Jump to content

Talk:Spaniards/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Genetic history of the Iberian peninsula

This discussion is also taking place at Talk:Portuguese people.

Considering the permanent reversions of content in the Genetics section of both this article and the Portuguese people article (editions looking forward to differentiate between the genetic background of Iberian populations), and considering that the Genetics sections of both articles are almost identical, with only a few minor divergences, I think it is time to create a Genetic history of the Iberian peninsula common article, and redirect from here. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 15:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I had been thinking about proposing the same thing. --Jotamar (talk) 12:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
That section is a complete and utter mess. To show that about 7-10% of Spaniards present North-African (Moorish) genetic markers (which is not unusual for a European country) the section is a lot larguer than what corresponds to the other 90%. It is also nonsensically divided, "Middle Eastern" genes in Spain are actually very rare, most of that section is about North African frequencies. Also the CIA quote about "mixture of Mediterranean and Nordic types" is amazingly innacurate for today's standards. And, is really so important to gain insight into Spanish people to devote most of this article to genetics? It's like if there is a weird emphasis to "prove" some myths and century-old stereotypes about Spaniards, despite what most studies say. Carlos--83.33.133.239 (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC
I also agree. It's a way too long section for something so specialized. It should be relocated in another article, deleted, or shortened to a few lines. --Infinauta (talk) 09:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I also agree. I mean, one has to be blind not to see it. John. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.55.202.122 (talk • contribs)
Finally it seems most people agree to relocate. I shall proceed.--Infinauta (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Done.--Infinauta (talk) 15:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I tend to desagree. All "people articles" tend to have a genetics sections, and so should the Portuguese and Spanish ones also have. Of course that article could be created, and the stuff in these 2 articles somewhat sumarized. But those sumaries should remain.

Having said this, it is also true that these 2 sections on Portuguese and Spanish genetics tend to be a battleground between those trying to make them "nordic" and those trying to make them "black moors" or someting. The Ogre (talk) 12:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I tend to disagree with your "desagree". It is false that all "people articles" tend to have a genetics sections. You can read English, irish, germanic, french, etc pages... neither of those "people articles" have a genetics section.

Since when is R1b, the most frequent male hap in Spain "Nordic", and N, the most frequent female hap in Spain "Nordic". Spain seems to have much more of these than the "Nordics". What happens is that some people continue to fall for cheap Nordicist, Neo-Nazi propaganda. John. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.125.185.140 (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Orge lets refrain from using terms such as "Nordic" let's not have that because the trolls come out to play and turn this into a 19th century moot discussion that is irrelevant,by the way RB1 is most common in western Europeans particularly among Spaniards Portuguese French British Isles peoples not Scandinavians who are the only people that should properly be called Nordic because they are commonly refereed to as the Nordic countries of Europe,the problem here is genetics is not an exact science apparently different studies insinuate different things and it gets into people trying to use DNA haplogroups to be suggestive,i do agree not all peoples articles do,another reason i don't like them is because they tend to be confusing ,not that i am saying one should not be here but it should be limited( these sort of genetic sections seem to get out of control) to what is commonly is demonstrated that Spaniards are descended mainly from Iberians with smaller genetic contributions from others that have past through such as Moors Visigoths and various other people that have past through the region.--Wikiscribe (talk) 04:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Vote

I see sufficient support for this. Is anyone here bold enough to start the new article? Should we vote before? Salut, --IANVS (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's vote. I say YES, if, of course, the present articles on Spaniards and Portuguese maintain a samll section about genetics. The Ogre (talk) 12:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Please don't start any article as it already exists here: Genetic history of the Iberian Peninsula.--Infinauta (talk) 14:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


I totally agree: Portuguese People are NOT the same as Spanish People and therefore an "Iberian Genetic" section makes no sense. I find it pathetic that the Spaniards try to manipulate by every means possible here on Wikipedia and everywhere they can the fact that they are the nation with by far the highest Arab, Berber and Jewish blood in Europe. It's so amusing! There is little genetic, ethnic or cultural difference between Portuguese and Galician-Asturian. Portugal got rid of their Moors some 300 years earlier than Spain, Spanish has over 4,000 Arabic words, arabic cuisine (paella being just one of endless others), arabic music and dance (Flamenco)... come on Spain BORDERS with Morocco and haves "enclaves" in Morocco to this day so who are you idiots trying to fool? It's pathetic and sad that Spaniards even try to refute Hispanic these days because they have this historical inferiority complex inbread in them: try and paint their nextdoor neighbour Portugal as "more Moorish". Get a life you arseholes :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.145.229.148 (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Most people who jump into these arguments are complete ignoramuses in the most elementary matters and difficulties in the science of population genetics. They grab haplogroup results that suits them to push their various agendas without realising that haplogroup results on their own mean very little, as over the centuries and millenia they diverge enormously from the original input because of such things like genetic drift, founder effect and population bottlenecks, and that's only the beginning of the problems population geneticists face. In the second most mountainous country in Europe such effects are magnified as the populations were small, scattered and isolated. If you really want to see how Iberians relate to other populations you need carefully conducted and extensive autosomal based studies. You can see a comparison on the genetic history of europe page under the subheading 'Autosomal genetic distances (Fst) based on SNPs (2009)'.

Has anyone forgotten the huge Native American imput through immigration from Latin America? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.111.112 (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

30% of Spaniards are descendants of Jews or North Africans

It's quite curious how some IPs from Spain go on and on when it comes to hiding some very well known genetic studies of Spanish population, which show, for example, that at least 30% of Spaniards are descendants of Jews or North Africans, among many other details they know very well. Actual version of this article says: "Genetic studies, both autosomal and of haplogroup markers, show clearly that Spaniards are closely related to the rest of Europe, and in particular with the population groups of the Atlantic littoral: France, Britain, Ireland, and its Iberian neighbour, Portugal". Its is extremely scandalous the way the most reliable information is hidden here. Please, let's make a serious article because this is radically hilarious.--77.27.89.106 (talk) --77.27.89.106 (talk) 00:23, 25 December 2013 (UTC)00:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)All the reliable information say that its not true. You can check any paper about spanish adn and you will see it... ("El mundo" is not a credible source). Probably you believe that spaniards are trying to denying themselves and they fel asahmed of their northafrican an arab ancestry. The true (and all serious dna study say that northafrican admixture is 7% and that recent arab admixture is negible. By dna spaniards are a clearly european folkin terms of adn composition............... I know, spaniards have olive skin and moors have founded several reigns there. But, again thats the dna studies say.

Source:

Uno de cada tres españoles tiene marcadores genéticos de Oriente Medio o el Magreb

■Un análisis genético revela que uno de cada cinco españoles tiene ascendencia judía ■Uno de cada 10 tiene genes heredados de los habitantes del Norte de África

PEDRO CÁCERES MADRID.- Desde el momento en que los Reyes Católicos tomaron la decisión de expulsar a judíos y musulmanes de su Reino, la limpieza de sangre se convirtió en una cuestión fundamental en la sociedad española. Provenir de una familia de cristianos viejos o ser descendiente de musulmanes o judíos suponía obtener un certificado de ciudadanía de primera. Esa discriminación ha desaparecido afortunadamente en nuestros días. Pero ¿cuál es en realidad el vestigio genético dejado por ocho siglos de presencia musulmana en España y muchos más de convivencia judía?

La genética aporta algunas respuestas. Científicos de la Universidad de Leicester (Reino Unido) y la Universidad Pompeu Fabra de Barcelona han estudiado el cromosoma Y de los ciudadanos peninsulares y de Baleares y lo han comparado con muestras de norteafricanos y judíos sefarditas para llegar a la conclusión de que uno de cada tres españoles tiene ascendentes moriscos o judíos.

La investigación, publicada por la revista científica ‘American Journal of Human Genetics’, revela que un 10% de la población actual tiene características genéticas propias de los habitantes del norte de África y un 20% de los judíos sefarditas.

Para llegar a esta conclusión, los científicos, liderados por el británico Mark Jobling, llevaron a cabo un análisis del cromosoma Y, únicamente presente en los hombres y que se transmite de padres a hijos, de 1.140 individuos de la península Ibérica y las Islas Baleares.

El investigador de la Unidad de Biología Evolutiva de la Universidad Pompeu Fabra Francesc Calafell explica que las muestras analizadas se compararon con las de judíos sefarditas y de individuos del norte de África, que tienen la ventaja de ser muy diferentes a las poblaciones receptoras originarias de la Península Ibérica, por lo que su diferenciación es sencilla.

La investigación se centró en el análisis del cromosoma Y porque no se recombina en la reproducción, lo que hace que sólo las mutaciones lo modifiquen, por lo que los científicos pueden determinar su orden de aparición.

El doctor Calafell matiza que mientras los datos obtenidos para el origen norteafricano apenas arrojan dudas metodológicas y parece plausible que un 10%de la población proceda de musulmanes norteafricanos llegados a la Península a partir del 711, los marcadores genéticos usados para distinguir a la población con ancestros sefardíes pueden producir distorsiones.

En realidad, la pista genética usada en este caso también es compartida por pueblos de Oriente Medio desde Turquía hasta Líbano, con lo que en realidad, ese 20% de españoles que el estudio señala como descendientes de sefardíes podrían haber heredado ese rasgo de movimiento más antiguos, como el de los fenicios o, incluso, primeros pobladores neolíticos hace miles de años.

Pese a la decepción que esto supone para esclarecer la huella real de los judíos en España, el estudio sí arroja curiosas y sorprendentes revelaciones respecto a la presencia norteafricana. Así, por ejemplo, los investigadores encontraron que la presencia de genes norteafricanos es mayor en la mitad occidental (León, Salamanca, Zamora...) de la península que en la oriental (Granada).

Ese dato concuerda perfectamente con los registros históricos. Tras la revuelta de los moriscos en el siglo XVI, la mayoría de ellos fue deportado de sus lugares de origen en Granada y llevados al exilio al noroeste de España. Quinientos años después, el genoma de los españoles lo muestra: hay más descendientes de moriscos en la plaza de Salamanca que en el Albaición granadino. Calafell también apunta a las deportaciones de moriscos desde las Alpujarras granadinas a ciudades de Castilla y León en el siglo XVI.

http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2008/12/04/ciencia/1228409780.html

RIDICULOUS NUMBERS When Wikipedia uses the term "people" they mean people in the World of any ancestry. For example, they include 6 million "French", 3 million "Germans", 20 million "Italians" and 1 million "Poles" in Argentina even if most of them don´t have neither the nationality of their ancestors, and usually are mixed with people from other ethnic bakcgrounds. In the U.S. there are over 50 million "Germans" and 17 million "Italians" even if they don´t have neither German nor Italian passport, they are neither German nor Italian citizens (with some exception).....So why in the SPANISH case it is the ONLY EXCEPTION in Wikipedia? If we use the same theory as in other groupls there would be over 300 million pepole of "SPANISH" ancestry in the World. For example, about 70 million Mexicans have Spanish ancestors even if usually mixed with Native ancestors. For example, in Brazil there are more than 15 million people with Spanish ancestry according to their own estimates. For example, in Cuba there are over 9 million people of Spanish ancestry (part of them mixed)...And so on, and on. There are more than 300 million "SPANISH PEOPLE" in the World given the high degree of interbreeding in the former Spanish colonies.--88.9.128.83 (talk) 00:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It's because most of the people in the USA with German or other Euro ancestry are mixed with other European ethnicities (the same race), while most Mexicans are of Spanish descent, but mixed with a non-European ethnicity (they are mixed with another race). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.196.87 (talk) 05:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
There is so much confusion here. Most Spaniards have jewish and north african ancestors - but that only accounts for 3 or 4 percent of their genetic inheritance according to autosomal tests. Think of it like this - if you had one Japanese ancestor 10 generations ago that would mean you had Japanese ancestry but genetically (assuming you are a European) it would be insignificant, you would be overwhelming European by ancestory and to call you Japanese would be stupid. Fst tests to find out who Spaniards are most closely related to find they are closer to the French than anybody else, and then the north Italians and southern Germans. Is that any surprise? It should also be pointed out that until the year 2000 there was very little immigration into Spain from anywhere. So Spaniards have not changed much at all for several thousand years.

NEW GALLERY - Only one woman and five imagined images

the new selection of people are terrible.. and almost all men! don't women exist in Spain? Plus it looks extremely sqauashed up and doesn't look professional at all. just a thought.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.78.144.145 (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Exactly my thoughts - only one woman! But that's not the only problem with the Hispanos mural.jpg. The images of Averroes, Maimonides, Abd-ar-Rahman, El Cid and Hernan Cortes are totally imaginary, created centuries after their decease by artists who never saw them. The faces of Lucius Annaeus Seneca, Manuel de Falla and Francisco de Quevedo are almost invisible. There is an over representation of Hispano Romans and Castilians but an under representation of people from other regions. The Hispanos mural.jpg image needs work. I've restored the the image Spanish people.png in place of Hispanos mural.jpg in this article.Provocateur (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I do not agree. The selection of characters is not significant. The former is infinitely superior.--LTblb (talk) 13:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
What is relevant is the contribution to world history, not whether a man or woman.--

LTblb (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The article is about Spaniards (including women) as a group, not about those who made a "contribution" to world history - a nice sentiment but immaterial here. What is material, here, are their faces. If you addressed the problems we raised above - ie - more women, (after all, from a Spanish point of view St Teresa and Rosalia de Castro made important contributions), using accurate depictions like the 16th century portrait of Cortes, not the 19th century engraving, images in which the faces were visible and accurate, not imagined, there'd be no dispute. (talk)
That's your opinion, with which I'm not agree at all. In other articles about people of countries with long history, like Spain, featuring characters with undeniable historical relevance, not whether they are male or female, or portraits conform to reality .....
Indeed, the image of Cortés is an engraving on an original Florence portrait, the best and most reliable portrait of the conqueror.
And do not edit the article while the issue is under discussion, please. --LTblb (talk) 02:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

well, since the person that maybe created the new photo...and clearly doesn't care whether there are women represented or not..heres the other problem....it looks amateur!...badly put together with the lines not symmetrical...it really could of been done better. Puertorico1 (talk)

I'm confused about Abd-ar-Rahman III. He was an Umayyad prince, was he an Arab or a Spaniard? Maimonides was a Sephardic Jew, its understandable why he'd count.PacificWarrior101 (talk) 05:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)PacificWarrior101
It´s easy. Spain has had eight centuries of Arab rule, and also Jews were in Sefarad for centuries and centuries. Of course Abd-ar-Rahman III was Spaniard, Spaniard-Arabic, and Maimonides Spaniard-Jewish. Spanish society has been for many centuries the most mixed and rich in the variety of all Europe. --87.223.124.123 (talk) 13:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I do not agree with Abd-ar-Rahman III being Spanish. It's like saying people from Gibraltar will eventually be considered Spanish if their government is defeated in war and the people still speaking English are expelled from the Spanish territories (this is what happened with religion, the central cultural aspect back then). Al-Andalus and the successive muslim kingdom are part of the spanish history, as is Spain part of French history, but considering the people living in those medieval Muslim kingdoms as Spanish is going too far. Same for Maimonides and Averroes --21 Agust 2013, BDL-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.136.8.109 (talk) 16:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

That's because you know nothing about the history of Spain. There are historical texts that speak about Spain as a nation -and Spanish people- long before the arrival of the Arabs. For example.- Historia de regibus Gothorum, Vandalorum et Suevorum by Isidore of Seville.

The ethnic configuration of the muslim kingdoms was not uniform -the main group were the Mozarabic- and one of its own characteristics, was the peaceful coexistence of different religious groups and racial mix. And when La Reconquista, most of the muslim were converted to Christianity and remained in Spain, only a very small part was ejected. The muslim conquest of Spain was a process of cultural transformation, rather than a military invasion.

Al-Andalus is not the story of a Muslim country in the world, Al-Andalus was Spain. And the Caliphate of Cordoba was a Spanish Kingdom, the same level as it was the Kingdom of Castile. It was not a kingdom of a foreign country, its capital was Cordoba -Spain-.The comparison with the colony of Gibraltar is simply ridiculous. --188.76.69.36 (talk) 18:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I still don't agree. I beleive they were mostly antagonistic. I wonder if there is any text written at the time of the Muslim kingdoms in the iberian peninsula that talk about Spain as being the union and not conquest of the Muslim and Christian kingdoms, I guess not. Mostly the christian kingdoms viewed themselves as inheritors of the Visigothic kingdom "Spain" and the Muslim kingdoms as aliens who had to be expelled. Even after the reconquista the population from those Muslim kingdoms was first forced to convert to Christianity, then Arabic names and customs were prohibited and finally many of the oficially converted Christians, the Moriscos, were still forcibly expelled. --25 August 2013, BDL-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.136.8.156 (talk) 03:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
That's not quite correct. The Muslim & Christian kingdoms were antagonistic ultimately, but not always and certainly not constantly. Also, the Arab-Berber conquest and rule was that of elite replacement and the elites were increasingly Latinized themselves both through intermarriage and through cultural interaction. The Muslim kingdoms were overwhelmingly Iberian in population (even with Christian converts) and the Caliph in question here, Rahman III, was ancestrally 3/4 Iberian and only 1/4 Arab-Berber (which, unless you're a racial purist and keep in mind these groups aren't that racially divergent, Rahman III is clearly an Iberian). Also, forced conversion was much more rare than people realize as the jizya or head tax was more of an incentive for people to convert and ruling Arab families weren't keen on sharing power. Many Visigoths who were ruling parts of Iberia converted to Islam because they were only recently pagan and wanted to remain in power for example. Of course, the two religious factions were in a back and forth struggle that raged throughout the Mediterranean and beyond, but as in the Crusader kingdoms, things weren't always simply about religion, but also about politics and shared common goals. Spain itself being a country of Iberian-Celtic-Latin background (similar to much of Western Europe) simply had a period of Muslim rule (as did places like Sicily and southern Italy), but it was a particular type of Islamic society in which a distinctly European culture flourished. Infodrunk (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

---

Two maps showing the big genetic picture of Spaniards in relation to other Europeans: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/science/13visual.html?_r=0

And: http://www.scs.illinois.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf

The first is autosomal, the second is based on lineage. Spaniards are neither more nor less mixed than any other Europeans (and we are all quite mixed, of course). That said, it is one of the few European countries with a clearly majority genetic lineage: R1b. Not even Germany, well known for its Nazi theories about purity, has a majority genetic line or haplogroup. Not even Scandinavia, often used in the propaganda of purity by Nordicists, has a clearly majority genetic line like Spain. That is science, the rest just rubbish.

Still, I do consider people like Maimonides or Averroes to be Spaniards. Or the Cordoba Caliphate part of Spanish history and very Spanish, and one of the most glorious periods of Spain. Spain has a long and rich history. In fact, the Muslim contribution to Spain and to the rest of Europe is vastly underestimated. Muslims, and the Caliphate of Cordoba played a major role, reintroduced in barbaric, backward Europe Greek philosophy, advanced medicine, algebra, the concept of zero, etc, including advances in navigation that enabled the discovery of the Americas and the later Spanish and European dominance in the world. In short, Spain, Europe and the entire world would not be what it is today without the Muslims and the Caliphate of Cordoba. Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.48.77 (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

By the way, why not introduce pictures of the national teams of the most popular sports in Spain: Soccer, Basketball and Handball. But all of them, not just individuals. The big picture again: http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/1713277/0/mundial-balonmano/espana-dinamarca/campeon/ http://espaafutbolclub.blogspot.com/ http://www.republica.com/2012/08/12/espana-conquista-la-plata-tras-un-partido-muy-igualado-frente-a-eeuu-107-100_534823/


Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.48.77 (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Moving from title "Spanish people" to title "Spaniards"

As mentioned earlier, since no opposition has been stated toe the proposal mentioned in a few sections above. Due to the policy of WP:COMMON NAME as per the Google search results below I am moving this article to the title Spaniards.

  • The Google search: "Spanish people" -wikipedia (excluding Wikipedia results) has about 3,550,000 results
  • The Google search: Spaniards -wikipedia (excluding Wikipedia results) has about 15,500,000 results

--R-41 (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, Spanish people is a better title than Spaniards. Anyway, that's my own idea! Thanks. Gabriel Stijena (talk) 02:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
this article is about spaniards as it excludes Spanish people in Latin America this title is misleading . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yosequetutienesunnuevoamor (talk • contribs) 18:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

"Presumed" Spanish Ancestry is Pejorative Heading

What does this mean "presumed" it makes it seem that Latin Americans are claiming a heritage not their own which is not the case. Even the "proper" Spanish people are only presumed to be so. This whole page reeks of discrimination against Latin Americans. At least change the wording presumed to something more appropriate. "I presume she is Spanish" "I presume he knows what he is talking about" in English it sounds condescending.

I've corrected it. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Some people obsessions and personal issues.

since the beginning of this article some users have demonstrated to be obsessed with genetic influences from the Middle East and North Africa. Even if genetic research has shown that these influences are minor and small, some people continue enlarging the space devoted to these genetice markers. It is all so funny. Both male and female gender transmitted markers, the most reliable for ancestry, show that Spaniards are precicely among the most characteristically Western European peoples. Some people here over and over again seem to dislike that fact. You, the people I mean who seem to be obssessed, may continue to add content to the same minority markers and end up, as the section alreay is, with more information devoted to margianl markers than to the majority markers, even if they have to stick to single studies never duplicated or confirmed by other studies. cherry picking is here the main issue. This agenda is all so obvious¡. Of course ter is abslotly noting wrong with Middle Eastern and North African influences. The question is why all this is happening over and over again in this article. Koon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.39.41.147 (talk) 10:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Wikipedia is a disappointing page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.145.16.10 (talk) 08:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It is quite clear that this is what is happening. Sadly now they have even replaced the pictures of current famous and important Spaniards with pictures of Moorish historical figures, who are arguably not what I would call Spaniard, or what most Spaniards would call a Spaniard for that matter. I propose that the collage be replaced with one containing a limited number of historical figures per period of history, and that includes an array of current prominent Spanish people. That means athletes (I would suggest the likes Andres Iniesta, Xabi Alonso, Juan Mata, Pau Gasol, etc.), artists (Enrique Bunbury, Javier Bardem, Plácido Domingo, etc.), the king, and maybe even some politicians. The historical figures should still be present, but they should be relevant, not obscure characters that only historians know about. This means for example the Catholic Monarchs, Hernán Cortez, Francisco Pizarro, Francisco Goya, Miguel de Cervantes, Salvador Dalí, Pablo Picasso, etc. If you look at the collages from other European countries, none of them include irrelevant Romans or Moors or Goths or other ancient peoples that happened to live in the region before it became the country in question. In conclusion, the collage should include mostly recognizable Spanish figures (modern and historical) and not obscure people that are arguably not Spaniards and that most people don't know about. I apologize for making this post so long. 201.200.37.126 (talk) 04:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Collage

Why are all those Romans and Arab/Berbers if they come from an era in which the Spanish nation didn't even exist?

I think the collage should be redone.

187.193.58.95 (talk) 07:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Basques etc

Article is bad and full of contradictions. Basques are presented as typical Atlantic, as if opposed to the rest of Iberians. This is of course based on the predominance of Rb1, which is close to 90 per cent in the Basque country, but it is about 80 per cent in Catalonia or even 70 per cent in the exteme Southern province of Malaga. 70 per cent is actually the average for Spain. Is is a shame, but this type of articles discredit Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.133.221 (talk) 14:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Trajan??

Emperor Trajan was not "Spanish", he was Roman. He was born in Italica, a Roman colony. His ancestry was Roman-Italic and Spain did not exist as a nation for near 1300 years after his death. Spain was several Roman Provinces at the time. He is not Spanish by either ancestry or birth and should not be in the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.229.208 (talk) 04:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree with you. This list of the "Spaniards" is a joke. The first encyclopedia in the world that shows that Trajan was a "Spanish Emperor." --2.33.180.86 (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It depends. You can use the term in a narrow or in a broad sense, like everything. The notion of Hispania, ancestor of the notion of present-say Spain, is thousands of years old and its inhabitants called Hispanos, even in Roman times and before. By the way, he was born in Italica, near Seville, Spain, and was made fun of in Rome for his provincial "Spanish" accent. Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.48.77 (talk) 03:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm gonna change the infobox. There's barely any women on here either.PacificWarrior101 (talk) 17:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)PacificWarrior101


Ha ha , then the Neanderthals who lived in Iberia 40, 000 years ago, and contributed 2% of the DNA to moderns, were also "Spanish" ??Slovenski Volk (talk) 15:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The 9,000,000 to 15,000,000 or so ´Spaniards´in Chile do not see themselves so.

Many Chileans would be offended by these figures as they do not consider their ethnicity or indeed ethnic origin as Spanish. In Chile, Spanish Chielans are only Spanish Civil War refugees and their descendents, as they have a cultural affinity to Spain.

Chile has it´s own culture distint to the Spanish one, and just because your country was colonised by Spain 500 years ago and you happened to have a Spanish conquistador or soldier as one of your ancestors don´t make you Spanish. Most Chileans, even though they might have one of the early Spanish settlers as an ancestor, mainly have origins in other European immigrants who came after independence from Spain and make Chile Chilean. Chile is not a cheap copy of Andalusia like it might have been in the 17th or 18th century. Chile is different. Indeed, Peru might be a cheap copy of Castile with the Quechua cultural influences, a Castile planted in the Andes, but Chile is not Andalusia planted in the Southern Cone. The huaso costume might have had its origins in the independence period just before the other Europeans came, but Chilean folk culture changed.

Spaniards are people who see themselves so and considers their cultural and indeen ancestral affinities with Spain, it isn´t someone who happens to have Spanish ancestry from the distant past. It is like saying that English people are Germans coz they are descended from Anglo-Saxons and speak a Germanic language or Americans are English people. You go round Chile telling people that they are ´Spanish´, they will not take it kindly as Spain was first an oppressor who kept the country poor, and secondly, an enemy. It is an insult to Chilean national identity and dignity to reduced them to and label them Spaniards. If in doubt go to the ´Spanish Chilean´ page.86.162.152.39 (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. The population figures are quite a sham! They imply that anyone having a Spanish ancestor is a Spaniard! The number should only refer to people who sel´f-identify as Spanish. The same used to happen in Portuguese people, with some editor trying to count almost any Brazilian as Portuguese. It was corrected and it also should be here. The Ogre (talk) 13:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree about the main issues. Anyway, I have to say that there is also some cheap coments there, like the Spanish keeping the country poor. After centuries of independence it is about time that you star taking responsability for yourselves. If you are not rich ask your own government and people. Kun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.12.154.14 (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The article is the spaniard ( spanish ethnic ) and the 52.7% of the chilean people is spaniard or spanish ethnic.- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.45.118.106 (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

What about the Basque and other "minorities" inside Spain?. Chiles is between 16% to 27% Basque and those may be included inside the Spanish national figures. Cause In English we make a clear distintion between English and Scottish or Welsh and we call all of them into a wider definition, the Britons. Unlike in the UK, in Spain the term "Spanish" is ambigous and can make reference to either, All spanish citizens or to people who do not belong to the Basque, Catalan, Galician and even some would say Andalusian cultural-etnic groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alejojojo6 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2015

"Middle Ages" name section please change to "Muslim Iberia/Al-Andalus"

Thank you

Melroross (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 18:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
The Middle Ages section covers both Muslim and Christian Spain, therefore I see no reason to change the section name. --Jotamar (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Indian people which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Abd al rahman shoould not be include as spaniard.

Abd al Rahman was an arab emir of Al Andalus, it should not be considered a spanish man — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.156.255.60 (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


Was he born in Iberia? Did he see himself as Iberian? IDK, I mean, did Trajan see himself as Iberian, Iberian-Roman or just Roman? These are tough questions, as these people did not live through the post enlightenment/French revolution era which saw the rise of nation states, and national identity, at least, in the modern form. Guy355 (talk) 11:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Al Andalus is not part of Spain, delete Abd-ar-Rahman's picture. If there was an idea of Spain back then, it belonged to the Christian kingdoms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.34.177.178 (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

This article should be about ethnicity and not about place of Birth. Abd Ar Rahman, Averroes, etc. should be included in the artile of Arabic people, not Spanish people. This is ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duquedearanjuez (talk • contribs) 10:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Spanish people to Spaniards

A page move was initiated by RGloucester it was then contested but then moved by another editor.

There is a note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spain checking for comment.

In comparison we use titles such as Danes but we also currently use Scottish people not Scots and British people not Brits. The Spanish equivalent of this page is at es:Pueblo español even though they have the option of using "españoles". GregKaye 06:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

"Spanish people" I thought "Spaniard" had an old-fashioned ring, and this Ngram chart supports that impression. Francis Drake sailed out to fight the "Spaniards", but today we go to Spain and meet "Spanish people": Noyster (talk), 09:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Nonsense. There is nothing "old-fashioned" about "Spaniards". "Spanish" is an adjective that can refer to things, places, people, organisations, a language, &c., so comparing a noun like "Spaniards" that can only refer to the people of Spain to a general adjective like "Spanish" is apples and oranges. Compare "Spanish people" and "Spaniards", the only comparable search terms, in Ngrams, and the results becomes clear: "Spaniards" is many times more common than "Spanish people". We do not use "Scots" because "Scots" is also a language, and hence ambiguous. "Brits" is American slang, and not in the encyclopaedic register. Regardless, please follow the WP:NCET convention. RGloucester — ☎ 15:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Excuse me? What proof do you have that "Brit" is an American slang, and not a worldwide slang? When I'm in Spain, I often hear people from the UK referred to as Brits by the Spanish People. In the OED it doesn't list "Brit" as an Americanism, simply as an abbreviated version of "British" ~~ipuser 90.192.101.114 (talk) 08:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I take it the WP:NCET link is deployed to recommend the "plural demonym" "Spaniards". Take what I know is a clearer-cut case: Switzers is available as a plural demonym; but this is demonstrably archaic, and few would recommend substituting this form for Swiss people. Well "Spaniards" as a collective term is slowly going the same way as "Switzers", as seen in The Oxford English Dictionary (italics as in the original):
Spaniard noun 1. A person of Spanish birth, nationality, or descent. Also (arch.) the Spanish people, forces, etc. collectively. (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 6th edition, 2007).
Another problem with "Spaniards" is that it strongly suggests the male. "She is/was a Spaniard" sounds odd, and here and here is Ngram again to show that this form is much less used in literature than "she is/was Spanish". Let's drop this obsolescent term with its connotations of conquistadores with bristling beards, and go back to "Spanish people": Noyster (talk), 11:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
"Spaniard" does not imply gender, and is not obsolescent, as the above sources show, and also as the Oxford Dictionary shows. You are right that one would say "She or he is Spanish" rather than "She or he is a Spaniard", but that's only because "Spanish" is the adjectival form of "Spaniard", which is a noun. Adjectives are used to describe people and things, whereas nouns are used to name a topic or subject or collective entity. Please adhere to the relevant conventions, English grammar, and to WP:COMMONAME. "Switzers" is archaic and not a valid comparison, unlike Spaniards, which is used by the media daily, such as in the Financial Times, The Local, and Olive Press. These are only recent examples, over the past few days. Notice that gender is clearly not implied in any of these articles. We follow RS definitions, not WP:OR based in malformed associations that certain editors have. By the way, your Oxford definition is referring to the usage of "Spaniard" in the plural without s, i.e. "the Spaniard". That was a former usage, now archaic. Please also see WP:PLURAL. RGloucester — ☎ 23:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

This is an interesting discussion, I am a native English speaker and 97% of the time I call people from Spain "Spanish"...and I hear this from most people that talk about them or bring up a discussion describing the people of Spain as millions of British people go to spain every year, I rarely hear "Spaniards".. but of course it does come up many times as well.Puertorico1 (talk)

Regional ETHNIC groups?? What is that? NO NEUTRALITY

I don't know who has invented that, if a spanish with a political separatist interest, or any foreigner with no cultural awareness about what is spanish society... but its quite stupid talking about regional ethnics. In Spain there are NOT any ethnical differences among regions. There are an ethnic mix, in the way that its ancestors come from iberians, celtics, romans, greeks, jews, and germans, but all that groups are all mixed in the whole country. It's absolutely FALSE that exist any ethnic difference by now, just are administrative (or even historical) regions. Anything else. Does it exist a "ethnical group" from Kansas or Colorado? Let be serious.. --FoxR (talk) 13:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Dear FoxR, your comment confuses ethnicity (which is defined mainly for cultural and sociological identity) with the "genetic" or worse, "racial" composition (this simply doesn't exist).
All peoples of the Spanish state, are ethnicities. My ethnicity, for example, is andalusian. Spanish is my citizenship, nothing more.
Spain has never been a cultural nation, there is no Spanish ethnicity, no Spanish people. There are several ethnicities "coexisting" (more or less) within the same state (unlike Germany or France who have annihilated the "regional" pre-existing ethnicities, but equally to the UK, or better to the former Yugoslavia or the Austro-Hungarian Empire). --188.82.138.141 (talk) 04:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with FoxR and fully disagree with the anonymous reply. In Spain "ethnicity" has no legal definition and is not a term used in political or social conversations except when it comes to gypsies / non-gypsies. To me, a Spaniard is simply someone who has a Spanish passport. I am going to request a reference for the very first sentence of this article. --Hispalois (talk) 07:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I ask editors to comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#The_necessity_of_galleries_of_personalities_in_the_infoboxes Hahun (talk) 10:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC can be found here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the articles about ethnic groups. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 03:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

This article has been reverted to eliminate edits by User:Lavezzicavani3, who by all indications appears to be returned serial copyright infringer User:Joeyc91. He has a broad history of copy-pasting content from his sources and from other Wikipedia articles without mandatory attribution and adding material directly translated from Italian sources in contravention of copyright policy and law. His history includes providing false attribution, generally by copying citations from the sources he has copied. Please do not restore material added by this user without thoroughly checking it for copyright concerns. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Outdated data

Never mind.

Genetics for ethnic groups RfC

For editors interested, there's an RfC currently being held: Should sections on genetics be removed from pages on ethnic groups?. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2016

112.202.12.180 (talk) 12:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Parenthesis on "with Germanic influence"

I don't know who added this parenthesis. I have looked up the source and it says nothing specific about the proto-castilian spoken in northern Spain being a "German-influenced" romance language. Early forms of Spanish had many influences, notably Arabic, but also others such as Celti-iberian, etruscan, basque, greek, gothic (the latter being Germanic) and probably a long etc... Same with all languages. Gothic influence is quite limited since the number of Visigoths who came to Spain were small and had already been significantly romanized prior to their arrival. The geographic origin of modern Spanish is a matter of dispute but that parenthesis is nonesensical. Northern dialects did not have more "germanic influence" than the Mozarabic dialect of Toledo particularly since the Visigothic capital was in Toledo. The limited germanic influence that all Romance dialects in modern Spain had was probably the same across all regions, except perhaps the far South East where the Visigoths were present only briefly due to lingering Byzantine rule.Asilah1981 (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The statement in parenthesis does not say "German", it says "Germanic". There is, of course, a large difference between the two. The "A History of the Spanish Language", pp,51, 173, 263 source cited has plenty to say on the subject. The "proto-castilian spoken in northern Spain" is never mentioned and serves only to side-step the discussion.
  • Section 1.3.1 ("The Visigoths") mentions introduction of noun-declensions and the suffix -engo (germanic '-ing') and the possible introduction of suffixes "-ez" and "-oz" in names (specifically patronyms).
  • Section 4.5 ("germanic borrowing")
So, again, you ask we ignore the source and instead rely on your say-so on the matter. I find it disappointing that I have to point out, again. Kleuske (talk) 11:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
There is wide consensus in works about the history of Spanish about this: the Germanic influence is very small if any. I've read Penny and I don't think his opinion is different. The mention of Germanic influence here is absolutely misleading. In an extensive work about Spanish, some links with Germanic will appear here and there, as with many other languages or linguistic groups: that means next to nothing. --Jotamar (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Kleuske I agree with Jotamar. Basque and Celitberian influence is perhaps worth mentioning, the former, by what I remember is responsible for the "f" disappearing and being substituted for the silent "h" and words as common as "izquierda" are of basque origin. Germanic languages have had negligble influence on the language. Since the word "pre-roman" includes both basque and other, I am changing one for the other. Asilah1981 (talk) 11:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Kleuske Just another point, you can find sources which will discuss all sorts of influence on Spanish: Greek, Romani, Sanskrit, French, Italian, Etruscan, Iberian, English, Hebrew, Phoenician, Celtic, Nahuatl and a long etc... It is up to us to make sure such sources are not used incorrectly to attempt to push a misleading POV, which is what has been done here. Removing the source and statement is certainly a wiser course of action than having to make the point with a dozen other sources which discuss other influences on early Spanish. Furthermore, sources do exist which clearly state how minor an influence gothic had on Spanish considering the few centuries they ruled the country. It is actually surprising how limited it is. It is not clear -ez is of Gothic origin (many theories propose a basque or latin origin) and native Spanish speakers know how rare the suffix -engo is. Asilah1981 (talk) 11:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Kleuske And finally, (this is particularly annoying considering how insistently you have been edit warring on this topic) the source you provide says literally on page 14 "The influence exercised by Visigothic on the latin of Spain was therefore small. Apart from a number of lexical loans, such influence is limited to a few morphological features."Asilah1981 (talk) 11:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Morphology is an important part of grammar, but Jotamar and you are right that many more influences exist and germanic is not a bit part of it. Since the consensus seems to be to omit it, i will drop the proverbial stick and admit that I stand corrected on that. Given your own style of discussion, though, you own at least 50% of the "editwar". Kleuske (talk) 13:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Kleuske Yes I most certainly do, but I am sure from now on we will keep it civil. :-)Asilah1981 (talk) 14:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Misrepresented population numbers

I wanted to inform the editors of this article that User:Asilah1981 has misconstrued the population numbers given here as the number of Spanish immigrants to America. These are estimates of the TOTAL populations of the American territories, not Spanish emigrants. My interest is limited to articles on Mexico and I removed the addition to Spaniards in Mexico (subsequently reverted). I have no desire to get into an edit war with this individual nor go through the other edits contributed by the user (including on this article). Xochiztli (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Yep, sorry my mistake, Xochiztli. Asilah1981 (talk) 21:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2016

I request to add the following line: Not to be confused with the term Hispanic Alexbmz (talk) 14:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — Andy W. (talk) 02:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Genetics section

I have removed the genetics section as per broad and long-standing consensus on the talk page. It had been agreed that it was a controversial topic subject to edit warring and the new version which an editor has been attempting to introduce (I believe written by him or herself) did not seem up to scratch. Better to stick to consensus.05:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Asilah1981 (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2017

Remove The Buddhist And Hinduism Part Off Of The Religion Part On The Spaniards 2602:30A:2CFF:8CB0:F0F3:29F8:6D6A:BDF6 (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — IVORK Discuss 01:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Spaniards. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Spaniards. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2017

Modify the following headings: "The peoples of Spain" and "The Gitanos" to "Peoples of Spain" and "Gitanos". 151.182.197.149 (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Why? RivertorchFIREWATER 20:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Is the norm in most articles here, is more encyclopedic, and sounds less like someone just put text from the Spanish article into Google translate and copied the results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.182.197.149 (talk) 01:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Could argue this either way, but on balance,  Done because WP:MOSHEAD indicates that guidelines for article titles should also be generally applied to section headings, and one of those guidelines reads:
  • Do not use A, An, or The as the first word (Economy of the Second Empire, not The economy of the Second Empire), unless it is an inseparable part of a name (The Hague) or it is part of the title of a work (A Clockwork Orange, The Simpsons).
Other views welcome. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Spaniards. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Unreliable source for "ethnic group"

I disagree with defining Spaniards as "an ethnic group". The reference provided in the text to justify that term is the book One Europe, Many Nations by James B. Minahan. There are two problems with this source. First, it says "Spaniards are an Iberian nation" - not using the term "ethnic group" at all. Furthermore, this book is strongly ethnicist and to me unreliable, written by "an independent researcher" with no apparent academic credentials who makes sweeping statements like "[the Catalans] are known for their energy and intelligence", or "the Swabians tend to be more blond and Nordic than other southern Germans".

I am going to remove that source and add a citationrequired template. At the same time, I am going to add the usual and at the same time legal definition of Spaniards: the citizens of Spain. --Hispalois (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the source looks unreliable and biased to me too. All these X people pages are a disgrace, however we shouldn't end up with legalistic definitions, otherwise we should explain that among minorities of Spaniards it is usual to drink mate or to eat cuys. --Jotamar (talk) 17:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

No Roman heritage??

"Historically, the Spanish people's heritage principally includes the pre-Celts and Celts (Celtiberians, Lusitanians, Gallaecians, Celtici) and Iberians, Carthaginians, Tartessians, Phoenicians and Greeks." No Roman heritage?? Hello!!!! This extensive list of contributions to Spanish heritage seems to gloss over the minor little detail that the Spanish language itself is in fact Romance!!! There were important Roman colonies in Spain (like Italica), and a number of Roman Emperors were from Spain, including Trajan, Hadrian, Theodosius I, Arcadius, possibly Honorius, and Magnus Maximus (usurper, partially recognized). Jacob D (talk) 16:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Jacob D

The list of ancestries, as well as that of related peoples, and really everything about these X people pages, is very subjective, and adding sources doesn't help much. So if you add the ancient Romans I won't complain and I don't think anyone will, but you never know who will find fault with it or why. --Jotamar (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Well, the Greeks certainly are not a principal source of Spanish heritage, since they do not speak Greek or have any major cultural relation to them. The Greeks had two brief, insignificant colonies. The Phoenicians/Carthaginians are not a principal source either (their colonies only on the south coast were obliterated by the Roman conquest). The only thing supported by the sources is the obvious Roman heritage of Spain (i.e. the language, culture, society, architecture, religion, etc.) and its pre-Roman ancestries (Iberians, Celts, etc.). There's nothing in the sources about Greeks or Phoenicians/Carthaginians. There is mention in the sources about significant North African/Berber or Moorish admixture (~10% on average) in most Spaniards (minus the northeastern Basques and Catalans) dating from the early Middle Ages. Certainly in terms of cultural heritage, it would rank in order of importance: Roman/Latin, pre-Roman (Paleohispanic) and Moorish/Arab/Muslim as the principal sources. Human Taxonomist (talk) 08:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Equivalent to other ethnicities

EQUIVALENT TO OTHER ETHNICITIES IN WIKIPEDIA Just note "French people" "Portuguese" "Germans" "Italians"...Wikipedia should use a similar system for "Spanish people" as that used for "French people". People in the World with Spanish ancestry. If there are almost 100 million people with French ancestry, including about 6 million in Argentina...then there are about 300-400 million people with some Spanish ancestry in the World.--79.158.255.81 (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Support – Why does the infobox here treat the concept "Regions with significant populations" so differently compared to the pages of other European people? This page uses the most limited definition: people who have both Spanish nationality and ancestry. However, the Wikipedia pages for French people, Italian people, German people,... all use the more expansive definition: anybody with ancestors from those countries (whether they have the nationality or not). If there are no comments about this within the next two weeks, I'll go ahead and make the changes myself. I like that you can currently see how many people in other countries have Spanish nationality (and how many of these were actually born in Spain), so I'll find a way to keep this information available as well. Baidelan (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. WP is not a source of WP. The fact that other pages are badly written (almost 7 million Frenchmen in Argentina? come on!) does not mean we should spoil this one. The page already mentions that many Latin Americans have Spanish ancestry. It's impossible to determine objectively how many of them could be considered of Spanish ethnicity. --Jotamar (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

"SPANISH PEOPLE" is the ONLY exception. ALL the other ethnicities comprise ethnic descendants. Japanese, Chinese, Germans, French, Russians, Ukrainians, English, Portuguese....ALL OF THEM BUT THE SPANISH PEOPLE. THAT IS ANTI-SPANISH RACISM--88.3.141.217 (talk) 05:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spaniards/Archive_7&oldid=1083535109"