Talk:Spaniards/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Repeated reverts on the Muslim period and influence

Blocked/banned sock hidden (WP:SOCKSTRIKE) --IamNotU (talk) 20:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
My edits keep on being reverted by one particular user who tries to manipulate and minimise the Muslim presence in Spain. The user has a predictable number of tactical tools to try and justify their systematic reverts ie. “repetition”, “saturation” or “clearer”. A whole historical, cultural, linguistic, genetic period of 800 years cannot be and must not be understated arbitrarily. History cannot be rewritten. Therefore a fair and accurate representation is being consistently manipulated here.Melroross (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC) You are insisting on including information that contains constant repetitions and including little or nothing relevant information regarding the article. In one of your editions you mentions that the Spanish language is the national language when a few paragraphs above already mention that Spanish is the national language of Spain. Another of your editions in the Lead adds that the Spanish language is "Heavily" influenced when its source does not really specify that, besides being a very exaggerated and not very neutral expression. The Spanish language has Arabic influence, but that is already mentioned in the language section of the article itself, and I see no sense in mentioning the Arabic influence of Spanish and yet omitting the rest of its influences for example. Please stop the Edit Wars NormanGear (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC) blocked sock == NormanGear You started partial edits and Edit Wars without even having the courtesy to sign them. Wikipedia is not an a la carte menu where you pick and choose what you fancy. The Lead article you invoke is yet another example of your conduct, quote: http://teachmideast.org/articles/arabic-contributions-to-the-spanish-language-and-culture/ “ Known as the Romance languages, they consisted of four principal dialects: Mozarabic, spoken by the Christians who lived under Muslim rule and which became the principal medium for passing Arabic words into Spanish; Aragonese, spoken in the lands of Aragon and Navarre; Leonese, the tongue of the kingdom of Leon which was heavily influenced by Arabic words; and Castilian, destined to become the national language of Spain. Known as the Romance languages, they consisted of four principal dialects: Mozarabic, spoken by the Christians who lived under Muslim rule and which became the principal medium for passing Arabic words into Spanish; Aragonese, spoken in the lands of Aragon and Navarre; Leonese, the tongue of the kingdom of Leon which was heavily influenced by Arabic words; and Castilian, destined to become the national language of Spain.“ Please stop your Edit Wars. Counterproductive and against Wikipedia:Five pillars namely: WP:5P2 Quote: “ Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong.” Have a good day. Melroross (talk) 13:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC) Do you not even realize that the only thing you are doing is repeating information that is already mentioned (sometimes textually) in the Lead itself of the article? I do not say that your editions are false, but you are repeating already published content. Honestly, I think you should leave the rhetoric of accusations and personal attacks. No one denies the Arab influence of Spain or Portugal. Read the article well and stop repeating content, and above all, stop accusing constantly. Greetings, have a good day. NormanGear (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC) Look, I show you an example that you are adding information already exposed in the Lead. Your new edition: "Following the reconquista against the Al-Andalus Moors and given the expulsions in the 15th and 16th centuries against religious minorities" What was already mentioned in the article: "Following the Christian Reconquista against the Moors (...) Heresy was persecuted by the established Catholic Church, the state religion, by the Spanish Inquisition and it persecuted religious minorities in Spain, such as Jews and Muslims, requiring them to either convert to Catholicism or be expelled." In the Lead the Arab history of the Iberian Peninsula appears perfectly, I am not denying the influence or Arab history. Avoid adding equal or very similar information so as not to saturate the Lead of the same content. You have already been notified of this. NormanGear (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2020 blocked sock NormanGear I am absolutely not repeating content. This is rhetoric you invoke when trying to justify your manipulation of this topic. My edits make complete sense in the historical context I placed them- an introduction which is further developed in the Lead, similarly to all other aspects in this Lead (and most academic articles which denote logical structure). There is a beginning, a development and a conclusion. Your rationale does not apply those. Your reverts reflect personal opinions and harassment as I have witnessed no such blatant antagonism, let alone systematic reverts from any other users. You appear to have made this topic personal, considering these are your sole contributions to Wikipedia. Again, I refer to Wikipedia:Five pillars namely: WP:5P2 WP:5P4. Finally and to address wrong assumptions you used previously “I noticed that Portuguese people are very nationalist”. I am British English, totally bilingual and with a fair knowledge of Spanish culture too. So again, you are going by pre-conceptions when suggesting I might take this personally. That is not the case, just to clarify. Melroross (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC) In the Lead article you can see there are parts that are repeated or are very similar (The example above). I propose that we should summarize the Lead of the article as best as possible and not add information already repeated. I will not comment on your continued accusations and personal attacks, it is not worth it, nor is this the place for it at all. I ask you again to stop accusing manipulation and harassment and start making non-repetitive editions, or failing that, propose a solution to reach an agreement. NormanGear (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC) blocked sock As you appear to insist on my edits being repeats, which they aren’t considering the logical development of articles, I agree that a compromise must be reached. I invited third parties to intervene in an impartial and conciliatory manner so this is resolved. Best wishes, Melroross (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC) Please do not edit unilaterally without first reaching a consensus. I appreciate that you admit that there are repetitions in the Lead [1], but you should delete the last repeated edition added, that is, theirs, and not the one already established. I think it is logical. Many thanks. NormanGear (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2020 (UTC) blocked sock Hello NormanGear, adding to Wikipedia:Five pillars one fundamental aspect to Wikipedia is that it can be constructively edited and improved by anyone on the planet. Neither you and most certainly nor I, have the monopoly over this or any article. Hence my having invited several third parties to on the one hand put an end to this Edit War and more importantly to convey and source fair, accurate and impartial end-results on both pages you have been editing Spaniards and Portuguese people. I trust you will welcome this initiative. Regards, Melroross (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Diaspora

A figure is being put in for the Spanish Diaspora, but none of the sources check out. The editor adding the figure added two sources and a youtube video. Youtube is not a WP:RS and the two sources do not have this figure. There are also a string of sources next to the number, referring to individual countries, but even if we read the numbers from each source and added them together, and even if this number matched the new figure (which I doubt) it would be WP:SYNTH. The pages are not all counting the same thing so the numbers cannot be summed. The old wording was "hundreds of millions" which is accurate because it is vague. If we want an actual number here, then we need a good and reliable source for the number. The number needs to be trusted, verifiable and uncontested if Wikipedia is to assert it. Please discuss the figures and sourcing here. When we have editor consensus I am more than happy to see a sourced figure inserted. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

‘…an estimated 8 million deaths following the initial conquest…’ Not sure of the relevance of including this sentence in this topic. In any event the 'conquest' was not something that occurred overnight and instantaneously, it was a process that encompassed the subsequent decades and centuries since European arrival. So it’s more coherent to extrapolate that an accidental biological genocide ultimately proved to be the real conquerors as casualties from it were responsible for far more deaths than actual warfare in that period.

Furthermore indigenous people initially comprised the majority of the warriors that defeated the native empires of the day. Old World diseases then proceeded to indiscriminately wipe out a large portion of the native population (including native allies) and those that survived were left in a severely weakened physical state. These circumstances are what allowed Westernized biracials (mestizos who’ve outnumbered those of mostly European ancestry) to thrive at the expense of the indigenous population, gradually gaining the ascendancy and absorbing (voluntarily or by force) the remaining native nations across the region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:388:6080:156:1C98:634A:101E:A8EE (talk) 09:12, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Infobox: representing Latin Americans of Spanish descent

I reverted @Davidnfx:'s edit since I think the former version is better at separating the imprecise (yet huge) number of Latin Americans of (very old) Spanish descent from more recent Spanish nationals and their descendants.--Eostrix (talk) 14:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with your Reversion, Eostrix. I am the poster who originally added the "hundreds of millions" figure. It is a vague number, no doubt, but it is not only true but important enough in the demographics of those countries where those descendants live that it would be foolish not to include until we can find more precise figures. --Zulu, King Of The Dwarf People (talk) 02:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Remove Berbers and Maghrebis

Berbers and Maghrebis are not part of the Spaniards or Spanish people. They should be removed from the section "Other groups". They are not even ethnically related on any level, before it should be named the Portuguese, the French and the Italians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.152.129.32 (talk) 08:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

They live in Ceuta and Melilla. --Jotamar (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The genetic footprint of the Phoenicians and Carthaginians in Iberia

Can you explain to me where exactly it says in the sources that the Carthaginians and Phoenicians left a genetic mark on the Spanish?

I have checked the sources several times (some are even broken) and I have not been able to observe any mention that they left a genetic mark on the Spanish.

Please let me know, Grandpallama. Thanks. BaylanSP (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC).

It's covered in the Science source; additionally, an inability to access a source does not make that source inapplicable. Quit removing sourced material, and quit rewriting ledes to suit your opinions instead of allowing them to reflect the body of the article. You need to take some time making minor edits and familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia policy; read some of those links that were placed in the welcome message on your talkpage. If you continue down this path of edit warring on articles, you'll end up blocked. Grandpallama (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The first source of the section is not only inaccessible, it gives a error 404.

Please, Grandpallama specify or insert exactly the phrase from the source where it says that there is a Phoenician and/or Carthaginian genetic footprint in the Spanish. BaylanSP (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The first link is not broken; it just had a couple of extra characters. What are you talking about with the Science article? It's covered all throughout the article. It's in the abstract: "Beginning at least in the Roman period, we document how the ancestry of the Peninsula was transformed by gene flow from North Africa and the eastern Mediterranean." Grandpallama (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay, but the body of the source doesn't state categorically that this flow from the "Eastern Mediterranean and North Africa" is from the Phoenicians and Carthaginians. It says it may be due to them (Phoenician-Punic) or probably related to the well-known mobility patterns during the Roman Empire.

I will put both possibilities in the section.BaylanSP (talk) 16:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Done. I have simply added the complete information from the source.BaylanSP (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand your editing. Punic=Phoenician in a genetic sense, because Carthage was founded by the Phoenicians; "Punic" just means "western Phoenicians". And regardless of why it happened, the group remains the same. Grandpallama (talk) 16:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Many sources tend to separate them, but if you want to put it together, no problem. BaylanSP (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Spanish national flag

As it is an article about the Spanish, I am going to add the national flag of Spain. Putting the country's flag is usually quite the standard in these articles: (Ex: Portuguese people, Italians, German people, etc, although not in French people by the way...)

If there is anything wrongly edited please let me know. BaylanSP (talk) 18:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Origin of some of the content of the "Ancestry" section

The entire second paragraph of the Ancestry section is copied content from Genetic history of the Iberian Peninsula; see that page's history for attribution. BaylanSP (talk) 07:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Please read WP:COATRACKING. The fact that it has its own article is precisely why we don't need so much detail in this one--because editors arrived at a consensus it should be moved to a different place. Grandpallama (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Another obstacle? Well, if you want, I try to synthesize the information in that paragraph in such a way that it remains as a small informative mention. Regards.BaylanSP (talk)

There is no need to include more information than what is already in the extant article on this topic. Again, it's why we already have an article on that topic. If I write an article on dogs, and then write an article on the genetic makeup of dogs, I include a link to the genetics article in the dogs article; I don't import significant portions of the genetics article into the dogs article. Grandpallama (talk) 16:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, I can include two lines, mainly explaining that the ancestry base of the Spanish is similar to the rest of the Western Europeans, and more specifically to the Northern Italians and Southern French. In addition to including the Greeks and the migrations of the Roman Empire. It is literally two or three lines.

If you look at other articles like Italians, the introduction is the same as the one I propose.BaylanSP (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, Italians' introduction is huge, I just propose a summary of three extra lines. Honestly, it's reasonable.BaylanSP (talk)

I have basically added three lines of presentation or summary, added the mention of migrations before and during the Empire (As the sources suggest) and the Greeks (also mentioned in the added source)

I have been able to keep the section in a very summarized way and without large text extensions. BaylanSP (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

"Spaniards" in Galician language

There is a note where it's shown how "Spaniards" is said in the different languages spoken in Spain. In Galician, the correct spelling of the word is "españois", without the accent. The phonetic transcriptions are correct though. I tried to correct it but don't know how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogaiago (talk • contribs) 18:55, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Romance-speaking people

I open this thread because Grandpallama has objections to this topic as well.

All Spanish people, all of them, have the Spanish language as their official native language (Castilian to be more exact) and this is established in the Spanish Constitution of 1978.

The Basques have, in addition to the Basque language (Non-Romance language) the Spanish language as a native language as well. Furthermore, Spanish is obviously the most widely spoken even in the Basque Country. They are Spanish, after all.

All Spanish nationals are Romance-speaking people because of this, all of them have a Romance language as official. Regards. BaylanSP (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

The official language =/= the language that people actually speak. Per our own article on this, The identifying language of the Basques is called Basque or Euskara, spoken today by 25%-30% of the region's population. There is a reason "predominantly" is used in the lede sentence, not the least of which is because there is a history of the Spanish government attempting to stamp out the use of the Basque language, which has made it a sensitive topic (as I'm sure you know). Grandpallama (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

The spanish government? Are you aware of what you are saying?

I suppose you are not Spanish and that is why you are confused, but it was Franco's fascist regime and dictatorship who wanted to eliminate all co-official languages. There is no government wanting to do such a thing.

Well, aside from that, I am not in favor, because it suggests that the Basques are not speakers of a Romance language, but if it is such a sensitive topic (It isn't in Spain's reality anyway) here, I agree to keep it as "Predominantly" as you want. BaylanSP (talk)

Are you aware of what you are saying? I said "a history of the Spanish government attempting to stamp out the use", which you just confirmed by citing Franco. Grandpallama (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, yes, but what I am saying is that the Franco regime was literally a dictatorship that has nothing to do with this article, that is, there is no threat to the use of the Basque language with any government in Spain. BaylanSP (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

The Franco regime has nothing to do with an article on Spaniards? Nonsense. Grandpallama (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the OP. Franco's argument is extremely unnecessary and off-topic.

The Basques of Spain are Spanish, and all Spanish people have Spanish as their native language, a Romance language. I understand that the Basques are also native speakers of Basque, a non-Romance language, but it makes no sense to consider the Basques as a different speaking population from the Romance language when their native and most widely used language in the Basque Country is Spanish.

All Spaniards are ethnically Romance speakers, regardless of whether or not they have another non-Romance native language. Venezia Friulano (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

To give an understandable example: It is like saying that the Irish people are not an Anglo-speaking ethnic group because they also have as their official language a language from another totally different linguistic family, such as the Irish language, which is of Celtic origin, and not Germanic like the English language. Venezia Friulano (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

"Romance ethnic group"

The current lead starts like this: Spaniards are a Romance ethnic group native to Spain. As I tried to convey in an edit summary, that's not how Spanish nationalists conceptualize their own nation. The Romance ethnic group is an outsider's point of view, and quite possibly a stereotype. Of course it's easy to source that some casual observer or tourist has given such a definition, but the relevance of such sources is more than dubious. In sum, this should be clearly stated in the page, for example, Spaniards are, according to some foreign observers, a Romance ethnic group. And certainly not at the top of the lead. --Jotamar (talk) 22:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Then how do Spanish people view themselves? I see Spaniards as being European/White/Mediterranean but their language comes from the “romance family”… As we are dealing with Spanish people as opposed to the ethnic groups that abound from other parts of Iberia - is Spanish still a standalone ethnic group in the same manner as Basque?.SinoDevonian (talk) 19:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that ethnic groups have any objective existence in the real world. These pages about X people are just a compromise to try to accommodate certain types of information that are difficult to fit in other pages. My main concern is that they don't end up being a collection of stereotypes. --Jotamar (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Romance is a family of languages evolved from the (lower-class) Latin. How can be that an ethnic group??????? Are British and WASPs ethnically romance too because a huge percentage of the English language happens to be Latin and French loan-words? To begin with, are Spaniards an ethnic group? Portuguese became an ethnic group in 1139, when the count of Portugal, Kingdom of León, became the king of Portugal? What the hell is an ethnic group? All Western Europe from Gibraltar to the Orkneys use to belong prevalently to the R1b R-M269 Y-DNA haplogroup since the Bronze Age [Insert here a British explaining that thanks to the marvelous Frisian Single Nucleotide Polymorphism the awesomely Brrrrrritish R-M269 has nothing to do with the Spanish R-M269, let alone with the Irish R-M269]. The American use of the term ethnicity only creates confusion in Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.99.89.51 (talk) 11:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Spaniard vs Hispanic

"Many populations outside Spain have ancestors who emigrated from Spain and share elements of a Hispanic culture. The most notable of these comprise Hispanic America in the Western Hemisphere." It would be a good addition to the article's intro to add something like "While the vast majority of Spanish-speakers of the Americas are indeed of at least partial Spanish descent, 'Hispanic' is a more appropriate term for identifying these populations when looking at both Spain and Hispano-America." This awkwardness is also relevant in pages like "Spanish diaspora" or "Spanish Colombian". As a Hispanic myself from South America, I clearly have ancestry and heritage from Spain, but I would never refer to myself as a Spaniard. 108.46.168.9 (talk) 07:20, 26 November 2022 (UTC)