Talk:Spaniards

American Number

American number is people who claim spanish as their ancestry, not the number of real spanish in America, like all the others countries have, please somebody fix that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.59.14.181 (talk) 21:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

VANDALISMO

ESTE COMENTARIO LO ESCRIBO EN ESPAÑOL,POR QUE LO MAS PROBABLE QUE ESTE ARTICULO SOBRE ESPAÑOLES ETNICOS, HAYA SIDO VANDALIZADO POR ALGUN MEXICANO ACOMPLEJADO, QUE EXCLUYO A LOS MILLONES DE URUGUAYOS Y CHILENOS QUE SON ETNICA Y CULTURALMENTE ESPAÑOLES, ES COSA DE VISITAR SANTIAGO O MONTEVIDEO Y TE DAS CUENTA QUE ESTAS EN UN PAIS DE RAIGAMBRE HISPANICA, EN CAMBIO MEXICO ES UN PAIS ETNICA Y CULTUARALMENTE EXOTICO Y NO OCCIDENTAL Y POR ENDE NO CUENTA CON 80 MILLONES DE ESPAÑOLES ETNICOS, ESO ES UNA SOBERANA MENTIRA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.86.78.253 (talk) 00:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Brazil

How can Spaniards outnumber Portuguese in the Portuguese colony of Brazil? Anwar saadat (talk) 10:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I know this is old but, for the same reason German-americans outnumber British-americans in the ex-british colony of the United States. More Spanish immigrated to Brazil than Portuguese. The same thing happened in America.--Ace Oliveira (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not true. More Portuguese immigrated to Brazil than any other people (despite "Africans", who would actually be from different countries). Opinoso (talk) 01:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• brazil is the most arab country in the world out of arab world; brazil is the most japanese country out of japan; brazil is the most italian country out of italy..

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)

• the chile is a mestizo country of mongoloids + caucasoids.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.202.63 (talk) 12:50, 5 September 2010 (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)

About Regions with significant populations

The statistics in the Regions with significant populations part of the infobox are absolutely fanciful and the supposed references not only are unreliable but also they don't state what is referenced. I think it's time to remove that eyesore. Everyone agrees? --Jotamar (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Kun.

I agree. The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 00:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I've just removed the statistics for most countries, which where based on unrelated or unavailable sources. The amount claimed for the USA looks very dubious, but at least there is a remote justification for it. --Jotamar (talk) 13:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh by all means if two people agree, do it! All of those sources were fine. This does not count as a "consensus." 71.204.157.119 (talk) 01:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Spanish people from Latinamerica

Some Mexican editors seem to consider that 9 to 15 million people in Mexico are ethnically Spanish. To support this they offer:

• a Tour operator page about tourism in Mexico: roughly as unreliable as it gets. But even worse...
• a link to the Encyclopaedia Britannica which simply does not have anything even remotely similar to the 9 to 15 million claim.

However, all that is not the real problem. The real problem is this: what have all those millions to be counted as ethnically Spanish? Note that we alrady had a discussion in About Regions with significant populations, where there was an agreement to erase the figures of Spanish people based exclusively on presumed ancestry and white race.

• If the reason to include someone as part of the Spanish people is simply ancestry, the amount for Mexico and other Latinamerican countries would probably get near 100% of the population... rather preposterous.
• If the reason are cultural traits, then we should know which are those traits, how they are different between individuals and what statistics we have about them.
• If the reason is whatever I can't think of, please enlighten me!
• I really would like to know if a conversation like this is common in Mexico:
  • Hello, I'm Juan, I'm a Mexican of Spanish ethnicity.
  • Hello, I'm Pedro, I'm a Spanish Mexican too!
  • How nice, we have the same ethnicity, let's throw a celebration! --Jotamar (talk) 14:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Jotamar, you have got to be joking... Join us for a moment in reality. You're correct when you say that "all that is not the real problem" - We know what the real problem is by your comments and imagined "conversation" between Mexicans in your head.

We are looking at "simple ancestry" as you suggest, yet you seemed to stop making sense there.

Mexico's total population is around 111,211,789 (July 2009). Encyclopedia Britannica lists Mexicans of European heritage (“whites”), as 'nearly more' than 1/6th of the total pop. That's about 18,535,300 people - And of course there are other European groups in Mexico such as the French, Italians, Germans etc. But no European group nearly as large as the Spanish one. I should also mention that no one is counting Mestizos which puts the figure of "people with Spanish ancestry in Mexico" much, much higher - a fact that you seem not to believe - with your little illustration. Well, you can believe it.

According to your mentalilty, living in a different country takes away an Iberian's (and their unmixed descendants) Spanish blood... Their blood doesn't magically "transform" just from being in Mexico or any other country (for how ever long it might be - hundreds of years to a couple decades or less). You ask "what have all those millions to be counted as 'ethnically Spanish'"... And you answered your own question: The fact that they ARE ethnically Spanish. If you have a basic grasp on Mexican history, you'll know that most Europeans in Mexico are Spanish and most Mestizos are of the Spanish variety - without needing anyone else to tell you. Here's an important concept: 'Immigration'! - and it has happened for almost 500 YEARS (Spain to Mexico). By the way, you might like to know that there are more people of Spanish ancestry in Latin America than in Spain itself.

Also, the 'regions of significant populations' were "erased based on presumed ancestry and the white race"... So that means your presumed "Spanish" ancestry is incorrect as well? We can even go a step farther and ask "How do we know you are not 1/8 Arab or North African?" - and you may be. The fact that you might live in Spain isn't concrete evidence of anything according to your own thinking process. That is a ridiculous move, to erase other Spanish populations because you and others like you think they are "presumed". C.Kent87 (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I have Arab ancestry but I'm not an ethnic Arab. Because ethnicity is about culture, not ancestry.

You seem to like the Britannica, so I've copied here what they have to say about ethnicity:

Ethnicity: Ethnicity refers to the identification of a group based on a perceived cultural distinctiveness that makes the group into a “people.” This distinctiveness is believed to be expressed in language, music, values, art, styles, literature, family life, religion, ritual, food, naming, public life, and material culture.....

So, as soon as you find any serious source that defines an ethnicity in terms of presumed ancestry, we can go on with the discussion. Meanwhile, I cling to the consensus reached in a previous discussion, and I revert again your edit. --Jotamar (talk) 15:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

@Jotomar: Whatever the discussion or "agreements" that people have reached in this article to "decide" who has Spanish ancestry is purely ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Wikipedia is a place to include information that is sourced and verifiable. You can't delete information based in what you "think". You have to stick to the rules and most importantly, to the sources. Your attitude is not constructive. It seems that rather than helping us find the "right sources" to sustain the amount of Mexicans with Spanish ancestry, you're up to DENY that such ancenstry exist in the Mexican population. In other words, you're just being what people might think is racism. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 23:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll devise a solution for this discussion, hopefully a definitive one, in some weeks when I have enough free time. --Jotamar (talk) 16:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Having Spanish ancestry does not make a person "Spanish". Being Spanish is a mater of nationality and of feeling to belong to the Spanish people. I'm pretty sure that Mexicans do not feel to be Spanish, since they have their own Mexican ethnic feeling. Millions of humans may have ancestors from what is now Spain and from any other part of the world, because humans first appered in Africa, and later they left Africa and started to populate the rest of the world, so we all have ancestors who lived in different parts of the world. A person from China may have remote ancestors who lived in Spain centuries and centuries before that part of the world became Spain.

What I'm saying is that ancestry is not important at all to claim a person as Spanish. How about adopted children? How many people may think they have Spanish ancestry from a Spanish great-grandparent, when in fact the grandparent was adopted by that Spanish person? I heard that 10% of the world population have recent ancestors who were actually adopted children. Then, a person may think to be of Spanish ancestry, when in the reality the person may have 0% of Spanish blood. In fact race, ancestry or ethnicity are all part of popular imagination, it denotes what people think they are, not the reality. Spaniards are people from Spain, or people born abroad who self-reported to be Spanish. People with remote Spanish ancestors are not Spaniards. Opinoso (talk) 01:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Opinoso, what you say is what I was trying to explain. --Jotamar (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Ask anybody about their ethnicity and ancestry is central, but in itself it is not enough as to ones identity. Culture also matters as much as ancestry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.221.29.182 (talk) 00:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Why only spanish people have dna discussion in wikipedia

I just i'm wondering why spaniards are constantly being analyzed genetically everywhere. In the "english people" page (like german, irish, etc..) there is no dna discussion. Is this page an antropology web or what?. Is this really relevant? If the answer is yes, then, why 'genetics' is only relevant on spanish people page and not on english, german,etc...?You are obsessed with spanish dna. —Preceding unsigned comment

I second the comment above. I find it difficult to justify why an article on Spanish people needs an extensive section on genetics, and why this doesn't occur in articles for other European peoples. As a matter of fact, I request the suppression of the whole section. Drar3g (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I am still waiting for a response to this question ¿WHY GENETICS IS ONLY RELEVANT ON SPANISH PEOPLE PLAGE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.145.16.10 (talk) 08:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

@ SineBot:

Your question is very easy to answer:

The Spaniards are the nation/race which inherited more North-African, Middle-Eastern, Sephardic-Jew and Gypsy blood and cultural traits from the whole of Western Europe. They have been taunted by the English for centuries because historically England had countless wars with Spain/Castille and out of spite spread the gossip calling the Spanish "Moors". Meaning: "we lilly-white English are a superior race to those Hispanic mongrels"

It is a fact that Castillian Spanish has clear Arabic traits not only in lexicon (words of Arabic origin) but also semantics (sounds/pronunciation) and over 4,000 words are of undeniable Arab origin. Plus they have very "Spanish" dishes which are in fact adaptations of Moorish/Middle-Eastern/North African dishes like Paella for instance. Then they have their music and dance and again, the "very Spanish Flamenco" only reflects a slightly different version of middle-Eastern music and dance (like the belly-dance for instance)... So adding to the fact that Africa is visible along a considerable stretch of coast from Spain and at points a mere 25 kms away, logic will explain that a number of people from both sides did settle and intermarried at the opposite shores of the Mediterranean.

But of course, today the Spanish from Spain don't particularly like and actually try and distance themselves from the Hispanic group, under the pretense that Hispanics are Mexicans and all other Spanish-speaking Americans. This is mainly because the Spanish feel that now being part of developped, affluent Europe, they are as "white as white goes". Well, Hispania was the name given to the Eastern part of the Iberian Peninsula, after again, the Arabic word "saphan" which means rabbit... hence the Arabs, the direct ancestors of MANY Spaniards and by extension old ancestors of many latin-Americans or Hispanics, did find a lot of rabbits in Spain :-)

Makes sense? Hope so :-)

Spanish descendents of many Arabs? are you joking? Arab admixture in spain doesn't go beyond 1%. Jesus christ i can't believe how people exaggerate such a small insignificant number MOST Spaniards do not have arab blood. By your logic just because Russians & Scandinavians and many North Europeans have slight Asian admixture they're Asian. Nice logic buddy. Spaniards cluster with the rest of Europeans and have Y-Dna & Mtdna found mostly in Europe, they don't cluster with ANY arab population nor do they even cluster with Ashkenazi Jews. NOONE does, infact the only people in Europe who cluster with Ashkenazi Jews are Sicilians. So get this agenda distoring scientific evidence, trying to arabize Spaniards out of here. You sound like one of those Nordicist/Afrocentrist trying to make it seem like South Europeans are "un-white" funny thing that is because Spain is actually a lot more homogeneous than the majority of Northern European nations. Literally over 70% of Spain is haplogroup R1b meanwhile most Northern European nations don't even top 60% haplogroup anything. Spain is even more homogeneous than the Scandinavian nations. Neither Sweden, Norway or Denmark are 60-70% any haplogroup.

@Previous comment

There are plenty of countries over Europe with as much or more Jewish and Gypsy "blood" as Spain, as both Jews and Roma spread all over the continent. Hell, there's even one country named after them. Turkish influence is also pervasive in many countries in South-East Europe. The North African influence in Spain is not of Arab origin but Berber. And regarding the Middle-Eastern influence, it's the very first time I hear about a connection between Spain and Middle-East. Do you have any idea of how far Spain is from Middle East?

Your comment regarding the supposed prejudices of the English people is irrelevant to a discussion about the contents of a Wikipedia page about real-world Spaniards.

Albeit Spanish has many words of Arab origin, its pronunciation was determined by Basque, not Arab, as Basque was the language spoken in the area were Spanish was born before Latin was adopted. Other influences include Celtic languages, Germanic Languages and, of course, Latin language. BTW, semantics has nothing to with "sounds/pronunciation". You probably meant phonetics and prosody.

Paella has absolutely nothing to do with North-African cuisine. Gazpacho, for instance, does. However, Spanish cuisine does not use most of the species used in North Africa (cinnamon, cumin, turmeric and ginger). Pork is pervasive in Spanish cuisine (Jamón, chorizo, etc,) while for obvious reason it's not common in North Africa.

Flamenco is not the common folklore of regular Spaniards (examples of regional dances are sardanes, jotas, sevillanas, muñeira, seguidillas, etc.) but the folk music and dance of the Gypsies, although later adopted by non-Roma in Southern Spain.

Africa is only visible in Spain from the Strait of Gibraltar area. Many people die every year attempting to reach Spain illegally. I wouldn't call crossing the strait a walk in the park. Instead, it is connected by land to France. Guess why Spaniards speak a Latin-based language like the Italians and French instead of Arabic?

Spaniards have varying attitudes towards Mexicans and other Latin-americans, not all of them try to distance from them. In many cases, however, the differences between Spaniards and Latin-Americans are explained by the latter being an admixture of various European (not just Spanish), African and, most of all, native American peoples. That clearly sets them apart from Spaniards from an ethnic point of view.

Spaniards do not regard themselves as "white as white goes" because for the most part they embrace they diversity: white spaniards, gypsies, peoples from the Canary Islands with North-African heritage, Spanish-Arabs from the enclaves in North Africa (Ceuta and Melilla), recent inmigrants from Latin-America, from Asia, Africa and from the rest of Europe, etc. All in all, so similar to the societies of other European countries. Admittedly, this idea of a multicultural society may be something that escapes you.

And no, most of what you said didn't make much sense.Drar3g (talk) 11:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The Genetics section neutrality

In regard to the "Sephardic result" in the above mentioned section, it seem like all efforts were made by editors here to deny this result with measures that are not in line with Wikipedia rules. First, studies that are cited to contradict this result make no such claims and deald with different lineages than those were studied in the 2008 research. Second, the results are not in contradiction with non of the previous studies as the 2008 study was focused on other lineages and is the first to make such a comparison between Jewish people and Spanish people. The attempt to replace the Jewish result with imaginary Phoenician one was involved blatant distortion of what the source that was cited as one in contradiction with the Sephardic result said...We do have one valid citation of Spanish professor who said that as Jewish and Phoenician DNA are hard to distinguish the conclusions of the 2008 study are questionable, however -he preformed no study to refute these results and in any case was answered adequately that Phoenicians are not relevant in this case as the results reflect common heritage less than 1000 years ago. I edited this part of the section time after time in accordance with reliable and verified sources and without distorting the facts-but time after time my edits were reverted on the behalf of edits that are not in line with Wikipedia standards. Hence, I add a tag of disputed neutrality to this section.--Gilisa (talk) 09:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The studies that are cited as contradicting the Sephardim result attribute the J2 lineages found in Spain (In Adams et al interpreted as Sephardim) to either Neolithic farmers, Phoenician seamen or deny Jewish ancestry among Spaniards (the study with Spanish-Americans). Those studies have been published in peer-reviewed journals and have the same validity as Adams et al. to qualify as sources. Actually they have more validity and I think they need to be given more importance, since they display a consensus. There are actually many more studies that contradict the Sephardim interpretation (for example every study about Neolithic influence on modern Europeans, quite a few), being the Neolithic, Phoenician and Greco-Roman settlements the actual academic consensus in mainstream population genetics about the origin of most of the J2 found in Spain or elsewhere in Europe. Simply by looking at J2 frequencies in any European population there is no way to tell apart "Jewish ancestry" from Neolithic, Roman, Greek or Phoenician/Levantine/Semite since all those populations are heavy J2 carriers. You can only speculate. All those peoples made settlements in Spain, so it's (still) not possible to quantify the specific contribution of J2 by any of those groups. Here is a page with the averages of Y chromosome frequencies of all European populations, averages obtained from all the major genetic studies done in Europe. According to Adams at al., of all European countries, only in Spain the J2 would be of Jewish origin, and, true or not, that is just one interpretation for the J2 found in Spain and that discrepancy between studies needs to be mentioned. J2 is spread in all of Europe and most European countries have similar or higher frequencies than those found in Spain, corresponding to Neolithic/Phoenician/Greco-Roman settlement patters, which include Spain. The only lineage analized in that study that is as today of indisputable Jewish/Semite origin is J1, and if you check the haplogroup frequencies in the Adams et al. paper you will see how the Sephardim sample has a very similar proportion of J1 to J2, while in the Spanish samples J1 is very low compared to the J2. Obviously most of the J2 comes from other sources (this is why they say in the study "despite alternative sources"). And by the way, they are also the only study in the mainstream scientific literature to attribute the I frequencies in Spain to a Sephardim origin. You could actually use as contradicting sources to Adams et al. all the studies that attribute those I lineages in Spain and elswhere in Europe as a result of the Germanic expansion. And by the way, the reason why the paper gives higher frequencies of J2, J1 and E1b1b1b (E-M81) than all the other studies done in Spain is because for some reason they didn't analize all the common haplogroups present in the Spanish population, instead choosing to focus on the few more representative, but ignoring others that are also quite common (check the eupedia averages). I wouldn't put much trust on that paper, specially on the historical interpretations, but it was a major study and needs to be mentioned.

If you still don't understand why there is no way to tell apart who made what contribution of J2 (or I) to Spain, before editing this page again please make sure to read the wikipedia page about European Neolithic genetics and check all the sources posted. If you don't understand about population genetics or why J2 is interpreted in different ways in some papers but still feel that the Sephardim interpretation is being injustly put down (which I'm afraid is the case), here is some non-technical and easy to understand for the layman criticism about the paper made on the most read blog about population genetics on the Internet. There is a reason why on every interview about that study the authors are remarkably ambiguous about their Sephardim theory, since they know that what they call "Jewish" could be called equally "Neolithic", "Phoenician", "Roman", etc. Actually I remember a quote made by one of the authors during an interview in which he acknowledges that the 20% figure is virtually impossible, since there was never such a high Jewish population living in Spain at any time in history (adding to that the subsequent expulsions). I can search for that interview (it was published on the online edition of a popular Spanish newspaper) and add it to the section as a source along with all the other Neolithic and haplogroup I papers, but I think that would be a bit of an overkill since that paragraph is already quite sourced. --80.30.165.186 (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The guy that created this section deleted for some reason the Phoenician study. The study needs to stay in that section for two reasons: is about Spanish genetics, it deals with the same lineages as Adams et al., was published in a peer-reviewed journal and has been cited in other studies and, more important (and puzzling) was made from the same team that produced Adams et al just months after. I'm restoring how that section was worded before Gilisa decided for himself to erase it, even though that section was the result of consensus.--193.152.157.162 (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism with Peru and Mexico

PERU NOT HAVE 9.0 MILLION OF SAPANIARD O SPANISH ETHNIC, THE WHITE PEOPLE IN PERU IS OF 15% OR 4.3 MILLION OF PERUVIANS IN THE MEXICO CASE, THIS COUNTRY NOT HAVE 80 MILLION OF SAPANIARD . THE WITHE PEOPLE IN MEXICO IS 15 MILLION . MEXICAN AND PERUVIAN , ARE INDIGENOUS NATIONS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.45.118.106 (talk) 04:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

There was no vandalism before your changes, only sources. These figures are in the "related" section and are figures for the racially related populations - that means those related to the Spanish through ancestry = criollos AND mestizos, etc. Furthermore, unmixed whites in Mexico are around 17-18% or 19-20 million - and, Mexico, of all Hispanic countries, has the largest number of mestizos. Also, the label "indigenous nation" does not fit, despite the pride for it's Indigenous past. Please do not revert sourced statistics. C.Kent87 (talk) 09:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

how can be 80000000 persons in mexico of spanish ancestry?that it just ridiculous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.3.217.177 (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It has already been explained. C.Kent87 (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

where and how? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.3.217.177 (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Refer to all comments. C.Kent87 (talk) 09:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Please don't use ALL CAPS; it's tiresome.

You say: Peru not have 9.0 million of Sapaniard o Spanish ethnic, the white people in Peru is of 15% or 4.3 million of Peruvians.

But this is about "ethnic Spanish descent", a vague and undefined term and not necessarily the same as being of "Spanish ethnicity". And there's no particular reason to believe that it's the same as "white".

Where are the sources for your assertions? (Why should anyone believe what you say?) -- Hoary (talk) 11:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

"People related by ancestry"

This article has an infobox that lists the numbers of "people who are related by ancestry".

If somebody's Spanish ancestry is limited to a single "great" (×N) grandparent from Spain (where N is as high as you like), I take it that she'd be related by ancestry. I don't know how anyone could find this out.

If "related by ancestry" means something else, I'd like to see what it means.

I checked the references adduced for these numbers. One's in Portuguese; I left it as I do not read Portuguese. One even announced that it was a Wikipedia scrape. None of the others said what it was claimed in this article that it said.

This part of the article strikes me as worse than worthless: it confidently gives unsourced, meaningless numbers that may actually impress its more gullible readers. -- Hoary (talk) 11:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This article is about Spanish people also known as Spaniards, but here ir's talking about Mexicans!, Cubans!, Argentinians! and other Latin Americans. Just because they have varying levels of Spanish ancestry, some a lot, some a little, doesn't matter, doesn't make them Spanish. Spanish people come from Spain like French people come from France and Germans come from Germany. End of story. And yes the ancestry numbers are rubbish - 80 percent of Puerto Ricans claim they are "white" ie European lol!

80,000,000 in Mexico?

Mexicans with Spanish ancestry are in total 80 million people, but the criollos are only 15% of the total population of Mexico (approximately 16 million criollos).[1]

Or 18-20 million. And yes, "Mexicans with Spanish ancestry are in total 80 million people"... And it is entered in the 'Related Category'. Yet User talk:190.209.46.146 keeps reverting and edit warring about it. All with Spanish ancestry - "related" - need to be counted. Other countries should be edited to reflect that as well. C.Kent87 (talk) 10:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The European descent Argentina's population is 98%, 95.4% in Chile, 97% in Uruguay, in Mexico only 70% (included mestizos), C.Kent87 is obsessed with adding mestizos of Mexico as Criollos ( Latin Americans descendants of Spanish) which in Mexico are only 9% according to the CIA or 16% according to the Encyclopedia Britannica. Yes add mestizos in Mexico, we do every Latin American country. Therefore, until we agree, only add the "Criollo" (the direct Spanish descendant of Latin American). --190.209.46.146 (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Your information is incorrect. Argentina's white pop is around 86%. More than 8% are Mestizo and many in the "white" category have some Amerindian ancestry (as University of Buenos Aires research revealed 56% of "whites" have some admixture.) And Chile is nowhere near that for White people - Chile counts MESTIZOS AND WHITES together. Most are Mestizo, but call themselves white. So nice try.

But we're talking about Mexico. And we're talking about those who descend from Spain. That's criollos AND Mestizos. Even on a low estimate it would be more like 80%. And we don't have to add just criollos... that's the POINT. It is RELATED peoples. Those that have ethnic Spaniards as ancestors, mestizos included. Please go ahead and add up all numbers for all countries. C.Kent87 (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

in Article Only include ethnic Spanish, as in the other articles on ethnic groups that exist on wikipedia.

in Article Only include ethnic Spanish, as in the other articles on ethnic groups that exist on wikipedia.

In Mexico they live only 10 million ethnic Spanish in Argentina 25, in Brazil 15, and Chile 9.5 million. Kent Please finish your acts vandalicin this article that has always treated on AMOUNT of people with Spanish nationality and the persons ethnic Spanish

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.46.53.131 (talk • contribs)

Again, you are misinformed. A source that YOU uphold gives chile 8 million, not "9.5". And Mexico's is more like 18 million. C.Kent87 (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This isn't an article on "Spanish ancestry", it is the article about the "Spanish people", i.e. the people of Spanish nationality. The "genetics section" is quite clearly a confused mess and I suggest we stub it for the time being. If you want to discuss the "ethnic Spanish" of Mexico or Argentinia, the least you can do is present excellent sources to back up your claims, under WP:REDFLAG. --dab (𒁳) 18:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleting the related category leaves the history of THE Spanish people very blank - Isn't this about the group who sailed to other lands spreading their seed more than any other group in history? Or did they become obsolete when they left a Spanish port headed for Latin America? There are millions and millions with Spanish ancestry - and it is THEIR ancestors who were "Spanish people".

At the very least there needs to be a section on immigration like the "Populations with French ancestry" in French people - Even Mexico has been kept listed there! Yes, it is difficult to find perfect sources, but let's be srious here. Did Spaniards go to these different lands and mold them? or not? Did they come by the hundreds of thousands? Yes. It is not going beyond reality to see that these numbers that have been listed are in fact the closest we can get to correct. These Spanish people who immigrated didn't leave behind thier ancestry. They chose to move themselves - and their heritage, and this is their legacy. How does this not fit in with an article on "Spanish people"? C.Kent87 (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Clearly, this article (Spanish People) is wrongly using Spanish and Spaniards as synonyms. They are NOT.

While most Spaniards are Spanish, most Spanish are not Spaniards. Only Spanish from Spain are Spaniards. Spanish from Argentina are Argentinians and from Mexico are Mexicans, etc.

And Spanish from Spain are only part of the Spaniards demographic. Some Spaniards are not Spanish. Some are Catalans, for example. While they are both Latinos, some Spaniards are not Latinos or Spanish, specifically the Basques... but they are Spaniards.

Also, not all Latinos are Spanish or Spaniards. Some are Portuguese, Italians, Brazilians, Romanians, French and the less known Friulians... and many more even less known disappearing ethnicities.

Hispanic is an incorrect USA invented word to mean Spanish speaking Americans(North and South)as a more politically correct word, compared to Latino. Brazilians, in particular are neither Spanish nor Hispanic..but they are Latinos, which USA incorrectly does not recognize. In other words, USA congress does not include Brazilians in Latino category despite their Portuguese language.

Wikipedia MUST take note of these words and use them separately and correctly...they are not synonyms: Spanish, Spaniard, Latino, and Hispanic.

This article can be disparaging to politically and historically conscious non-Spanish Spaniards. It is disconcerting to me, a Spanish speaking Filipino-American with Spaniard heritage, my Father's mother(Maria Caridad Esperanza Lopez Nadal)being a lady from Mallorca. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.173.176 (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It has to do with English grammatical issues. Spaniard/s are NOUNS! so I was chuckling reading your post hugh "Spaniards demographic", "Spaniard heritage" hehehe sounds like bad grammar to my ear. Now replace that with Spanish and it sounds much better. They refer to Pau Gasol as a Spanish basketball player not a Spaniard basketball player...like I said Grammar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.213.251.144 (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Pau Gassol is an Spanish basketball player which his mother language is Catalan, not Spanish..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.39.162.42 (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If Gassol isn't Spanish who is? Fernando Alonso is an Asturian, Fernando Torres is a Castilian and Rafael Nadal is a Mallorcan just a Gassol is a Catalan but they are all equally Spanish. And what about the Galicians, Spanish Basques, Valencians, Andalusians, etc? Think of the British for example: An Englishman isn't Scottish and a Scot isn't Welsh or English, and would be offended if you called him one, but even though they are different nationalities they are all British nationalities and British historical nations even though they weren't always united in the past and have their own languages, although they use English as their common one in the same way the Spanish use Castilian as their common language.

Suggested move

The USA census has started to use the term Spanish in the census along side Hispanic and Latino and do to the fact that people use the term shorthand for anybody who speaks Spanish in the English speaking world(though of course that is silly but it is the reality) i suggest this be moved to Spaniards rather than Spanish people to avoid confusion being this is English language Wikipedia--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

A For other uses... template over the heading should be enough to avoid any confusion. --Jotamar (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You don't hear people calling US and Canadian citizens "British".

Spanish people is ambiguous in the English speaking world i.e it can mean a Dominican a Honduran a Puerto Rican and in turn these people may commonly refer to themselves as Spanish that is one of the reasons the USA census added Spanish along side Latino Hispanic, to avoid any ambiguity i suggest moving it to Spaniards being that term is not ambiguous and is more common name for nationality for people coming from Spain which is what this article is about people from Spain Europeans not Latin Americans--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

"Spanish" is only ambigious in the USA because of the US census and slang usage that arose from it. In other parts of the English speaking world it retains its centuries old and unambigous meaning of people and things of Spain, not from the Americas or elsewhere. People from elsewhere may have Spanish ancestry, just like they may have British or French ancestry, partly or fully, but that is not in itself sufficient to make them "Spanish" - just as you don't call somebody from California "British" becasue he has British ancestry somewhere in the past and he speake English. He is a Californian.

This is not true, it is the USA as far as i know, maybe Australians, Canadians or enlish speaking caribbeans can tell us what it means when they generally hear the words spanish people..In Uk and Ireland the term spanish only reafers to people from spain...almost 100% of the time the term Spanish is used when speaking about spain..and above all, changing it to spaniards, which i personally hardly ever used maybe 10% of the time, would be giving in to the correct usage of the word. it seems strange that this happens and yet they dont call a Jamaican or Australian English people do they?...nope didnt think so. I do understand the suggestion though. It is true that the term in the US census is badly used even in the 1980 census spanish is the term used to group all spanish speaking heritage, which is why the example given in the census if your Hispanic is Spaniard. The three terms Latino Hispanic and Spanish seem to be used, will it end at just 3?..since the term Hispanic and Spanish are literally the same root in origin, if you read the Spain article and click on the Latin languae version what comes up. Hispania, and the language they speak?..Lingua Hispanica.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.171.20 (talk) 01:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

That does not matter the article title should best reflect what the article is about in a world view and Spaniards best reflect that,also do not try to insinuate that if for example i went to England and referred to the people of Spain as Spaniards they would look at me like i got 4 heads because you know darn well Europeans know what a Spaniard is it is a very common term through out the world for the people of Spain and it has more than 7 and a half million hits on google so it is not obscure--Wikiscribe (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

ISP user as i said Spaniards[2] has no ambiguity to it, Spanish people can notice how this dictionary uses the word Spanish[3] similar to the way Hispanic gets used by other dictionaries[4] it can mean anybody you comes from a Spanish speaking origin and my proof is the USA census and ambiguity with dictionary meanings,i am not saying Spanish People is wrong because it is not but the term better suited for this article is Spaniard because i have yet to find any ambiguity with this definition and it only gets used to mean people who are native to Spain where Spanish people can have a more generic meaning in other places , wrong or right, as silly as it is that is the way it is ,switching it to Spaniard there will be no ambiguity the only people that get called that are people from Spain nobody else,so in the best interest of keeping a world wide view i suggest it get moved to Spaniards and if nobody comes in soon with a logical encyclopedic reason why not it will be moved--Wikiscribe (talk) 04:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I completly understand what your saying, but in Europe the most common term is just spanish, with people using the term spaniards much less often. The UK has the second highest english speaking population after the US and we never hear about the term spanish being used in any other way, honestly, and just because the USA used this definition doesnt make it right. Also, has there actually been any misunderstanding of the usage of Spanish people since this article started?...has anyone actually suggested that it means someting else. It may be hard to beleive since im guessing the usage in the US is quite common?? even if they are not of spanish ancestry. It's pure stupidity on behalf of the the Americans. Infact it is hard for some of us to understand since we dont encouter this problem here. Since this is an international used site, we really do need to know what the Australians think and canadians since they are the highest number of native english speakers after the US and UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.232.4 (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

That does not matter the article title should best reflect what the article is about in a world view and Spaniards best reflect that,also do not try to insinuate that if for example i went to England and referred to the people of Spain as Spaniards they would look at me like i got 4 heads because you know darn well Europeans know what a Spaniard is it is a very common term through out the world for the people of Spain and it has more than 7 and a half million hits on Google so it is not obscure--Wikiscribe (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I read once that one fifth of Americans think Spain is in South America! At least this mean four fifths know where the country is and i seriously doubt that most of these people would be confused by using the term "Spanish" for a European people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.110.188.223 (talk) 00:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

Physical appearance

This section is absurd. Trying to generalize the physical appearance of more than 40 million people is a nonsense. All the actual scientific information is included in the genetics section, so I'll delete this entry.--Infinauta (talk) 10:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries. That was added by an IP user today.  Davtra  ^(talk) 11:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with first observation. Total nonsense. You might as well say 'Irish people are well known for their characteristic red hair', or 'Germans are blue-eyed blonds in general'. Agree with removal. RashersTierney (talk) 11:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The reason I like to put the characteristics (different hair and eye colors and their frequencies) is these are also given in the article Portuguese people. Help me with this, because the frequencies of the hair and eye colors of Portuguese people may be different in Spanish people, please?! Of course, majority of Spaniards have dark brown or black hair and brown and hazel eyes. How about for blond, red, auburn, and chestnut hair colors and blue and green eyes? FILWISE (talk) 07:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Many Spaniards have Native American ancestry due to Latin Ametican immigration since the 1500s. Many Spaniards are of direct Latin American (Peruvian, Ecuadorian, Colombian) descent through a large immigration to Spain since 1980s. A lot of Spaniards have Peruvia or Colombian parents, so Amerindian ancestry is very important in Spain and the Latin American (Amerindian and African) influence in Spanish culture is huge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.111.112 (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2013 (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)

Regions with significant populations

I see in this category that the page shows that the country with more spaniards is the USA with 625,562

I must point out that the actual number of spaniards livin in USA is 72,730. The 625 thousands would be americans with spanish ancestry, which is shown later down.

So please fix this, because it is totally inaccurate.

The fact that in the States people consider themselves spaniards just because they have spanish ancestry does not make them more spanish than the estimated 80 million of people with spanish ancestry in Mexico, or the 30 million in Argentina.

The same for Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bertuccio (talk • contribs) 15:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Again I see the US as the region with the largest amount of Spaniards........ which is obviously false because the number of spaniards living the US is arount 72 thousand, not 625 thousands.... if you count americans with spanish ancestry, then you'd also have to include all the latin americans with spanish ancestry, in which case 80% Argentina should be considered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bertuccio (talk • contribs) 12:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

People related by ancestry

About the 80m of Mexicans with Spanish ancestry. I don't know the figure. I was just using the figures that were already on the site.

My point was that if we are talking about the number of spaniards abroad, which is one of the categories, in the States there's only 72 thousands, not the figure that is been shown in the site, wich referes to americans from the states with spanish ancestry and not to spanish nationals.

If you are not happy with the figures about Mexicans with spanish ancestry, you're very welcome to improve the site concerning that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bertuccio (talk • contribs) 07:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

Presumed Spanish Ancestry

Hi there i just wondering if we can make just one table with presumed spanish ancestry people with the most important amounts of people with spanish ancestry people because if we put here every single one person with spanish ancestry we will must every single country of latin america but all over the countries that had been part of the spanish empire or i f we consider every single spanish person in the world we should put every single country —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.229.184.27 (talk) 01:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

What about Uruguay?

Here practically half of the population descends from spanish people ( the other half being mostly of italian descent), mainly galicians, but from many other regions of Spain too. Many people have both spanish and italian ancestry.--Knight1993 (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Spanish Languages

"The official language of Spain is Spanish (español or castellano)" This must be corrected. The official languages of Spain are: Euskera, Galizian, Catalan their respective regions and Castillian which is the only one that official in all Spain. Officially in Spain there is no Spanish languages, where are referred as Spanish languages in plural as there are different. In the Americas Castillian language is named Spanish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.39.162.42 (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Please find references for this claim, then I can help you. --Johanneswilm (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Not related to the above, I notice that the linguistic map about 1/2way down the right side has a yellow block for Leonese, but that it does not appear on the map above. Is there any way to remedy that easily? Idk if it was just included as part of Asturian on the map, or if it belongs in the red part of Northern Leon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vreundl8 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Major cleanup

Spanish people/Spaniards are defined as citizens of Spain http://www.definicionabc.com/geografia/espanol.php . I therefore go ahead and delete all the figures that do no define this but something else and those numbers which are purely based on user-submitted data that the website claims not to be able to verify (joshuaproject & US/Australian census, see Talk:Norwegians).--Johanneswilm (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Further, I remove the footnotes for the country numbers, as these make reference to other groups (Spanish Americans are not the same as citizens of Spain who reside in the US).--Johanneswilm (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I removed the race stuff about Latin America, as is highly questionable unreferenced material and should be dealt with on a page about Latin America. I removed the geo-location data about Spain, as that should be on the page about Spain.--Johanneswilm (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I also made some linguistic changes so that not everyone who learns to speka Catalan automatically becomes a Catalan, etc. --Johanneswilm (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Number of Spanish people in Spain

The introduction of this article leads one to believe that it is about Spanish people of European ethnicity. It says there are 41,242,592 Spanish people in Spain, that's 88%. But in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Spain, it says that "Native-born Spanish citizens of all races and ethnic groups make up 88% of the total population, and 12% are immigrants." Many native born Spanish people aren't ethnically European despite having Spanish nationality, in fact in this other article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Spain it says that "In the same way the majority of children born in Spain between 2000 and 2010 are children of immigrants despite not counting as such."

Moreover, Spain grants nationality to immigrants from South America after 2 years of residence and after 10 for others. Assuming that a sizable portion of these immigrants have obtained Spanish nationality, there is no way the number is near 41,242,592. The article linked to says explicitly that the 12% figure is about people with no Spanish nationality.

The birth rate among ethnic European Spanish people has been way below the replacement level since decades ago when the population was around 38 million. I suggest either of two things, if this article isn't about Spanish ethnicity, then delete the figures of people of Spanish ancestry who aren't from Spain, make it clear in the introduction that this figure includes people of European, Amerindian and North African descent and add approximate numbers for each.

If this article IS about Spanish people of European ancestry, then round the number of the ones living in Spain to ~35 million. If no citation can be provided for this number then remove the figure altogether and add "it is thought that...". Right now this article is completely misleading for people trying to find a figure of Spanish people of European ancestry living in Spain.

For the moment I will replace the first paragraph of the introduction to one similar to what the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_people has. "French people refers to people born in France and the legal residents and citizens of France, regardless of ancestry." Except that I can't provide a reference to a constitutional article. This change implies further changes in the rest of the article because it doesn't reflect what the article is about. I will wait until someone replies to this comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.39.171.17 (talk) 12:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Then change the numbers. Sourced, of course. The French people question is more complex due to legal definitions in France that deny the concept of ethnicity. The Ogre (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't provide source. I can't find any valid secondary source but that doesn't mean that the 41 million figure is correct. I can provide source to show that the 41 million figure is wrong but not to show that the real figure is around 35 million. Like many other European countries Spain doesn't keep track of ethnicity, so I don't know any way a valid sourced number could be put there except the ~35 million estimation which of course I can't add. I suggest simply changing the number to Unknown. Can I do this?

I would also like to raise another issue of consistency that I have seen across Wikipedia. The French people article is NOT about the French ethnicity, the Spanish people IS about the Spanish ethnicity, the Swedish people article IS about the Swedish ethnicity while the German article is NOT. There are more but you get the message. Not only that but if you go to the article Germany for example, under Ethnicity it will list 91% Germans which is actually the number of people with German nationality, not of ethnic Germans which is actually lower. Also the word "Germans" next to the percentage links to the article Germans which isn't about the German ethnicity. Same for Spain where it says 88%. This is wrong information which I think should be revised for every article of each country. Where you can't know the percentage it should say Unknown instead of having wrong information. I would make the changes right now but I want your confirmation because I'm pretty sure they will be deleted otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.39.171.17 (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The reason for this discrepancy is that I have only recently started going through some articles on European nations in order to fact-check them. There is no such thing as an "ethnic German" as of today, nor any clear way to determine whether someone belongs to this imaginary group. There is an article on Volksdeutsche which is sort of the same. You can look at the talk pages [[Talk:Germans], Talk:Danes, Talk:Norwegians and Talk:Austrians. On each one of theme I've gone through all the sources about allegedly "ethnic" people from those countries living somewhere else in the world, only to conclude that the numbers show completely different things and cannot be compared. Most European countries define being an X as having citizenship in that country with a few exceptions -- such as the Danish minority in Southern Schleswig or the Austrian minority in South Tyrol who are seen as respectively Danish and Austrian although they don't have citizenship, and on the other hand the Samii people in Norway who are not Norwegians although they have Norwegian citizenship. In all these cases this is however a completely voluntary act for the individual -- meaning that the individual has to decide whether he feels like he is a South Schleswigan Danish minority person or a Samii. Most likely the case is the same for those European nations I have not looked at so far. If you have the time to do so, please go ahead and check the references and document it well why certain figures don't work or how it is defined to be a Spanish, Dutch or Swede by the given state's institutions before changing the corresponding article. --Johanneswilm (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. Then I think if there isn't such a thing as "ethnic German" in the section Ethnicity for Germany it shouldn't say 91% German. Same for the other countries, including 88% in the article Spain. There is not an issue about what it is to be a Spaniard or Swede, they could be of any ethnicity. Even if a Middle Eastern person has lived in Sweden all his life but doesn't have Swedish nationality he would feel more Swedish than anything and probably in anyone's opinion he would in fact be a Swede. There is a distinction here about what it is to be from a country and what is to belong to a certain ethnic group. The former is subjective while the latter one isn't if by ethnic we are talking about ancestry, if no real number can be provided then none should be provided at all.

You could say that the ethnic groups of Spain are 75% European, 10% Amerindian, 10% North African and 5% Sub-Saharan African (made up numbers). What does being ethnic Spanish mean then? In my first edit I added "regardless of ancestry" to the introduction but the other editor said it was about "ethnic Spaniards". The issue here is that the numbers and percentages across all Wikipedia articles for European countries are mixing two different concepts and providing the wrong figures. I will gladly try to document it as well as I can and won't change any more pages until I've a senior editor's confirmation but I think editing is the only way to get attention unless I write in your talk page. Please read this other comment I added on this other editor's talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tbhotch.

Meanwhile I think the references I provided are enough to justify that the 41 million figure is wrong from what the other editor implied this article is about. I won't change anything else but I think it should say Unknown here as well as in the percentage of the section ethnicity in the article Spain. Thanks again. --Grondolf (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The number presented according to that source is "Spanish citizens living in Spain". The figure given for all the countries marked with 3 and those for Chile are also "Spanish citizens living in country X". The figure given for Australia is however people who have ancestors from Spain. The figure given for the Netherlands and Denmark are not clearly defined and are based upon user submitted data which the website referenced claims not to be able to verify. These figures are not compatible. There is no such thing as an "ethnic Spanish". The body text should be changed to make clear that Spanish = citizen of Spain. The figure given for Spanish in Spain is however correct. I completely understand what you mean by a person feeling more Spanish although they don't have Spanish citizenship. Unfortunately that lies outside the definition of what it is to be Spanish. I will therefore go ahead and delete the figures for Australia, Netherlands and Denmark as well as redefine within the text what "Spanish" means. --Johanneswilm (talk) 23:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. This is what I replaced the first paragraph with in my first edit. "Spanish people or Spaniards refers to people born in Spain and the legal residents and citizens of Spain, regardless of ancestry. This includes people of European, North African and Amerindian ancestry among others." I think it is important to emphasize that in the introduction so it doesn't lead to confusion. Please check the percentage for Ethnicity in the infobox for the article Germany and the article Swedes which explicitly states ethnic group yet the figure is for citizens. I'll look for more but the Ethnicity section in the infobox exists for almost every country, the figures can't be accurate because these countries don't keep track of ethnicity and the numbers are for citizens--Grondolf (talk) 00:06, 16 February 2011 (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:

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.

SPANISH AMERICANS

If on the presumed Spanish ancestry section, it is about PRESUMED Spanish ancestry, then shouldn't most Mexican Americans and most other Hispanic/Latinos in the USA be added to the stat in USA? Surely the amount of people with Spanish ancestry is not 0.8%, given that Mexican Americans alone are over 10% of the American populace, and then 6% of other Latin Americans. And given that the grand majority of these have Spanish ancestry.--Fernirm (talk) 00:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I have a feeling they are refering to americans with familly born in spain. Tracing lineage from Latino/Americans through to spanish blood ties from several hundred years ago seems quite pointless, and not relevant to this article.P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 01:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Spanish people.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Spanish people.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 24 November 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Currently in the introduction of the Spanish people it states,

"The official language of Spain is Spanish (español or castellano), the standard language based on the mediaeval dialect of the Andalus of central Spain. There are several regional languages; with the exception of Basque, the languages native to Spain are Romance languages, Spanish is a mixture of Arabic mostly Andalusian Arabic and Berber with some extra Latin words of ancient origin."

however the statements that the castilian language/castellano is based on the mediaeval dialect of the Andalus region of Spain is simply wrong. As is confirmed with sources on the actual Spanish Language wikipedia page located here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_language, Castilian(in spanish Castellano), also commonly known in the Americas as the Spanish Language, is an Indo European Romance Language which developed in North-Central Iberia and then spread into the more southern parts of Spain, replacing vulgar latin and andalusian arabic spoken Berbers and other Muslim peoples. In more concrete terms, the development of the Castilian language has its origin in North-Central Castile(of which the name of the language derives) and is structurally based on Latin(approximately 75% vocabulary) with lexicon influences from Germanic, Arabic, Celtic, Native American languages, etc.

More eloquently described here,

"Words of non-Latin origin

Some authors estimate that seventy-five percent of Spanish words have come from Latin[9] and were in use in Spain before the Common Era. The remaining 25 percent come from other languages. Of these languages (and language families), the four which have contributed the most words are Arabic, Indigenous languages of the Americas, Germanic, and Celtic in roughly that order."

located on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influences_on_the_Spanish_language which is a good source for anything related to the Spanish Language.

Also,

"Local versions of Vulgar Latin evolved into Castilian in the central-north of Iberia, in an area defined by the then remote crossroad strips of Alava, Cantabria, Burgos, Soria and La Rioja, within the Kingdom of Castile (see Glosas Emilianenses). In this formative stage, Castilian developed a strongly differing variant from its close cousin, Leonese, and was distinguished by a heavy Basque influence (see Iberian Romance languages). "

as Leonese is a language spoken in Northern Castile/Asturias which is located in one of the most geographic north regions of Spain it can be concluded that the "close cousin" of Spanish is thus also evolved in northern Spain and not in the south.

The fact stated that "Spanish is a mixture of Arabic and Berber with some Latin words of ancient origin" is a complete fallacy as anyone knows that Spanish is not an arabic or berber language, or even a mixture thereof. Rather Spanish is a Western Romance language, based on Vulgar Latin, with internal and external lexical influences primarily from Basque, Arabic, Languages of the Americas, Germanic, and Celtic.

It surprises me that a page such as the spanish language, can have such wrong information.

Tepermithia (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I cannot edit it as you request, because Wikipedia is not a reliable source.  Chzz  ►  21:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The statements that User:Tepermithia mentions were just common vandalizing, and they are mended now. Jotamar (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Genetic info

I notice that information about Population Genetics has been added to the page. Some time ago, that kind of information was moved from this page to a new one, Genetic history of the Iberian Peninsula, and I still think that is the best place to put it. Jotamar (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Me too. for some reason some people prefer single articles never again duplicated over dozens others to write articles in Wiki. It is funny the agenda that one has to see over and over again. Anyway, for people interested in genetitics of Spain here you can find lots of updated articles and studies on the subject:

http://anthrospain.blogspot.com/2011/07/r1b-frequencies-in-spain-and-europe.html

Pook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.163.240 (talk) 01:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I removed the Genetic content which, as stated above, has its very own article. The information merely regurgitates a topic which was removed by vote. Missileblues (talk) 13:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to rename article "Spaniards", Spaniards has more search hits than "Spanish people"

• 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

Due to these results, I propose by WP:COMMON NAME that the article be renamed Spaniards.--R-41 (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

What is a Spanish Brazilian?

There were around 720.000 recent Spaniard immigrants to Brazil. It is a pretty number. But it is hard to know how many people would have a Spanish descent. First, because they were easily integrated into Brazilian society, and the main waves of European immigration to Brazil stopped around 1930—1940. From the Lithuanians to the Galicians, from the Scandinavians to the Balkanese, most third generation European Brazilians outside "colonies" in Southern and Southeastern Brazil had some other ancestry, presumably the melting pot that is White Brazilian (Got it? Overwhelming majority of us have some minoritarian ancestry from elsewhere in the world, white in any means is equated with European much less "pure" European). And Spanish immigration to Brazil was a very urban phenomena, immigrating mostly in the early 20th century. Second, it is not simple to discern Portuguese DNA from Spaniard DNA.

Finally, third, there was a massive presence of Spaniars in (naturally...) both Colonial and Imperial Brazil. More than a half of modern Rio Grande do Sul was under the Spanish Crown. They influenced not only in the easily-distinguishable dialect of the "Brazilian gaucho", but also on their ancestry. In the Brazilian Pampa, according to genetic researches (I do not know their method), there is more Spaniard and Amerindian DNA combined in the genome of the populace than Portuguese and African DNA together. Then, almost all the descendants of the gaúchos are in some degree descendants of the Spaniards. There are also the phenomena of other South Americans (mostly White when not from Bolivia and a wide minority of those from Paraguay, presumably of Spanish descent) immigrating to Brazil. Why not, Spanish families stablishing themselves in "recent" Portuguese history and some of them coming to Brazil (BTW, how I probably do have some little Spanish ancestry, from the 16th and/or 17th centuries, I can also declare more or less half a dozen of European ancestries doing this anyway). Do you understand what I mean? Tentative methods of imaginating the number of Spanish Brazilians are mostly unscientifical. It is weird to discredit presence in Colonial Brazil either (what about French Canadian/American, Anglo-Celtic Australian, etc.?). Lguipontes (talk) 12:32, 3 February 2012 (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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

Outdated data

Never mind.

Women?

Spain produced a number of famous women, not just Isabel I. Where are they? We need at least several more to provide a semblance of balance in the image.

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)

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)

Traditions of Spain.

I think these articles on different peoples could be accompanied by video clips showing different traditions of said peoples. It could be very interesting adding a cultural and traditional context, which is always very interesting in anthropology.

This video shows Southern Spaniards from Seville in traditional costumes and traditional music:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIH70DYLBV0---

This video shows the Holly Week in Malaga, also in Southern Spain, which is a religious tradition with a strong military flavour:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3TK5w5Gloc

This video shows the famous Fallas of Valencia, in South-Eastern Spain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-S6PRESdgAk

Catalan human towers, North-Eastern Spain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VTVtSpXWoU

Asturian pipers, Northern Spain:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhYcFsfTNk4

This one is about the famous Safermines, in Pamplona, Nothern Spain:http://www.rtve.es/alacarta/videos/sanfermines/accidentado-veloz-cuarto-encierro-sanfermines-2014-ganaderia-garcigrande/2652537/ Pipo.

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)

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)