I indeed know and have many friends who are from Spain or have ancestry from there. I am not basing my argument on some "Spanish race" anywhere and you are just using this to enhance your own assimilationist POV on this subject. What I do admit is that Catalans, Galicians, Castilians can trace their ancestry to common origins. These common origins have manifested in similar genotypical/phenotypical traits which distinguishes Spaniards from foreign and foreign-descended groups in Spain. The Basques are a very disinct group in cultural, linguistic or genetic terms, do not share the same origins as the other Iberian peoples and the Basque people are incredibly proud of this as has been their persistent and violent drive to independence. The Catalans do not enjoy being labelled "Spanish" in the sense that it means Castilian, but they are very much proud to be Spanish in the sense of being part of the native people of Spain. I never claimed that the native Spanish just "sprouted out of the ground" in Iberia, but they can claim origins to Spain dating back to Neolithic times as is shown with the genetic and anthropological research that is posted in the article and from a web site that was cited earlier [56]. The Basques culture, langauge and genetics (from what has been studied) pre-date even these peoples amazingly.

I don't understand your view at all that Spanish are an accumulation of immigrants as seems to be the talk with some Wikipedians that are foreign or foreign descended European citizens. Where do you have proof of this ? Exactly, its rubbish. Apart from the original Iberians, what other groups came in large numbers ??? Celts, Romans, Greeks, Pheonecians, Visigoths, Berbers all left an insignficant impact on the people in terms of the amount of people and the Romans were the ones who made the largest cultural and linguistic contribution out of all those groups. A large majority of Arab-Berbers, Jews and other groups were expellend after the Reconquista and even the ones who remained still did not settle in significant numbers to impact the original population. As for the Gitanos/Roma, again where is it shown that they intermixed with the native Spanish to the extent you claim ??? If that was the case, why do they still distinguish their own separate culture, identity and non-Iberian origins just as they do in any other country they settled in ? They are Spanish in the sense as being residents of Spain and yes have had an influence on Andalusian culture but they are not "as Spanish as you get", obviously since they a group with largely non-Iberian origins. Most, if not all, Catalans speak Castilian just as well as Catalan and are very much considered more "Spanish" (not Castilian) and Iberian than Gitanos are. The EU report I referenced on the Spanish Roma/Gitanos [57] is an official report on any possible discrimination towards them but importantly shows how the Spanish government does not consider them a minority, but also does not consider them one of the "Peoples of Spain" (Galicians, Castilians, Catalans, Basques; see Pg.5 in report). Yes I am sure some Andalusians have some Roma ancestry, but the fact is they still constitue a separate group with non-Iberian origins. This is contrary to ethnic Spaniards, which most Spanish people (and academics for that matter)recognize as people primarily descended from the native Iberians (Catalans, Galicians, Castilians,etc.).

Do not compare my discourse to the French people article because in France the government has created its own problems by not recognizing ethnic groups within its borders. I do know quite a bit about Spain's anthropolgy, history and origins of its people and do not appreciate Burgas and Cassius' remarks to me as racist as that is not the case. You are obviously a citizen of some European country who has non-European origins and have some personal issues regarding anything that discusses the native peoples of Europe. I dont know what your problem is, but it is common fact that there are those in any European country who trace their origins to that country and those who trace much of it elsewhere. Roma/Gitanos are a separate group and have their own Wikipedia articles. They may have had some cultural and musical influence but they still constitue a separate group that is not indeigenous to Iberia. The "most indigenous" people of the Iberian peninsula, the Basques, do not consider themselves Spanish in the same sense as Castilians, Galicians, Catalans, etc. and this just goes to show my point how the Spanish share separate origins. Gitanos/Roma have played a significiant role in Spanish music and culture, but it is not significant enough to allow for some theory of an "oriental" underbelly to Spanish culture that Burgas claims. Spanish culture is very unique and traces itself largely to the original Iberians and to the Romans with various minor influences from Basques, Berbers, Gitanos, etc. The people trace most of their ancestry however to the original Iberians and the subsequent invading groups were absorbed leaving mainly varying degrees of cultural and linguistic influences. Gitanos/Roma culture, origins, language, traditions, and yes, genetics, are very DISINCT from that of the the native Galician, Castilian, Catalan Spanish. Im sorry for the long post, but I cant stand any more of this assimilationist POV trash talk from a few individuals who think Europe is some land of immigrants like the New World. Enough already. Cheers, Epf 00:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Gitanos 2

Ohhh ok Now I understand what you mean. This is a misuderstanding on your behalf. You see, In Spain, when the 1978 Constitution was written, the Catalans and the Basques were given certain collective rights and were considered "peoples" of Spain, because the wanted independence, in the context of assymetric state autonomy. etc... This has nothing to do with the Gypsies. The fact that the Catalans are considered peoples of Spain doesnt mean that the Gypsies are considered foreign. THEY ARE SIMPLY CONSIDERED NORMAL SPANIARDS. It is just that the Gypsies have no collective rights in the way that any other minority or subnational population outside the context of the autonomies doesnt. You have just misunderstood the context of the phrase in the report!! If you dont get it I can try to explain more fully.--Burgas00 11:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

As for the tendentious and political site "racial reality", it is not used in wikipedia as a source. I have also checked, that some of its supposed citations from studies are inventions by the author, or are taken out of context. Its statement that all spaniards descend solely from the neolithic inhabitants of iberia are sheer fantasy. I see the author of this site is also a reader of Mr Coon. --Burgas00 11:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

To the Spaniard who supposedly does not agree with me: He has clearly not understood what I was saying, I never denied Gitanos are an ethnicity, no one does. I am just saying that they are a people with multiple ethnicities. ... What you say: that there are two terms "payo" and "Gitano" only proves my point. No one says "Español" and "Gitano". I think, as a Spaniard, you agree with me and you have just misunderstood my statement.--Burgas00 11:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Well this is a complicated issue. I understand that Epf does not consider them "Spanish" seeing Spain from the outside and from the inside is very different. The point of the payos and gitanos made by Burgas is very interesting. No one in Spain makes the dichotomy Gitanos and Españoles. (they do in Eastern Europe where ethnic bonds are much stronger) It would be an aberration in most people's minds. In fact,Gypsy immigrants from Rumania in Spain are called "Rumanos" rather than Gypsies (something which I have noticed really irritates Rumanians.) This shows something about the inclusive nature of Spanish ethnicity at least with regards to Gypsies. Gypsies are distinct but belong to Spanish ethnicity. The question is: HOW DO WE DEFINE SPANISH ETHNICITY? Once we all manage to agree on that (I suspect we wont immiediately) everything else will fall into place. Should we define it by language (difficult with the Catalans)? By shared culture and history or by (as Epf wants) some sort of genetic bond which places a majority of their gene pool in Iberia? If we did this we would have to include the Portuguese in Spanish ethnicity. The problem with being "Spanish" is that it is a political invention. It is not based on racial ties but on the creation of the Spanish state in 1492 ( coincidentially around the time when Gypsies started arriving in Spain) So there are 2 options in my opinion: Either erasing this article all together or redifining the concept of "ethnic Spaniard" in a way which is more concording to reality. This is my humble opinion as a (racially impure) Spaniard.

In any case this is a very interesting issue.

What do you guys think???

--El chicharrero 13:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I do not agree with you Chicharreo. Spain is not an invention, it is very old in concept. Even the Spanish state is one of the oldest in Europe. According to those principles there are no nations in Europe. Almost all European states are much younger than the Spanish one. So, we have come to an agreement. Let it be like that.

Comments by me (separate from the unknown user above):

My aim is not to base the ethnic Spaniards on "race", but it is on common origins which happen to reveal common genotypes/phenotypes. It is true the racial reality site, Burgas, is not a neutral POV, and it isnt the best source to reference. However, Coon's anthropological works are also the most detailed physical anthropolgical work on native European peoples (albeit with its number of fallacies and errors). Don't you find it interesting that his conclusions that Spaniards primarily descend from the Neolithic Mediterranean seafarers also conincides with modern genetic studies[58]17 ? Also, I may not be from Spain but like I said, I do know and have several friends and peers who are from Spain or of Spanish background. Most of them agree with the main concept of ethnicity in general, that ethnic Spaniards can trace their origins as a people to Iberia. Indeed in this sense, the Portuguese are very much part of this people but in time developed into a seaparate people. If you go by the common origins definition for most ethnic groups, the Galicians, Catalans, Castilians who can trace most of their ancestry to the native Iberians illustrates my point. Culturally and linguisitically these peoples are also very close with all of them being derived from a combination of native Iberian and Latin with later much smaller subsequent influences. This distinguishes them from the older and more indigenous Basques as well as much more recent arrivals such as Roma/Gitanos.

I would also like to comment that Spaniards are not "mixed" in the sense of the very broad and heterogenours group of Hispanics. The Spaniards had some minor genetic influences from Roman, Greeks, Pheonicians and Berbers and cultural/linguistic influence was more noticeable, especially with the case of Romans. The people remain primarily descended from the native Iberians as is shown in genetic and anthropolgical studies quoted here and in the article.

The native Iberians article states how most scholars agree that they came with the large Neolithic Mediterranean migrations from the Eastern Mediterranean. [59] [60] This is the opinion of most scholars on the subject and should be mentioned in this article where I had edited it before.

My last point here is about the section in Ancestry in this article that states "Both genetically and phenotypically, they are similar to other Southern European populations such as the Portuguese and Italians". How can it be claimed they are phenotypically similar to Italians when the only referenced material here is GENETIC studies ? Unless you quote some physical anthropological work by Coon or some other source of information, "phenotypically" similar can't be entered here. Being of Italian origins on my mothers side, I can tell you there are similarities but also significant differences between most Italians and Spanish, and obviously also to a higher degree than between Portuguese and Spaniards.

Epf 18:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• I also think it needs mentioning that despite what some users claimed above, the ethnic divide between Roma/Gitanos and native "payo" Spaniards in Spain does exist and the boundaries between them aren't much better than in some other European nations. According to this this EU study [61] "The common perception of the Roma is negative and widely shared: they are seen as a group that is resistant to integration..." but "Public opinion shows that Spaniards are tolerant of differences in nationality, race or religion compared to other EU countries, while demands that minorities should assimilate into the majority culture are below the EU average." The report also mentions how Roma maintain much of their "customs, beliefs, common roots and identity". Epf 18:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

This was already mentioned in the section you unilaterally erased against the opinion of all spaniards which have visited this article.

• You mean against the opinion of some Spaniards and Spanish citizens/residents.

Epf is the King of Spain Spanish for you? He is much less Spanish than the Gypsies. He is a bourbon of French origin with no "Spanish blood" running through his veins. But he is the king of Spain.... So what do we do with him? Gitanos are also native. Dont go on about "native" payos. Say payos and Gitanos, that is enough... Cheers bro! If you want info about Gypsies i think u should ask Cassius since he has Gypsie family and is from Andalusia. I dont know much since in Canaries we have none or very few... (But I still know they are Spanish, perhaps more so than we are)--El chicharrero 00:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The monarchy of most countries do not have the same ethnic origins as the people in which they they represent. Sometimes they arent even born or raised in the nations they represent, lol. Even so, Juan Carlos does have primarily Spanish origins on his fathers side, and yes also is from the Bourbon line, tho this is a very old lineage and a very small part (in terms of percentage) of his ancestry. "Payos" is the term Gitanos give to the native peoples of Spain that distinguishes them from the Gitanos/Roma. Gitanos are not indigenous/native to Iberia or any other natoin they've migrated to or settled. Spanish (Galicians,Castilians, Catalans, etc.) and Basques are indigenous to Iberia. Epf 01:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we should stop accusing Epf of being racist. He works alot on these sites to make sure no one, particularly real racists from writing rubbish on these pages. He is simply wrong on one issue (and understandbly because the role of Gypsies in Spanish ethnicity is difficult to grasp if you do not know the country at all). --Burgas00 12:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

But Epf it is just your style in this discussion which is a bit irritating, especially because there is nothing you can come up with or say in this discussion that we dont already know... Gypsies are a very visible part of Spanish society, especially in the media and especially down south. Spaniards generally know everything about them. --Burgas00 12:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Final concensus version

Well, somebody pasted the new version in the article and I basically agree with it. It is way much shorter and looks more reasonable. Still it could be beautified a little bit. I insist that someone who can do it paste the Cavallí-Sforza´s map. It is meaningful and also beautifies that part of the article that looks a bit arid without it.

I agree with it also. I have no problem with the Cavalli Sforza map. Go ahead, I dont think anyone else will be against pasting it on..--Burgas00 20:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

A vast improvement, showing both the unity and diversity - well done! Let the readers split hairs. 210.49.196.39 01:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I second that. Perfectly balanced and allowing for flexible interpretation without forcing any opinion on the reader. Thankyou for mantaining a sentence on the Canarians. I have the feeling that some contributors to this site consider us "unpure" and not worthy of being called Spaniards. In any case lets make sure no further modifications are made to the section, since the debate on its content had already been held.--El chicharrero 13:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I am spanish and no Spaniard has ever thought as the Canarians as being less pure Spanish. That is the problem with this genetic things. Quite often they come to stupid conclusions. In any case, I guess we will never come to a result that pleases eveyone, so let it be like taht.

I will introduce Cavalli´s map. I think an image is always welcome. I cannot insert the picture itself, so I am going to leave a link. Maybe someone here will insert the picture like before.

Well as a Spaniard: Do you see the gitanos as not being Spanish?

Of course they are Spanish, as Spanish as you can get. On the other hand they are a distinct ethnic group within the Spanish, because they have their own traditions and origins. In any case, Spanish people, usually, do not give a damn about genetic things or race. Social status has always been more important. If you are rich and educated it does not matter if you are ginato, payo, arab or from Venus.

Yeah thats your own communist POV. I dont think Spaniards "dont give a damn" about their ethnic characteristics and origins. Based on my own experiences in Spain and several news stories and official reports I've read on peoples in Spain, it would seem you are wrong. Peoples in Spain value very much their regional and ethnic identities, especially Catalans and Basques, with the latter having unfortunately a long history of sour opinioins towards foreigners in their land.

"Yeah thats your own communist POV..." wow wow wow... We have some serious (foreign thank god) wierdos in this debate. Is there no wierdo filter in wikipedia? Someone should work on one... In any case these "ethnic" pages seem to be attracting them...--El chicharrero 00:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

hahah, you are kidding. Maybe Wikipedia too should have a filter to prevent people with low intelligence from posting their opinions. Look at his comments: "Spanish people, usually, do not give a damn about genetic things or race. Social status has always been more important." You don't have to be a scholar to see the communist and marxist POV from this statement and from this user in general.

Well that statement is true. Look at Marbella and how people there worship arabs from the Gulf while despising arabs from North Africa...With Gypsies its the same, famous Gypsies who have "made it" especially in the arts are loved and respected in Spain by all, whereas racism towards Gypsies only appears towards poor Gypsies. In Spain racism is more classism than racism. I agree with the suppposed "communist". --Burgas00 12:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Do we all agree that Gitanos are "Spanish people", that Lola Flores was Spanish and that (unfortunately) so is Isabel Pantoja???

I think it is up to us Spaniards in this debate to decide, rather than race obsessed Epf who claims he can tell a Spaniard from a Portuguese just by looking at him while never having been to either country.

I vote YES--Cassius80 23:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

What the heck are you talking about ? "race" obsessed ? Just because it disagrees with your own POV ? Too bad. If you cant accept valid research and POV then go somewhere else. How is Epf's discourse anywhere associated with race ? He speaks of common roots and origins, otherwise known as an ethnic group, which may also have common culture, language, behanvioural, etc. traits.

Hehehe What about Paquirrin? Cant we make him ethnic morrocan or something?

I vote yes aswell. Gitanos are more Spanish than anyone. especially "la faraona". Chill with Epf, although i understand you must take this personally.--El chicharrero 00:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no "vote" on this. Read the information I've posted above under the Gitanos subsection. Gitanos are not a Spanish people in the way that Catalans, Galicians, Castilians etc. are. They are Roma and are not indigenous to any European country. They have had a nomadic lifestyle and identity for centuries and have always been considered separate from the indigineous people of whatever land they came to. Labelling them as ethnic or indigenous Spanish is not only false, its an insult to them as a people. Also I nowhere stated I could "tell a Spaniard from a Portuguese" and the fact Ive never visited Iberia dosnt mean anything. Thats an ignorant statement considering one: I know many people from Spain and Portugal, and Toronto has one of the largest urban Portuguese populations in North America. There are people here of every ethnic origin. Even so, you dont need to be in a certain palce to study or have significant knowledge of the anthropology of peoples/ethnicities. I thought that was common sense, lol. This article is about the Spanish ethnic group, not citizens, residents or non-native peoples of Spain. Epf 00:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I vote YES... Gitanos are within the boundaries of Spanish ethnicity (as is repeated by Spaniards in this discussion: "they are more Spanish than any"). You can be Gitano, with French citizenship and still be ethnic Spanish. But Morrocan muslims living in Spain and having Spanish citizenship are NOT ethnic Spanish. Do you understand? --Burgas00 11:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Silly question...Is this what you guys are arguing about??? YES.

Well, I think Epf is right in most cases, he is well informed. Still, maybe Roma people are considered foreign in other countries, but not in Spain. As I said, they are a distinct ethnic group within the Spanish, not outside of the Spanish. Race in Spain has never played a major role. Socio-economic status and religion has. This is why if a Roma becomes rich or if he is just middle-class and educated and wants to integrate with the rest of the Spanish, the "racial" issue disappears at once. In fact, there is now an incredible amount of immigration into Spain, among these immigrants there are many Roma people form Romania, and Spanish people, although they recognize them as Roma, do to confuse them with the Spanish Roma.

Yes although the basic proof of their Spanish ethnicity in my opinion is the comparison with, for example, Muslim Spanish citizens in Ceuta. These are not ethnic Spanish but berbers, having a different culture, language, religion etc... Gitanos are a subethnicity of the Spanish ethnicity rather than a separate ethnicity. Aslo it must be remebered that a Spanish Gitano has nothing in common culturally with a Roma from Rumania, Bulgaria or any eastern european country.

Well I wouldnt say they have "nothing in common" with other Roma otherwise they wouldnt be classified Roma/Gitanos at all. They still do share some degree of common origins, language and/or cultural/behavioural traits. Epf

Return of the Gitanos

You are right,Epf has handled this page and other pages in a very professional and informed way. But on this particular issue he is wrong... The question is how do we reinsert reference to Roma... I am going to propose a new version to see if we all agree.

Spain is home to a large number of Spanish-Roma (Gitanos). Roma are a formerly-nomadic group, originating in Northern India, which spread across Western Asia, North Africa and Europe, reaching Spain in the 15th century. Gitanos, for a number of historical and cultural reasons are not considered a separate or "foreign" population in Spain, but a distinct sub-ethnicity which overlaps the wider Spanish ethnicity. This is not generally the case in other European countries. There are no official statistics on the Gitano population in Spain. Estimates range from 600 000 to 800 000, making Spain, together with Romania and Bulgaria, home to one of the largest Roma communities in Europe. Over 40% of Gitanos live in the region of Andalusia, where they have traditionally enjoyed a higher degree of integration than in the rest of the country. A number of Spanish Gitanos also live in Southern France, especially in the region of Perpignan. Gitanos play a central role in Spanish folklore, music and culture aswell as in Andalusian identity itself. On the other hand, they also suffer the mistrust and rejection of a large part of the wider Spanish population.

Please discuss:

changes look good cassius...

I dont consider myself wrong Burgas, but, we need to reach a consensus. I like what you have above, but something like the EU report should be used as a reference for numerical estimates, even if it is from 2002-2003. As long as something states how Gitanos are a disinct "sub-ethnicity" in Spain with non-Iberian/non-Euorpean roots and a distinct (and proud) culture/traditions and language which distinguishes them somewhat from the native Iberian Catalans, Galicians, Castilians, etc. Them being in Spain for a signficant period, as would also be the case for Jewish peoples that still remain there, definitely distinguishes them from more recent immigrant and immigrant-descended groups. I do not think the comment on Spain having a high immigration rate (which was there originally) should be included as it really has nothing to do with this article or ethnic Spanish people. Epf 05:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Well as for the Spanish jews, due to the inquisition forced conversion/expusion etc... there is not a huge ammount of them. As far as I know most of the Spanish (sefardite jews) live in the cities of Ceuta and Melilla and Malaga area, a large ammount lived in Spanish Morroco, in any case alot of them have emmigrated to France. I dont think they are worth mentioning, although they are Spanish and have kept the Spanish language and culture even in Morroco and France. Numbers of jews in Spain is rising rapidly, however this is due to immigration from Argentina. These jews are not of Spanish but of polish (ashkenazi) origin, and cannot be considered "ethnic Spanish".

I agree, if we want to be "purist" we must not include reference to immigration. Its a pity though... I will include a sentence on indian roots of gitanos somewhere, see if you agree...

We are going to have to start a totally new debate on the "Iberians" (the original ones) as this issue is also quite complex.

--Burgas00 11:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• I agree, references are definintely needed for the ancient Iberians article and we should eventually discuss how it can be improved. Information on immigration in Spain is lacking on the Demographics of Spain article and I think it should be improved upon there. This makes sense considering immigration is such an imporant current issue in Spain. Ciao, Epf 10:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

As to this contribution about the Gitanos, I also think it is a good one, but I think the article section looks now quite reasonable. We should not start adding other things that would make it longer again.

This whole article is pretty much wrong I think something should be done about it.

Well this whole article I have a problem with because for one Spaniards like the British(recently found out to some) are a mixture of Celtic ,Nordic and Meddteiterran. You can even see this information stated on the CIA world fact book for Spain. So i dont get why this article is saying things that are just wayyyy out there for what I normally heard of the Spanish. If the Spanish werent Nordic why would there be so many blondes in Spain. Most Spaniards are light skinned and resemble more the British then anything else. Unlike Sicilians. Also [62] what I have found is that there acutally very little Moorish influence in spain unlike what most think today. The article also states clearly that Spaniards and North Africans are VERY different. So this article seems almost completely worthless and should be greatly edited. I found something very simular with the British. Again proving these two articles need to be changed very much.[63] (XGustaX 22:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC))

Oh noooo! Another moron (a swedish moron from Argentina, how exotic!) Please go away. How about you visit Spain (actually dont) or turn on the tv and look at famous Spanish people like Penelope Cruz or Antonio Banderas... The best thing is when u say the Spanish resemble the British... Yes we are nordic like you, pure blood aryans with blue eyes and blonde hair. Btw why do you pick on the poor sicilians? Ive been to Palermo they are pretty normal looking, definitely aryans aswell...--83.33.227.182 22:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Lol, I'm not even gonna get in to this but those are some really unfounded and ridiculous comments by Gusta.

Well Gusta, I do not want to offend you, but your comments are not worth further discussion. You should get more reliable feedback than the one that you obviously have.

As to the comment about the ¨poor Sicilians¨ I know that it is not ill-intentioned, but I have known a few Sicilians and I think they are among the most self-confident people that I have met. They would probably smile at that patronizing comment. In any case, genetically they seem to be close to the Greeks. It would be hard for me to find another genetic link to feel more proud of.

This article is not historically accurate

First of all, preroman inhabitants of Spain were not only Iberians. In the North and Northwestern regions (including most of Castile) the population was of indoeuropean atlantic origin. The celtiberian tribes from the Meseta were ethnic celts with Iberian cultural features. Galicia and Asturias show a strong Celtic (or pre Celtic, it´s been discussed) atlantic ethnicity. The claim that the former inhabitants of Spain were Mediterraneans before the Roman conquest is untrue for most of the north and western regions. Most of the preroman names of villages are western indoeuropean (wether Celtic or not). Iberians, as a tribe, set their realm in Eastern parts of the countries.

And, indeed, there is Nordic influence (meaning Germanic, not Atlantic) coming from Visigoths, Suebi, etc.

The most related peoples (Portuguese and Italians) show the same mix heritage of Mediterranean, Germanic and Celts (north Italy was populated by Gauls), and Ligures are a nowadays claimed by some people to be the origins of Astures. So,the evident Italian and Spanish similarity does not come just from the Roman times.

Nowadays, there are two facts to consider about Spanish ethnicity:

1. it is very difficult to tell apart the origins of the people of the cities, because of the mixtures occured in last century due to migrations
2. in rural areas, the difference between Northwest, East and South is avowed. (I am astonished at the claim that Catalans are fairer and taller, in fact, in the north they are regarded as the typical mediterranean people, quite short).

Xareu bs 08:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems this man is from Asturias. For those who don't know what Asturias is, it is a small region on the northern coast of Spain. Its inhabitants are also typical mediterranean and quite short. But a few Asturians desperately want to be considered "Celtic", even though no one takes them very seriously. Their own language is (and always has been) a Romance language called Asturiano. There is a well known Asturian saying, known all over Spain, which says : "Asturias is Spain, the rest is conquered land". They say this because apparantely Asturias is the only region in Spain never to have been conquered by the Arabs, and because the reconquest started in Asturias. Some Asturians are very proud of this and it helps counter the reality that Asturias is one of the poorest and least significant parts of the country. Asturias is beautiful though, and worth the visit. --Cassius80 10:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

No one is pretending to be Celt. In fact, what I am stating is that Galicia and Asturias have indoeuropean feartures in a greater extent than other parts of Spain. It is now being discussed wheter Celtic of not. Leaving apart music (have you heard of Loriènt?) mithology, old habits, etc, show this heitage. Abour height: nowadays, Spain´s average height (in the whole country) is no longer regarded as short.In fact, I heard that for men under 30 it was the second largest in Europe. Short stature of older people can be put down of the very bad life conditions after the civil war. Though I dislike this kind of surveys, did you know that, according to a resarch carried out in the 70´s in rural areas, 40 percent of the population were blonde and 70 percent had either green, blue or gray eyes? (By the way, to hell with such studies, they seem rather Nazi) FYI, Asturian, being a Romance language (and we´re very proud of it) has got a prelatin substrate (whatever it may be), still evident in places names. And poorest? Asturias average family income is still over the national rate (consult La Caixa accounts), in spite of industrial crisis.Xareu bs 11:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It is true there is a physical difference (albeit very diffuse) This is also because rural areas in asturias and galicia are generally mountainous and isolated which leads to genetically recessive features (like fair eyes) appearing more commonly. As for Asturias being above the national average income, I really dont agree with this, Asturias, Galicia, Extremadura and Andalucia have always been the poorest regions of Spain, (Catalonia, Madrid, the basque Country and Valencia being the richest). I guess I will have to look it up. Also I dont agree that the meseta region was purely celtic at any time in preroman history, there must have been Iberian (or other) tribes living in these lands when celtic indoeuropean peoples moved into the area. On the other hand, Xareu, you are right to point out that Iberians were present only on the Eastern coast of Spain. Modern day Andalusia was neither Iberian nor celtic but Turdetanian (heirs of the Tartessians), a people of unknown origin, but who's culture and language was Levantine (they wrote from right to left like modern day semitic languages).

Cassius, there is a racialist component in the historical roots of northern Spanish nationalism (be it Galician, Asturian, Basque or Catalan) but you can't justify your (subtle) accusations of racism, on the basis of Xareu's contribution. --Burgas00 12:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I still havent recovered from my bout of Asturian bashing, I think "La Leti" has something to do with it.:-) In 2000, GDP of Asturias was 86% of national average. Well, this is still higher than the CA I'm from... Btw, what about the Astures? Who were they?? I don't think they were a celtic tribe...--Cassius80 14:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I´d prefer you not to mention "la leti" please, she gives me the creeps. I don´t agree with the fact that Asturias was always poor. In fact, when heavy industry (its economical basis in the past)was living its heyday in 1957,Asturias was the fifth richest province in Spain (out of 50, it´s not a bad position). Of course, Spain then was a impoverished country, so I admit it was not a really rich region. Average PIB (GNP) it´s lower than national average (I guess this 86%) but very well paid early retirements of miners(due to reconversion) explain that family incomes are over average, which has brought the region to stagnation, in fact.

For the part of Astures it is not known whether they were Celtic or not. They were indoeuropeans, for sure (all archeological remnants and place names, as I´ve said, point this). There are evident signs of influence of cultures like Hallstatt, but as for Celts there is not a definite evidence. Roman descriptions, the main source, describe their living, and after their descriptions Astures may be regarded as Celtic. Lug, their main god (its name surviving in modern town of Llugones, in Asturias, and Lugo, in Galicia) was a Celtic deity, but was worshipped by other indoeuropean tribes. Typical popular art and mythology was regarded as Celtic in the past (myths, the triskel) but now it is known they are features commom to various indoeuropan tribes, not necessarily Celts. But if you know the NW of Spain and Portugal, and see the similarities between those regions, you may realize that they share a common base, whatever it may be.--Xareu bs 17:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Xareu, come on, all these issues are quite popular now since a lot of regional parties live off regional nationalism, but it is not objective. We are repeating the same discussion over and over again. Anyway, if you want to reduce it to how people look, you just need to travel a little bit to see the physical homogeneity of the Iberians, including the Portuguese, if you see with objective eyes and not cherry picking here and there. If you want to relate it to languages, if the same criteria were followed in countries like France or Germany, to establish the existence of distinct languages, those countries would explode in a fireworks of languages. If you want to concentrate on genetics and look at the global picture, not cherry picking here and there again, the Iberians are all extremely similar. It has already been proven that Iberians are Mediterraneans, possibly with some Nordic influence, no one denies that, but a marginal influence. Besides, do not think that because someone is blond they are of Nordic origins. Mediterraneans also show some degree of blondism, though most of them are brunet, in the same way that Nordics tend to be blond but some of them are brunet. I am from Extremadura myself. I am 6´4¨ feet tall (1´95), quite taller than my father, which happens to occur quite often now in Spain, and who happens to be blond and blue-eyed like my sister, and I am brunet with brown eyes and relatively dark complexion. I can tell you that I share the same genes than my father or my sister. Physical appearance alone is not a reliable reference in these issues, it can change a lot due to enviromental, economic and social factors, you have said it yourself.

It´s funny, I think we (last posts) are all Spanish, and here we are. I agree to a certain extent with this homogenity. Leaving apart people from Canarias, Basques, and from some zones of Andalusia, you cannot tell where a single person is from. But, as a group, there are statistical differences. And always taking into account the big migrations during the Reconquista, both cultural and ethnical (for example, northern Extremadura spoke a dialect of asturleones until XX century, I don´t know if there is any remnant, I hope so). Nordic (Germanic)influence is not very big, but not small either. They came (at least this is what I recall) 300.000 Visigoths, when Hispania population was 6 millions. It is not much. But you should bear in mind that, partially preroman population was already from Nordic and Atlantic origins. And Roman themselves where partially of this origin. Many Roman soldiers who came to Spain were Italics or Gauls, and they established here,like the founders of León (Legio Gemina). In fact, the least "Nordic" genetic traces come from the Germanic tribes. Indoeuropean languages were spoken in the centre, north and northwestern parts (excluding Basques, who in that age lived more in what was later called Aquitania than in the current Basque Country). When discussing this age, it is nearly always simplified. By that time, what is now Spain was already quite diverse. I would like to know more, for example, about Tartessos, which I find quite interesting (and even,let me say it, misterious). Portuguese and Italian people, which are very close to us, share the same intermingling. Why are we, following this Mediterranean theory, much more similar to an Italian than to a Greek, or a Lebanese? They are both Mediterranean. --Xareu bs 20:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's see.

1. Germanic does not equal Nordic.

2. Celtic does not equal Nordic.

3. Indoeuropean is a linguistic group that includes languages like Greek, Latin, Sanscrit, Germanic, Celtic: It was a language, not a racial concept. Germanic languages were just a group of the many groups that comprise Indoeuropean languages.

4. Iberian people seem to be closer related to Italian people than to Greek or Libanese people, but that does not mean that Iberians are not linked to those people. In fact we are, that is why we can be considered a Mediterranean people. Of course this does not mean that we have no connection with other Non-Mediterranean European peoples. All Europeans are also connected, but we have more things in common with the other Mediterranean peoples of the Northern shore of the Mediterranean, especially the Italians, but also the Greeks or the Lebanese.

5. It is true that genetic research is showing especial links between Iberia and other European regions like the British Isles. But that is not because we have links to them; they have links to us: the theories resulting from those findings point to people migrating North from Iberia thousands of years ago, not vice versa.

To Xareu, maybe you have never been to Greece or Lebanon but in both these countries there are (not few) people who are more blonde and blue eyed than any Asturian! And in general neither people are very different to Spaniards. Greeks have the luck of being, as they say, a "brotherless people" which is, for them, a source of pride considering they invented Western Civilisation single-handedly.

The number of Visigoths in Spain was, according to most estimates between 100 000 and 200 000 people. This is still quite a large number in my opinion. The visigoths, although a minority and of completely foreign origin, have been very important (in the past) to Spanish identity, being the source of legitimacy of the Reconquest and of the later Spanish state. If you guys are old enough, you will still remember with dread the lists of the Reyes Godos you had to learn at school.

As to what Spaniards are, we could argue endlessly. In my opinion, we are a bit of everything, a bit of the north, a bit of the south, a bit of the east and a bit of the west. This is not surprising, since we are in the middle;-).

Maybe thats what it means to be Mediterranean.

--Cassius80 22:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I do agree. I´d only like only point out that by Nordic I was meaning non-Med, and that I know that Greeks, Latin (and other isolated languages such as Albanian), etc, are all indoeuropean, but Iberians weren´t. About Lebanon, it´s a quite interesting fact. There are said to be many descendants of Crusaders.--Xareu bs 09:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that despite your discussions and your seemingly opposity views, none of you people seem to disagree with what is written on the ancestry section, which is credit to the person/people who wrote it.--Ismael76 23:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You are right. We spent a lot of effort to come to this version. It is an ok version, but it is the consensus reached after a long discussion, so, I think we should put this issue to rest now.

In response to Xareu: But it is not because of the Crusaders. The most valid theories at the moment point to the Mediterranean Europeans, and possibly many other Europeans, to stem from migrations from East to West in Neolithic times, precisely coming from the area where Lebanon is at the moment: In short, DNA research is showing that the basis of the population of most Mediterranean Europeans, and I think of most other Europeans, stems from prehistoric times. The population movements in historic times, extremely short in comparison to prehistoric times, have not altered the composition of these populations in a significant way.

Yes, it is true that the version we came to is pretty good. I guess we are just arguing out of interest in the issues more than because we want to change something on the section... On the issue of preroman history I have to admit that I am more ignorant than I should be and that it is a bit of a lío working out which tribe was what, where and when. Apparantely there were were the Pre indoeuropean basque-like tribes which were all pretty similar, and were all over the place originally (see eliberri). The Indo european (or maybe not??? Im not sure) Iberians in the East, and the Indo European Celts in the North and West, which were divided in different tribes. In the south, the Tartessians/Turdetanians were probably of North African origin and with phoenician/egyptian cultural traits (vamos, que eran moros). Then there were the Greek and Phoenician colonies and later the Cathaginians who took over the whole lot until the Romans defeated them.--Cassius80 16:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)