Talk:Genetic history of the Iberian Peninsula

Content

Requested moved from Spanish people. See discusion here: Talk:Spanish_people#Genetic_history_of_the_Iberian_peninsula --Infinauta (talk) 15:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Some issues

The information in the page looks more or less acurate but some wordings seem a bit off :

1) Spaniards primary genetic conection is with Atlantic/Western Europe (+70% R1b), not with "Mediterranean peoples".

2) Mediterranean-European populations carry substantial ammounts of Near East/African markers, specially Central/Southern Italy, Sicily, Southern Portugal and Greece. So having affinities with European Mediterranean populations already implies some minor non-European Mediterranean relation.

3) Dividing the article as it is now (links to European/NA/SSA populations) seems to imply first: Spaniards and the Portuguese are not a European populations themselves, and second, they belong in genetic maps somewhat between those three regions, which is absurd. Being a European population already implies having some minor non-European genes. Spaniards have slightly higher Mediterranean influence (and the Portuguese are more genetically diverse) than the European mean, while for example Scandinavians (specially Finns and East Swedes) have a higher Asiatic influence. --88.11.18.191 (talk) 01:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

If you don't like the section break-up, please suggest an alternative one. --Jotamar (talk) 18:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I am writing in reference to the article by Adams, Susan M, et al (2008). "The Genetic Legacy of Religious Diversity and Intolerance: Paternal Lineages of Christians, Jews, and Muslims in the Iberian Peninsula." This article is cited disproportionately as if it was the only research. This attitude is not scientific, but it is descriptive of the personal feelings. This is one of many articles based on interpretation of data.

In the Article by Adams et al (2008) the authors use the Basques as representational of Iberian population before the Islamic period. Yet in Iberia there is a region that had zero Islamic influence, and this region is Asturias. The authors of this article did not include a large sample from Asturias as representational of Iberian populations before the Islamic period.

Why was Asturias ignored? This is because Asturias is a area with a different collections of Y-chromosome and Mt-DNA than the Basques. Adams et al (2008) assume without evidence that the Basque are the most representational people of Iberia.

Was Iberia before the Islamic period identical to the Basques? It is impossible to prove one way or the other, because there is no genetic research before the 20th century. But since Basque was not spoken in the rest of Iberia during historical records, it makes more sense to think that Iberia was different than the Basque region. Before Roman times, most Iberian spoke Celtic as a native language.

Adams et al (2008) after assuming that the Basque were representational of the rest of Iberia, accepted modern populations from the Middle East and North Africa as representational of 8th century populations from these regions. This is something that Adams and the other authors assume (2008); but there is no scientific evidence that the populations of North Africa or the Middle East have remain the same for the last two thousand years.

With these assumptions Adams et al (2008) did a comparison. For example, 50% of the Y-chromosomes of Northwest Africa are E-M81, and the other 50% are in categories J, G, R, I, etc. Then, Adams concluded that when you have a 5% E-M81 Y-chromosomes in a population of Iberia, there had a to be a North African admixture of 10%, because in North Africa Y-chromosomes in groups R1b, G, J, I are also found. The same thinking was applied to their comparison with Middle East populations.

The scientific thinking of Adams et al article (2008) can be question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Robert-Smart (talk • contribs) 18:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

5)The majority of the writing in this article is about a link with Africa; does this mean that the Iberian Peninsula is genetically a part of Africa? The answer is no.

The genetic studies discussed below are interpretations (theories) of samples taken from different parts of Iberia; but the highest overall African admire according to these selective studies (North-African and Sub-Saharan Africa combine) is 10% or less for Y-chromosomes; Mt-DNA is 6% or less (Mt-DNA L and U-6). This means that Iberia is still genetically part of Europe, and the overall African admire is small, if the information presented below were scientifically proven.

From a scientific point of view the information discuss below is presented as a racist criticism of the Iberian people; why is it racist? It is a racist interpretation, because the most important characteristic about Iberian is not the African admixture. For example, the Basques share with all Iberian populations genetic characteristics that separate Iberians from African people and other European groups. Genetically Iberian peoples are a different group than North Africans.

Human habitation of Iberia is thousands of years old; the prehistory of Iberia is different than the prehistory of North Africa. The history of Iberian people is more complex and diverse than the Islamic period. The contributions of the inhabitants of Iberia in prehistoric times are worthy of attention, for example, the cave painting in Altamira.

Iberia shares with North Africa some cultural aspects [like what? lots of sushine?] , but the languages of Iberia are not like the Afro-Asiatic languages of North Africa, Berber and Arabic. Iberia has Indo-European languages and Basque. Culturally Iberian people have their own culture and identity, which is different from the cultures of North Africa.

None of the studies presented below discuss the autosomal genetic interpretation of Iberian people; Y-chromosome and Mt-DNA studies are not always representational of autosomal genetics. A Y-chromosome is only 2% of male genetics, and the Mt-DNA is less than 1% of overall DNA. Levels of admixture are not determent by Y-chromosome or Mt-DNA. Admixture is determent by overall autosomal DNA.

The information below should not be edited or change; it is representative of poor scientific thinking or racist ideology. The amount of information about an African connection is disproportionate large in comparisons with the genetic results. Let the reader be the judge. Jack Robert-Smart (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)Jack Robert-SmartJack Robert-Smart (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Before further editing this page, I suggest that you have a look at the links in your talk page: User talk:Jack_Robert-Smart. Thank you. Jotamar (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

6) The article with the 1%> means that Iberian are 99% African, and that only applies if all human beings are 100% African. But the people editing this article do not make this point. The long list of places with list of African Y-chromosomes and Mt-DNA is racist and not scientific, since every person in those geographical areas have not been tested. This selective quotations from theoretical studies are racist. Why does Wikipedia allows this? Warning Wikipedia is a company with Headquarters in San Francisco, California, where racist discrimination is illegal. JackRobert-Smart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Robert-Smart (talk • contribs) 20:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Another Anfrocentric (Seminordicist) article?

why do not you continue cherry picking information and end up devoting like 90% of the space to the African influence? Why not. Why shoul you point out so much that theIberian Peninsula is one of the places in Europe with the highest frequencies of the most frequent Eurpean ancestry genes? Y and N Haps. This place smells like Nordicist/Afrocentrist propaganda, as usual. Why do not you include this article? There seem to be a sick croud out there.

http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/sesostris-the-great-the-egyptian-hercules/the-africans-who-discovered-europe-first-europeans-part-ii/

And then the introduction. What a fallacy? The discovery o the distribution of Hap. R1b and Mito. Hao. N, the most frequent in Europe and within Europe in Spain are a revolutionary discovery that contradicts all previous historical theories. In interesting , though, to see the reactions in Wikipropagandapedia.

Goofy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.68.73 (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

you are right. somebody should take he time and the trouble to fix it. Goof.

Undue weight conceded to two studies' regional results

Most if not all of the genetic studies used as sources for this article have detailed regional results, yet only two of them are granted with their own subsection. Either: we post all regional results from all studies (insanely blowing up an already inflated article), make some regional means from them (a bit unencyclopedic, but could be done), or just state their general results in the pertinent section they belong, noting any regional statistical oddities if its the case and give each study their due weight.--95.122.68.188 (talk) 23:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

SEVERAL RECENT SOURCES FOUND HERE.

IN THIS LINK YOU CAN FIND SEVERAL LINKS TO RECENT STUDIES ABOUT THE GENETICS OF SPAIN. SINCE THE DISCOVERY OF MODERN GENETICS SURPRISES COME AFTER SURPRISES. I KNOW THAT ALL THESE ETHNIC THEORIES COMING FROM THE 19TH AND EARLY 20TH CENTURIES ARE NOW DISCREDITED AND REGARDED AS PSEUDOSCIENCE. THAT IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE REASONS WHY ALL THIS NEW STUFF SOUNDS SO WEIRD, TO ME IN THE FIRST PLACE, I RECKON,

http://anthrospain.blogspot.com/2011/07/spaniards-genetically-similar-to.html

POOK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.163.240 (talk) 23:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality of the article

This article seems to be a excuse to write a complete and big paragraph about how iberians are linked with african populations, about how african or jewish are (the typical study that atributes j2 to jewish population, but only in iberia and not in the rest of europe). It is absurd. The agenda is obvious. A BIG 0 to wikipedia and its neutrality.

Instead of just dismissing the page, I think you should propose ways to improve it. Jotamar (talk) 14:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I also think this article is neither good nor neutral. But so what? In some fields Wiki is a disaster and everyone knows it. Pooh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.202.64 (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

This article is a joke, right? Are people here really aware of the latest discoveries about the Iberian genome? John. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.172.154 (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Haplogroup percentages on their own mean very little.

New updates.

http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2012/03/06/basque-origins-predate-arrival-of-farmers-in-iberian-peninsula-dna-analysis-finds/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.203.72 (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

THIS ARTICLE IS ODD.

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.

In genetics to try to present isolated studies without showing the big picture, that is in relation to all other populations as a whole, is easily subject to bias and manipulation. Show the big picture and deceiving is impossible, show just a piece that you like, and you can almost claim anything from any population. Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.48.77 (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like good stuff, cheers! AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Links with european populations or african populations.

I can see the the only interest in this article is to elucidate if the iberians are europeans or africans and in which %.

The title "Genetic history of the Iberian Peninsula" can not be more wrong. Reading it i learn nothing about that.

"Links with european or african populations in the iberian peninsula" will be much better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.165.192.127 (talk • contribs)

Not really. Original European (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 03:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

So, what else would you include to make justice to the page title? --Jotamar (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Come on , people, this article is a joke. Devoting half a page to a minority influence, while ignoring so much updated information, big pictures based on entire genomes, etc. I do not even try to touch these articles, among the worse in Wiki, knowing the type of people behind them. By the way, here you have a web page that deals with admixture: http://admixturemap.paintmychromosomes.com/

Besides, I would like to see an article called Asian Admixture in Europe, for example, which is way much greater than the African admixture. But most interesting is the way these studies are done: In places like England, were people are classified as white, black and so on, blacks are obviously not included in the study. In places like Portugal, were those racialist classifications are not done, all nationals are included, even people who may be mulattos. As a result you have these ridiculous results. By the way, here you have some pictures of the national teams of popular sports in some European countries. No more comments needed:

Spain

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/

http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/1713277/0/mundial-balonmano/espana-dinamarca/campeon/

Italy

http://soccerplayerpict.blogspot.com/2010/07/italy-football-team.html

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Italy_national_basketball_team_2011.jpg

England

http://blog.totalposter.com/2010/05/england-world-cup-soccer-team/

http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/2LoyPESYmUa/Olympics+Day+2+Basketball/UGQtdoLNrV1

France

http://www.hothdwallpaper.net/wallpapers/hd/509587/france-soccer-team-wallpapers-1280x800

http://www.nbacircle.com/france-mens-basketball-team-roster-in-london-olympics-2012.html

Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.48.77 (talk) 03:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.48.77 (talk)

Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.48.77 (talk) 03:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Obviously you know nothing about 'fútbol de dinero grande'. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC for merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should this article be redirected to Genetic history of Europe?

Survey

• support: far too much weight on primary sources. Not clear it is notable enough for it's own article. aprock (talk) 04:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PRESERVE and WP:NOTIMELIMIT. I don't see any reason to delete this article. --Mark viking (talk) 13:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Because you are simply proposing to erase this page, including sourced content. --Jotamar (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Valid topic. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Sounds more appropriate for an AFD discussion. --SubSeven (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Certainly this article could use some work, especially as regards organization of the content already found here, but this is a sizable, well-sourced article with abundant information that cannot be easily subsumed into Genetic history of Europe (and is a noteworthy topic in its own right anyway). Not appropriate for merger, and certainly not for end-run deletion, which is what seems to be the aim of the proposal. Snow (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose There is too much information specific to the Iberian peninsula to merge this article into one with a broader scope. Merging would, in my opinion, lengthen the Europe article with information that is not necessarily of interest to everyone reading that article. I agree that merging would probably result in the gradual deletion of the information here. It needs to be updated, but it should not be merged or deleted.Roches (talk) 08:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose and WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. I agree that this topic probably couldn't be comfortably contained elsewhere. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose – The information in this article is too specific for an actual merge of this article into the European article. However, in this case, a discussion on deletion would be more suitable for redirection. While the article does seem a little suspect in some places, it seems to be salvageable enough not to warrant complete deletion. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 04:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons related to most of those foregoing. I wouldn't touch the subject myself, but as it stands this article belongs in someone's sandbox. It is out of sight from being in WP publishable form. It needs rewriting, relinking, and probably a lot of rethinking. None of that is to be fixed by merging with anything. The topic is not without interest, so deletion probably is not appropriate, and someone has put a lot of work into the article, but that does not mean that it is acceptable as it stands. Good luck someone... JonRichfield (talk) 04:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose--per Staszek Lem.The Herald 00:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

This article was broken out of Spanish people, and then abandoned by editors of that article. The edit history indicates that this article is not in any way curated, and it shows. Probably best to just redirect to the more well maintained Genetic history of Europe. aprock (talk) 04:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand. You proposed a merge, but then advocated deleting all content and replacing with a redirect. Merge and redirect are very different actions. Looking at the two articles, there is a good bit of information in in this article, referenced to reliable sources in the form of peer reviewed journals, information that is not in Genetic history of Europe. Per WP:PRESERVE, verifiable information sourced to reliable sources should be preserved, not deleted. I'm not sure why this was separated from Spanish people (perhaps undue weight?), but Spanish people now has nothing on genetic origins and is a gap in coverage. I don't find lack of recent work on the article a to be a compelling reason for deletion; there is no time limit for improvement of articles, per WP:NOTIMELIMIT. There are issues of undue weight, as this article only seems to discuss human genetics of the Iberian peninsula, but that might be fixed by a name change. --Mark viking (talk) 13:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

You've lost me. To the extent that there is content worth keeping, it should be merged into the parent article. As best I can tell, there is no meaningful secondary sources used here to provide proper sourcing. You might take some time to review WP:UNDUE, WP:PSTS, and WP:N. This article just makes a mess of policy and guidelines. aprock (talk) 04:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Finding a reliable secondary source would certainly help to improve the page, but in the meantime this page has at least good primary sources. Except perhaps for a deletionist approach like if the text is not perfect (from my point of view) then it should be deleted. --Jotamar (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

From WP:PSTS, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Currently, there is little to no secondary sourcing in the article at all, indicating misuse of sources. If this article is to be maintained independently, it will require extensive clean up. aprock (talk) 04:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my comment, you are welcome to request the removal of all "interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims". You may start with tagging them. Otherwise the only answer to the claim "The article sucks" is "No it is not". Staszek Lem (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Per bot RFC request

The article has tags since 2011. Is it time to remove it? Are there any specific objections? the arguments of kind are useless: "isolated studies without showing the big picture, that is in relation to all other populations as a whole, is easily subject to bias and manipulation" or "while ignoring so much updated information, big pictures based on entire genomes, etc", and especially " I do not even try to touch these articles, among the worse in Wiki, knowing the type of people behind them". How you can argue with them? My only answer would be " where are your attempts of "showing the big picture"? Who tried to add "so much updated information" and got reverted? If you "not even try to touch" then go away and troll somewhere else.

If there are particular objections against specific statements, please raise them. Bitching "IS ODD" will not make it even. If you see bias, please prove it, citing other sources. And so on. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Somehow, your blaze dismissal of clear sourcing issues is unconvincing. If you have any reliable secondary sources that can be used to establish notability here, that would be more helpful. aprock (talk) 04:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Please show exactly where my "blaze dismissal" of proper sourcing. In fact, I intentionally avoided speaking on this issue, since I have never edited the to topic and cannot say anything in essence. I was just answering independent RFC and spoke of what I saw. I am not ready to add secondary sources, but I can discuss your objection stated in your vote. I will review the sources present in the article to figure out whether your "far too much weight" is indeed grave enough to kill the article. Please keep in mind that not all journal articles are exclusively primary sources. In my area of knowledge serious articles usually begin with a survey of the 'state the art', and these surveys are valid secondary sources for wikipedia. Please give me some time: I have some real life left to live :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

"... the arguments of kind are useless ..." While I appreciate that you may not be interested in such arguments, they are very central to policies surrounding WP:NPOV. Issues of weight are not sufficient to "kill the article" as you say. That is handled under the context of WP:NOTABILITY, not WP:DUEWEIGHT. aprock (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Is it your suggestion then that this article does not pass muster for notability? Because, aside from the obvious and broad relevance of the topic in abstract, I'm looking at dozens of secondary and peer-review sources, more than enough to hurdle past WP:GNG and field-specific guidelines. More secondary sources would help, but the minimum to establish notability is certainly being met. And primary sources are completely appropriate to this type of article, provided no synthesis is at work. As noted by others above, you are certainly allowed to remove any claims which are not supported by valid sourcing, but that's still going to leave the lion's share of the content on this page, which is more than enough to justify its existence. Please see WP:AfD: If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for deletion. and, as noted above, WP:NOTIMELIMIT. It's a shame that this article has been abandoned while in need of tightening but that is no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater and the lack of current motivation on the part of editors to work on it is not an argument for deletion -- in fact, this rationale is expressly disallowed by multiple policies. Snow (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I have not suggested that. But thanks for your input. As for the primary sources, they are clearly being interpreted by wikipedia editors, and thus misused. aprock (talk) 03:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you give the specific instances of synthesis which concern you? Snow (talk) 06:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

@User:Aprock: "... the arguments of kind are useless ..." I explained why there are useless: not because I don't like them, but IMO they are not falsifiable. You cannot argue against them not because they are valid, but because they are either generic opinions or straw man. For example, please explain what the phrase "isolated studies without showing the big picture" means in this context. i.e., how it specifically relates to the article. If you indicate specific faults, then I may agree or disagree. But taken in its face value this phrase is a useless truism: of course we all know the parabre about blind men and an elephant, so what? We must discuss article content, not timeless wisdoms. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The article has very few secondary sources, and no secondary sources which address the article topic at length. aprock (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

That's simply not true. We have citations from The Daily Mail, The New York Times, The BBC, The Guardian, National Geographic, ABC News, "El Mundo", and "Science News" which all directly treat the subject in question. Even if this were not true, primary sources are, in this case, appropriate, assuming synthesis is not at work, and you still, despite repeated calls to make specific claims, have yet to elucidate for your fellow editors here on the talk page exactly which claims you would consider synthesis. Despite having not done this, over the past five days since your RfC turned up six editors who were universally opposed to your merger, you have removed over 2/3 of the content from this page, including nearly 30 peer-review sources. What you couldn't achieve through a deletion and failed to achieve through an inappropriate merger you are now attempting to accomplish through a series of whittling edits. I am reverting these edits in mass as a clear violation of consensus; I have not viewed each and every edit, but those I did contained no evidence of synthesis despite this being your argument in the edit summaries for each. If you want to remove this content, you will have to present your case to your fellow editors here, in more than vagueries. Snow (talk) 23:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I would happily support inclusion of content based on secondary sources. If there was specific content that was removed that was backed by secondary sources, please highlight. I reviewed all of the sources that I removed, and made changes according to the content in the sources. As you admit above, you did not examine the edits critically. Have you reviewed any of the primary sources that you restored? aprock (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You seem to not be accepting the policy point that has been highlighted here repeatedly that primary sources are acceptable for sourcing straight-froward claims that involve no interpretation on the part of our editors. I did actually review the content of the sources in multiple instances and failed to see where the synthesis you claimed was taking place. Do you mind please being more specific here as to the claims you feel constitute original research? Because it seems to me, barring one or two instances I may have missed in the mix, that there is no synthesis taking place but rather that you are continuing to remove content on the grounds that it does not meet your sourcing standards -- yours, not Wikipedia's. On top of this, despite your insistence that we need to rely more on secondary sources, you deleted six of the nine such sources in the article... If you really want me to go point by point through your edit summaries and show where your perspectives are showing a clear exercise of personal preference over policy, I will (and I advise other involved editors to go over them in any event), but I think the less antagonistic and productive way forward would be for you to present your case on the individual sources/instances of synthesis you feel are at work and we can debate them. But I don't think you have synthesis arguments to sustain the removal of even a fraction of what you deleted. Rather I think your initiative for these changes lie with other policies, policies which the rest of us here disagree are applicable in this case, and this is basically a deletion attempt that you've already taken previous stabs at through other means. If it turns out I'm mistaken in any obvious cases of synthesis, I will fully admit it along the way, but for now, what do you say we proceed with a detailed analysis of the sources and charges of OR in question rather than a vague assertions as an argument for removing the bulk of the article? Snow (talk) 05:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Your interpretation of WP:PRIMARY is incorrect. I suggest you review the policy. Let me highlight the relevant portion: WP:PSTS: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care Given that many of the primary sources removed only mention the Iberian peninsula in passing, and almost none of them mention the peninsula in their abstract is a clear indication that the sources where not being used with care. With respect to the secondary sources I removed, they represented the same story in multiple venues. Having multiple sources which say essentially the same thing is not useful. If they say different things, or come up with different synthesis, then sourcing that content to the correct source is important. All the content due to the removed secondary source was already supported by another secondary source, and that content was retained. See WP:SOURCECOUNTING for further information. aprock (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting where you opted to cut that quote off, such that it avoids highlighting exactly where the care needs to be taken. Here's the full quote: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." This the crux of the policy argument you are trying to circumvent. Every editor who has commented here has acknowledged that this a real concern and none of us want original research in the article. But all you are doing is spamming reference to the policy and trying to use that as an excuse to excise the majority of the content on the page without actually demonstrating anywhere how that content is in violation of the policy in question. You can't just lean on the policy like a buzzword and expect it to function as a blank check to disassemble the article -- you need to go into particulars if you want to remove sourced content on those grounds, especially in the volume you are attempting and in the context where you have been seen rather stridently trying to eliminate this article through other means. Every other editor involved in this discussion is trying to tell you the same thing, but you keep falling back on the same general statement. We all know the policy, we all know how it applies. Now show us, for each sourced statement that you want to remove on these grounds, where the synthesis is taking place. Because I don't think your argument has legs at all here (nor does anyone else, apparently), but I'm willing to keep an open mind. On the other hand, I'm not willing to repeat myself a fifth time about why you need to make specific, rather than vague, arguments in order to remove sourced content. If you continue to delete content without showing specifically where those statements violate policy, I'll simply revert. As I suspect most other involved editors will.

As to the secondary sources -- sorry, I'm not buying it there. You removed some which were the only secondary sources citing a given fact, after bemoaning our dependence on primary sources. Also, please note that WP:SOURCECOUNTING is not a policy, but rather an essay, and not a particularly well-written, nuanced or relevant one, in my opinion. There is no policy excluding multiple sources for a given statement -- in fact, policy outright encourages that sourcing should be reasonably robust (and the more so the more controversial the claim). Again, I find it a bit telling that you first make the claim that this article lacks notability on the grounds of limited secondary sources (when in fact there are quite a few) and then start removing those secondary sources present. Sources which, through their volume, do tend to establish notability by showing broad interest across a good number of media sources of the highest possible caliber for our purposes here. I'm sorry, I'm just going to say it -- I don't think you're operating entirely in good faith with some of these edits; I think you've lost perspective and are trying to warp policy way out of it's intended uses to delete something you just want gone at this point. Snow (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Instead of trying to wikilaywer yourself out of the hole you've dug yourself, may I suggest responding to the content discussion below. aprock (talk) 03:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what hole have I dug myself into? Pointing out policy arguments which ever present editor except yourself has agreed upon and asking you for the umpteenth time to make specific claims before reducing a page to nothing (after you failed to get it deleted by a merger vote) is in no way "wikilayering". Nor is explaining to how the policies you keep citing ad nauseum really work. Or is wikilawyering to you any policy argument that extends beyond just repeating the name of the policy over and over? And I've already responded to one discussion bellow, only to have you once again simply raise the specter of primary sources where it isn't even applicable under any policy argument. And this despite the fact that I didn't even show any opposition to the edit in question the first place. That's a pretty unnecessary level of antagonism. Look, is it not conceivable to when all six of the other editors who responded to your RfC all uniformly oppose basically ever aspect of your approach the situation, that maybe, just maybe, you are the one who is mistaken about the rules our community operates by? Why did you even call the RfC in the first place if you weren't in the least interested in entertaining contrary opinions? Is it because you knew the deletion/merger attempt would absolutely be opposed if you undertook it unilaterally and you wanted to take a stab at shaping opinion towards supporting the move by framing the debate? Because the more insistent you are about disregarding (and indeed, seeming to disdain) opposing opinions from every other editor here, the more it seems that could be your only possible motive in having solicited outside perspectives. Snow (talk) 04:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

If your concept of productive is lecturing people who have a better grasp of policy than you do, while ignoring content discussions you were invited to join, I suggest you re-evaluate your approach to editing. aprock (talk) 04:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

You are unbelievable. Had you not found it necessary to make the implications you did -- which frankly are nothing short of delusional given you are clearly the editor who is at odds with everyone else -- in your previous message, I'd already have responded by now. Now do you want to keep taking this down a spiral of increasing incivility? Because if so I'd just as soon get an admin in to straighten all of this out now, rather than later. Perhaps that will be a user whose opinion you will respect as regards consensus and appropriate process. Snow (talk) 04:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

You are free to respond to any of the content discussions started below. Or you can continue here if you wish. aprock (talk) 04:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removing section on Canary Islands

These are not part of the Iberian peninsula. If an editor wishes to restore this section, then they must explain how this section belongs in this article, backed by secondary sources which establish due weight. aprock (talk) 01:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure the Canary Islands are listed because they were colonized by Spain and the islands themselves are really not all that far from the Iberian peninsula. But ok, fair enough, the islands are markedly closer to Africa. I don't object to this deletion in principle, although I think the fact that the native genetics of the islands now contribute to the gene pool of mainland Spain should be moved elsewhere if you are going to delete the section, since that that fact does bear upon the subject of the article. It will look a little odd, standing out amongst all of the other former Spanish colonies which surely contribute as well but aren't mentioned here, but oh well - it's still sourced and perhaps later we can add a fuller section about how such native populations contributed to the genetic make-up of Iberia as a result of colonialism and the slave trade, should suitable sources be located. Snow (talk) 06:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

There were no secondary sources in that section. What secondary sources would you suggest using to determine due weight? aprock (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello? Have you removed contents because They do not belong here but you haven't bothered to move the contents to some other page? That is called vandalism! --Jotamar (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I've recovered the contents about the Canary Islands while we discuss what page should have them. Do you all agree on a new page about Genetic history of the Canary Islands? --Jotamar (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't have any opinion about a new page at this moment. However, the Canary Islands are not a part of the Iberian Peninsula, and inclusion here is WP:SYNTH. aprock (talk) 02:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how that's WP:SYNTH, but anyway, I have a proposed solution. At first I was in-between on this one, because my own understanding of the subject and a look at the Canary Islands suggested perspectives that I thought could only really be parsed into two major categories. Take for example the lead of the afore-mentioned article, which reads:

"The Canary Islands (English /kəˈnɛəri ˈaɪləndz/; Spanish: Islas Canarias [ˈizlas kaˈnaɾjas], locally: [ˈiɦlah kaˈnaɾjah]), also known as the Canaries (Spanish: Canarias), are a Spanish archipelago located just off the northwest coast of mainland Africa, 100 kilometres (62 miles) west of the border between Morocco and the Western Sahara."

So on the one hand, it is described as definitively Spanish, is definitely a part of Spain in the formal sense, and our own sources suggest Spanish genetics are a large (though very likely not the majority) portion of the genetic make-up of the islands. On the other hand, geographically the Archipelago lays closest to Africa, and the genetic make-up is likely most largely composed foremost by the descendants of the native Gaunches, with a healthy smattering of other ethnicities from northwest Africa. But then, if anyone had stopped to think about it, there is one article most definitely linked to the Canary Islands...it's Canary Islands. And sure enough, that article has a blank subsection for it's genetics, with only a "see main article" link directing to Canarian people; I suggest either or both locations might serve perfectly well for that content, or at least whatever portion of it the active editors there can make use of, and that it was the first obvious place to look. Perhaps one of you gentlemen could take the content there by way of ending the impasse? Ideally without rubbing the active editors there the wrong way. Snow (talk) 03:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I personally would avoid Canarian people, as in my experience most X people articles are of low quality and if they have some valuable content it typically is redundant with some other page. Anyway, in this case that article already contains quite a sizeable section on human genetics, so it will be necessary to merge both sections. --Jotamar (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It appears that everyone is in agreement that the Canary Islands deserve to be treated elsewhere. In due course, someone will have to remove the content from this article. aprock (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Any more input about where to put the section? --Jotamar (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the section. If anyone has a suitable place for it to go, they are welcome to add it there. aprock (talk) 15:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't the kind of input I was asking for. And I wonder what benefit does WP get from deleting a section for which a move has already been decided. --Jotamar (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You're free to move it to a place where it belongs. It doesn't belong here. The project benefits by having article content being about article topic. aprock (talk) 00:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't strike me as a very above-board argument, given your established position of wanting to eliminate this article in its entirety and your resistance to the overwhelming consensus for a contrary approach endorsed by every other involved editor. I agree with Jotamar that deleting the information outright, without making the slightest effort to relocate it, is in contradiction of the consensus established on this particular selection of content, and I feel you cherry-picked the part of the decision which suited your ends while ignoring the elements that did not in a very non-collaborative way. You may not technically have violated any policy serious enough to mandate administrative involvement (no particular policy requires you to make that move and in fairness you did wait some time) but you certainly violated the spirit of consensus. At the very least, I hope this marks an end, for present time anyway, of your deletionist spree with regard to this article, since this seems a continuation of your efforts to accomplish via individual edits that which you couldn't manage with your RfC/merger discussion. As to the deleted content, I will find a new home for it. Snow (talk) 02:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

You do realize that when you treat other editors the way you are above, they are not going to lend much credence to what you say. As for the content in question, no one here is seriously arguing that it belongs in this article. If you can find a home for it, all the better. aprock (talk) 02:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

In what way and with which statement have I treated you in an inappropriate manner? As for you giving my positions credence, looking at the discussions above it certainly seems to me that I am a part of a consensus of ten, whereas you are in a minority of one who has still largely tried to insist on having things his way, so it doesn't seem you reflect upon or consider the perspectives of others in your approach to editing in general, no matter how they approach you. Not when you disagree with said consensus anyway. I feel pretty secure in the perspective that most editors following the discussion on this page would judge your behaviour, of that of all of the editors involved here, to be the most contentious and non-collaborative, veering towards surly and uncivil in places. But we can always find out; if you genuinely feel I've somehow treated you in the above in a way that conflicts with any aspect of policy, we can always solicit the opinion of an admin. Otherwise let's keep this focused on content and the other aspects of process. Snow (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

When you write: "That doesn't strike me as a very above-board argument" you are failing to assume good faith. If you really think there is a consensus of 10 to retain the Canary Islands content, please present the diffs. aprock (talk) 07:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I have just checked the differences between the old section about the Canary Islands in this page and the corresponding section in Canarian people, and it turns out that this second page virtually contains all of the information we had here. No need to merge, therefore. --Jotamar (talk) 23:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Autosomal studies and nytimes source.

The source is not used to support the content. Removed from section, though not article. If anyone has any issues with this please raise them here. aprock (talk) 03:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support - The articles does actually touch upon the claim being made, but far too much analysis is required to extrapolate support for said claim from the source, and the context is not Iberian specific anyway. I agree with removal as per WP:OR. Snow (talk) 04:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Removed isogg source

This source is a self published website, [1], and should not be used for sourcing. I have removed the source from the body of the article. aprock (talk) 04:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support as per argument above. Snow (talk) 05:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

removed copyvio from Laura Morelli source

The source was quoted at length regarding very particular details which are not required for summarizing the content at an encyclopedic level. If more detail is required, the source should be paraphrased. aprock (talk) 04:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but why not just then paraphrase and otherwise adjust the wording accordingly, rather than remove the point altogether? Snow (talk) 05:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The point was already made. The detail provided in the quote did not add any encyclopedic value. If you disagree, you are free to add content from the source as you see fit. aprock (talk) 05:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Removed Daily Mail as a secondary source

The science and medical reporting of the daily mail is notoriously shoddy. Both the BBC and the Guardian sources cover the same story, and are much more widely regarded as reliable sources. These sources are more than sufficient to establish proper weight without restoring to substandard sourcing. I have thusly removed the daily mail citation, but kept the content as it is adequately supported by the other two secondary sources. aprock (talk) 05:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Just about to seek administrative involvement

Aprock, I have reverted your last three edits, which collectively removed about 3,500 characters worth of content and references, or about 1/10 of the page. Your arguments for these edits were as follows:

• "remove redundant sources" - this project considers extra sourcing to be value-added, until it reaches an extremely unwarranted point. Further, this seems to be a part of your ongoing effort to strip this page down one piece at a time.
• "A 2003, 2004, or 2006 study cannot contest a 2008 study" - An older study can certainly be used to contest an newer one, regardless of the fact that it's authors cannot set-out to do so. Make a more substantial argument for how the reference is not supporting the claim made before removing valid sourcing.
• "remove synthesis, the sources provided do not support the content referenced in the article" - I reviewed that source; it unambiguously made exactly the claim it was being used to support in this article.

If you persist in this tactic of attempting to delete the article by reduction as an end-run around overwhelming consensus, with absolutely no further discussion, I'll have no choice but to take this issue to ANI to resolve this once and for all. Snow (talk) 04:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Could you please explain the value of the redundant sources that you restored? Reviewing WP:OVERCITE, there does not appear to be good reason to include many sources which repeat the same content. aprock (talk) 07:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:Oversite is not a policy or guideline, it's an essay; it doesn't represent community consensus or even necessarily the perspectives of a large number of editors. The relevant policy pages are WP:V and WP:RS, neither of which put limits on sourcing. But my reticence to let this citation go, and I'll be blunt here, has a lot to do with the person who wants to delete it. I've seen you delete secondary sourcing immediately after advancing the argument that the article needs to be removed on account of relying too much on primary sources. You've already removed a number of sources over the last couple of months and, combined with what seems to be your general aim of disassembling the article piecemeal, my concern is that you will remove the "redundant" sourcing, then come back through in later edits, claim none of the remaining sources actually refer to claim being made (as you did earlier), remove those sources as well, and then remove the content. You wouldn't even necessarily need to intend to do it that way in order for it to play out in that manner. You'll forgive my minor break with "assume good faith" here, but this approach does seem to be your end here typically. Please understand, though you wanted the article merged or gone, the rest of us feel that it a notable topic. We should be trying to improve the clarity and encyclopedic tone of the prose and augment the article in general, not whittle it down to nothing. Those sources can still serve to make those improvements, maybe bring this article into a state where you don't think it's such an affront that it must be done away with, so please, so long as they support claims still in the article, don't delete them, at least not without some significant discussion. This article isn't going anywhere, and you've stripped out most anything that wasn't nailed down, so to speak, by policy protection (and I supported some of those decisions), but the time has come to apply the other half of the equation - building it back up properly so it doesn't read so awfully. Do you not see any potential here? Snow (talk) 11:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Page move suggestion

Could this page be moved to a title that doesn't suggest that it concerns the genetics of rocks and soil, such as Genetic history of people of the Iberian Peninsula?

Seems inconsistent with every other genetic history article on the project (see Genetic history of Africa, Genetic history of Europe, Genetic history of Italy, Genetic history of the British Isles and so forth). If it weren't for that significant fact, I think I might very well support your move, but there is something to be said for consistency in titles for articles of a related nature. Anyway, I do doubt that anyone's likely to be confused as to the focus of the article, even if all they see is the title. Snow (talk) 19:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Since this is an issue affecting so many articles, I'll try Wikipedia:Requests for comment. The more I think about it, the more I think that learners who aren't already very familiar with what genetics means could have difficulty, and that we should try to be considerate of them.

• Genetic history is used for tracing influences and relationships between documents, as in "A genetic history of the New England theology".
• It's true that a search of scholar.google.com shows quite a few articles that use "genetic history" meaning "human genetic history", but there are also many clearer titles such as "A genetic reconstruction of the history of the population of the Iberian Peninsula".
• A "genetic algorithm" is an analysis technique and can be used on historical data, though whether a reader could actually be confused is another question. A search of scholar.google.com with the search strings "genetic algorithm" and "historical data" produced 11,700 hits, and a google.com search produced 94,500 hits. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I still tend to think that the use is unlikely to cause much confusion, especially amongst our readers who are looking for such information, and generally speaking the project strives for simpler titles, but all of that said, there's certainly no harm to be found in discussing the issue more broadly. I suggest Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion as best place to broach the subject, though WP:Village pump would work too. Snow (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Scientific articles that deal with the entire Spanish genome.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2164-11-326.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.132.74 (talk) 15:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Article is the reaction of new startling discoveries?

Anyone who is familiar with the Net, and also Wiki, and these genetic articles, knows fairly well the type of people who abound here. An important discovery has been that all populations are quite mixed in Europe and the world, from a genetic point of view, but another important discovery is that, within that diversity, Iberians, and Spaniards, genetically speaking, are probably the most or one of the most typically Western European populations in the world. Fact is that the most widespread female haplogroug in Eruope, haplogroup H, has the greatest concentration in Spain: http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_H_mtDNA.shtml While the most common male haplogroup in Europe also has among its highest concentrations in Spain: http://www.eupedia.com/europe/maps_Y-DNA_haplogroups.shtml#R1b These findings are very interesting, from a prehistorical, historical and anthropological point of view, but it seems it is hitting a nerve with some people with some traditional agendas. Peter.

Article is the reaction of new startling discoveries?

Anyone who is familiar with the Net, and also Wiki, and these genetic articles, knows fairly well the type of people who abound here. An important discovery has been that all populations are quite mixed in Europe and the world, from a genetic point of view, but another important discovery is that, within that diversity, Iberians, and Spaniards, genetically speaking, are probably the most or one of the most typically Western European populations in the world. Fact is that the most widespread female haplogroug in Eruope, haplogroup H, has the greatest concentration in Spain: http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_H_mtDNA.shtml While the most common male haplogroup in Europe also has among its highest concentrations in Spain: http://www.eupedia.com/europe/maps_Y-DNA_haplogroups.shtml#R1b These findings are very interesting, from a prehistorical, historical and anthropological point of view, but it seems it is hitting a nerve with some people with some traditional agendas. Peter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.132.74 (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Changes June 2014

I edited the article once again, first of all I made weight in the section regarding links to african population, since it's not the main composition of Spain but takes up to 50% of the article and includes several non-conclusive studies that are by times contradictory. I also changed some wordings that for example imply that the population of Spain represents a link between today's europeans and north africans, which is the case, but in the same way as the rest of Europe itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.233.159.245 (talk) 13:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

After much thinking, I've reverted most edits by IP 190.233.159.245. Probably I have deleted some valuable text, but it's too difficult to tell good from bad in such massive changes. My reasons are:

• Again, you can't delete sourced statements based on sweeping generalisations as too much attention to this point. It's completely normal that those points that are more controversial or doubtful have the most text.
• If it's not the first time that the same editor makes changes (we can't know since it's an IP address), he or she should know that the contents of this page are disputed, and therefore each of the changes should be debated and justified individually, and not en masse so as to confuse other editors. --Jotamar (talk) 22:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

All my changes, from my point of view, are consistent, first of all this article is deorganized and is not written well, all its information is misleading and, excuse me, but this article is shit, please take the time to read the Genetic history of Italy article, there only the most important information is mentioned, no need to citate 10 different "controversial articles" to make Italy look less mixed than what it is; even if those articles are cited, the editors only proceed to talk about AVERAGES which is the correct way of citing genetic admixtures, in this article this information only talks about highest peaks, which is nonsense and VERY biased.

• All the genetic researches that are cited are neither cited well, for example there's not scientific use in saying "MtDNA Haplogroup L lineages are relatively infrequent (1% or less) throughout Europe with the exception of Iberia where frequencies as high as 22%" which is a lie, because even in England and Germany the Haplogroup L lineages are far more than 1%, and the average arround the mediterranean coast is higher than in Spain And is missleading, citing that in some isolated Portuguese comunity which probably was used by slaves for scape has 22% of Haplogroup L is not informative, neither neutral or representative of the population of Portugal.

• Second, I removed the tittle of "Sub-Saharan Africa", because all this part of the article talks about only about Haplogroup L and it's presence in Iberia; i changed it to ===Haplogroup L lineages frequencies=== , because, as said by Gonzalez et al. (2003) "most of the L lineages in Iberia matched Northwest African L lineages rather than contemporary Sub-Saharan L lineages", I don't get it, you might as well erase this whole part and link to the Haplogroup L, there people may learn that there is different kinds of this haplogroups, and that is reach is far more than Sub-Saharan Africa, it's found all over North Africa, the Middle East, the Arabic peninsulae, Europe, etc... , Obviously the strain of the R1b haplogroup found in Chad is not the same as the European strain.

Macro-haplogroup L (mtDNA)

• Third, I changed the tittle of ===Links with other European populations=== because it still (it has been mentioned before) implies that Iberians are not a european population themselves, "Links" basically, it's just not some links, its 91% of iberian genetic pool, which is one of the most important and ancient. http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o21/Kadu_album/West_Central_Eurasia.png

• Fourth, I removed all studies and parts of the article where it is mentioned the people of the canary islands, you might as well go to this article Canarian people and find out that most of the genetic pool of the canarians is not even spanish, it's mostly berber and north african.

The first part is the only part of the article that I consider is well done, that and "admixture with North African populations", since it talks about averages , althought it kind of implies that this is admixture is more present in Iberia than in the rest of Europe, which is not the case.

This is patriarchy and you know it, just because someone got here first and made and horrible article, it's not fair that I, who wants to make this a better article, cannot. I'll procced to make my changes, again, but I will be careful to not delate more information than what is needed, which I felt was my mistake the first time.

---

What about haplogroup H, passed down from mothr to daugther. It is the most important female haplogroup in in Iberian Peninsula. It should have a major development in the article. I think women are as important as men, but sometimes it seems that we tend to favor male haplogroups: http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_H_mtDNA.shtml Peter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.132.74 (talk) 11:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Response to consecutive Changes June 2014

I'll proceed to explain why this series of changes are not properly done and/or denote or imply information that is not explicitly stated in the references.

Point 1.

This article has been flagged as unbalanced, and because of that is has been modified to match a standard of neutrality, returning it back to it's former un-neutral state is FORBIDDEN.

Point 2.

It has been stated that the part of the article relative to african populations cannot exceed the part of the article relative to the one on european populations, since they are a minor part of the iberian genome, whoever wants to make further changes in the article should keep that in mind and acomodate the information to it's proper size. Take this article as an example Genetic history of Italy

Point 3.

Most of these articles are not properly cited, when someone cites a source, it most cite the explicit part of the article in which, word by word, information is stated.

I want also say that I HAVE read all the articles cited in this page, and in most cases THERE'S NO INFORMATION STATED THAT MATCHES THE ONE ON THIS ARTICLE.

From now on I will discuss about specific parts of this article:

" A number of studies have tried to find out the genetic impact of North African and Middle Eastern population movements on the modern Spanish and Portuguese ancestry, through comparison of genetic markers in Spain and Portugal with North Africa and the Near East. The most recent and thorough study about Moorish influence in the Iberian Peninsula was conducted April 2013 by Pompeu Fabra University using genome-wide SNP data for over 2000 individuals. This study concluded that the Iberian Peninsula holds significantly higher levels of both North African and Sub-Saharan ancestry than the rest of the European continent with a sharp difference between Iberia and France. Estimates of shared ancestry with North African populations were found to be much higher than previously reported, accounting for up to 20% of individual genomes, whereas these do not exceed 2% in Southern European populations outside Spain and Portugal and are practically inexistent north of the Pyrenees. "

This was erased as a whole, I read the entire article and in any part such thing was ever stated (it has been deliveratedly modified to aim it at iberian populations, since that part of the article is specific to ALL EUROPEANS), actually this article never states that the overall admixture in Southwestern europe is significantly higher than in the rest of southern europe (different, yes), also it states that Haplogroup Eb1 admixture is lesser in Iberia than in the Balkans or Italy (see figures 1, 4 and 2c-d).

The only part of the article in which it is stated that sub-saharan and north-african admixture is higher in Iberia than in the rest of southern europe is the relative to canarian peoples, which, as informed in this article Canarian people , diverge a lot from Iberians, since the Canary Islands are located in Africa after all.

"Iberia has the greatest presence of the typically Northwest African Y-chromosome haplotype marker E-M81 in Europe.[21][22] and Haplotype Va."

True, however Italy and the balkans have their proper greatest presence of E-M78 and E-V12 <, and since this article has been written as a comparation to other european populations (I don't really know why), this admixture in the rest of SE should be also stated or the whole information, erased.

"An earlier European-wide study had pointed to a small North African and Arab element in modern day Iberian ancestry when compared to the pre-Islamic ancestral basis, and the Gibraltar Strait seems to have functioned much more as a genetic barrier than a bridge."

This should go at the beginning of the section, actually all the order should be modified, from the least controversial to the most controversial.

I don't really have a problem with the charts, however they are really long and thus should be deleted or reconfigurated to match Point 2.

Tt should be stated that despite the fact that Iberian populations are to some extent mixed with north african populations, this admixture is not higher that in the rest of ALL of Europe, but specific to the historic migrations that have taken place in it, as such, East Asian and Semitic admixture is a higher in the balkans and Italy, while Greodesian admixture is higher in France and the British Islands, and Southeast Asian and (pre)Native American admixture is higher in northern Europe, that stated it should be noticed that the overall quantity of european haplogroups in Spain is among the highest in Europe (91%)

"Haplogroup L is the dominant haplogroup of Sub-Saharan Africa (96-100%) with lower levels occurring also in adjacent areas of North Africa, the Arabian Peninsula and parts of the Middle East."

And I cite "Previous work suggests that European and North African human populations exhibit moderate to substantial population differentiation (Fst = 0.06) (25). The degree to which admixture vs. population divergence contributes to this genetic differentiation remains unexplored" "Furthermore, estimates of admixture based on hundreds of thousands of markers (as we use here)show little bias using an unsupervised approach when the ancestral populations are significantly diverged (34)" "However, identification of distinct Near Eastern and North African ancestries in k ≥ 5 differentiates southeastern from southwestern Europe. Southwestern European populations average between 4% and 20% of their genomes assigned to a North African ancestral cluster (SI Appendix, Fig. S3), whereas this value does not exceed 2% in southeastern European populations. Contrary to past observations, Sub-Saharan ancestry is detected at <1% in Europe, with the exception of the Canary Islands. In summary, when North African populations are included as a source, allele frequency-based clustering indicates better assignment to North African than to Sub-Saharan ancestry, and estimates of African ancestry in European populations increase relative to previous studies. European ancestry is also detected in North African populations."

I also cite:

"Most European L1b appears to have spread from the Iberian peninsula where it is most concentrated in the area of Salamanca, being loosely consistent with other North African genetic presence in the peninsula, generally concentrated in the Western third (and with some even greater frequency in the mountain areas of the old Kingdom of León. Some of these lineages have not been found among a sample of 73 L1b mitogenomes from Africans and African Americans (fig. 2), what brings the authors to consider them potentially local European (or in some cases NW African) developments. These are: L1b1a11 (Slovenia, Switzerland and Ireland), its sister lineages are found one in Jordan (unnamed) and another (L1b1a3) among Nigerians, Gabonese, African-Americans and some Portuguese, L1b1a6a (Portugal, Spain and Britain): just one branch of several, all the others in L1b1a6 are West African, L1b1a9 (Spain, Italy, France and Morocco): either European or NW African, L1b1a13 (Tunisia and Italy): surely Tunisian originally, L1b1a12 (Tunisia, Spain and Portugal): again surely original from Tunisia, L1b1a14 (Italy and France), L1b1a8 (Spain and Russia)

Another very characteristic and also arguably European-specific lineage is L3d1b1a, which is found only in Italy.

While the authors do not mention it, Chandler in 2005 spotted an L3d2 in Epipaleolithic Portugal (originally reported as "N"). However, using only the HVS region, the exact adscription is always somewhat dubious.

Also they performed an Structure analysis (fig. 4) and found that the carriers of the allegedly autochthonous European L lineages displayed very low to zero African affinity (and also near zero East Asian one) while those with the probably recent L lineages had more African and East Asian admixture (East Asian in this case is proxy for Native American most likely, indicating creole origin from America), although the apportions varied from individual to individual. The strength of this test can only be valid for very recent arrivals anyhow, otherwise the African autosomal genetics would be diluted beyond detection in a couple of centuries or so."

Finally, I cite: "Presence of the L Haplogroup (mainly found all over Africa, specially Sub-Saharan; the Arabic Peninsula and the Middle East) in Iberia is minor but slightly more abundant than in the rest of European populations; it matches with the geographic position of the peninsula and the historic migrations that have taken place in it. However most of the L lineages in Iberia match Northwest African L lineages rather than contemporary Sub-Saharan L lineages, so it's category as Sub-Saharan is debatable."

It should be out off discussion that Haplogroup L incidence in Iberia is from the North-African clade, not the sub-saharan one, whereas in the rest of Europe it may be of sub-saharan should not be included in this article.

"Haplogroup L lineages are relatively infrequent (1% or less) throughout Europe with the exception of Iberia where frequencies as high as 22% have been reported and some regions of Italy where frequencies as high as 2% and 3% have been found."

The average incidence of Haplogroup L in Europe is higher than 1%, as evidenced in the tab down in the section, all the posterior information becomes very contradictory, thus all information regarding it was deleted.

The genetic researches that are cited are neither cited well, there only the most important information is mentioned, no need to citate 10 different "controversial articles" to make Iberia look less mixed than what it is; the editors only proceed to talk about AVERAGES which is the correct way of citing genetic admixtures, in this article this information only talks about highest peaks, which is nonsense and VERY biased. for example there's not scientific use in saying "MtDNA Haplogroup L lineages are relatively infrequent (1% or less) throughout Europe with the exception of Iberia where frequencies as high as 22%" which is a lie, because even in England, Norway and Germany the Haplogroup L lineages are far more than 1%, and the average arround the mediterranean coast is higher than in Spain

And is missleading, citing that in some isolated Portuguese comunity which probably was used by slaves for scape has 22% of Haplogroup L is not informative, neither neutral or representative of the population of Portugal, to consider information as trustworthy, it should match a standarized level of representation, which must be of, say, 1% of the population, not some insular comunity. Also keep in mind that all references to the overseas posesions of Spain and Portugal are also being delated, since their populations diverge genetically from ethnic iberians, and this article talks about the GENETIC HISTORY OF THE IBERIAN PENINSULA, not spanish/portuguese people.

Both of mentions in Italy and Easter Europe were delated, since this article is not their place.

Admixture of M1 haplogroup section was deleted since it wasn't properly cited.

And finally, the tab was also deleted, since it's too long and doesn't match with the point 2. However it's information was added into a comentary on the study of Moorjani et al.

Finally, I hope that this his clear, further unjustified changes in masse will result in a report and blocking off the IP for disruptive editing. If it was due to unexperience , it could be understadable, I would recommend you to create a wikipedia account and learn how to make proper editings. Edits in Wikipedia are thanked, please help us to make this a better website, with neutral and verified information. If this is some kind of "revenge" to iberians, please don't let emotions ruin your sense of impartiality, I, as a spaniard, apologize for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bathtub Barracuda (talk • contribs)

---

Please sign your comments, otherwise it is confusing: In response to your slightly emotional rant:

Point 1: Censuring sources so that your perspective is shown does not make the article balanced. Reality may offend you as a Spaniard, but wikipedia is not censored.

Point 2: The section on african admixture has been the only source of controversy, hence its length. There is no rule regarding length per section based on % of admixture (?!?!). Complicated issues may recieve further sources and discussion. Its like saying Human Rights violations should not be touched on much in an article on Palestinians since more people have died in the Holocaust or most Palestinians have not been subject to violence, whereas the section on Humous should be huge since all Palestinians consume it. A made up rule by an emotional wikipedia editor.

Point 3: You are welcome to improve citations

Other Points raised:

• Pompeu Fabra 2013 study: I agree with you that one sentence has to be modified since can lead to confusion (20% one), but basic statement holds true as do all other statements in paragraph. Also I note that you have mistaken the page which is being quoted. I invite you to read the whole article again. Look at the map: Iberians have significantly more Sub saharan and North African ancestry than other Europeans, and significantly less Eastern Mediterranean ancestry than Balkan populations (kind of logical, no?)
• Old studies should evidently go at the end not at the beginning since genetics is a rapidly evolving science and more recent studies are evidently more reliable than old ones. Your logic is like saying "A 500 BC study says that the earth is flat. I understand you like the content of that old article more, that is just bad luck for you.
• E-M78 and E-V12 are Mediterranean/Middle Eastern markers so irrelevant to section, E-M81 is a specifically north african one. As stated in the opening para. Iberians are significantly less Mediterranean than other south european populations.
• There are no controversial articles cited, although I understand that many may feel controversial to Spanish neo-nazis.
• The vast majority of studies since 2005 (as shown in table) show that spaniards have highest sub-saharan ancestry and incidence of Haplogroup L, which as stated is likely of North African origin. No issue there. Its a reality. Deal with it.
• You cannot base the whole article around one study you have decided fits your views (Moorjani et al) and delete the rest or put them in footnotes.

Finally, recent changes have been done by a number of users including myself. This article is no ones private fiefdom to decide a cut off date from which to not let anyone edit the article (randomly beginning of June I think). You cannot remove dozens of sources because of your insecurities as a national of a southern european country, whose population is, by the way, largely proud of its diverse history and heritage. There is no conspiracy against Spain or Spaniards. The desire for "pureza de sangre" of a tiny fraction of oddly race-conscious spaniards (my experience is that Spain is the most tolerant country in Europe) cannot guide what is or is not balanced. Neither can you delete huge sections of this article and then accuse others of being unbalanced or seeking an agenda. You are not the judge of this and your threats of getting people banned from wikipedia ring quite hollow.

I will try to fix those things which you say which seem reasonable, but please avoid censuring material. No one hates Spain, there is no worldwide conspiracy to defame Spaniards or their racial purity. Please take it easy and find another crusade, since this is a wrong horse to bet on.--Jeezuuz1934 (talk) 16:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent editing conflict

Barracuda, thanks for returning to your original User ID rather than communicating through sockpuppets. I am working seriously on this article which has been a battleground between different tendencies of white supremacists with no understanding or interest in genetics except in terms of their racial hang ups.

There are a number of issues.

• Firstly, half of the sources (including most of the ones you are adamant on including) have nothing to do with the Genetic history of Iberia nor do they include samples of iberian populations. There are enough genetic studies of Iberian populations for you to have to try to highlight one about Norway or Italy to support misconstrued statements, deleting the relevant ones.
• Secondly, many of these sources have nothing to do with the statement they support and the editor shows extreme ignorance of population genetics e.g. discussing Haplotype U6 Y-chromosome analysis.
• Thirdly, the whole article is a mess as users such as yourself strive to prove (in your case the Spanish) are the "whitest" with little understanding of the subject matter.
• Fourthly, this article needs to have similar structure as other articles in the series, as well as higher quality of content.
• Fifth, the initial introduction to types of analysis is Im sure useful for you, but also homogenizies the article with others in series.

I'm going to go on editing and improving this page regardless of your racial freak out. Im tired of racist-types hijacking wikipedia articles.You are welcome to dialogue and discuss with me here on the Talk Page if you feel capable of working positively. I have invited you to find consensus, but it seems you are not interested. Only silence, and threats when you revert my edits. So be it, Ill just carry on. --Jeezuuz1934 (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

What I do ask is that if you add anything which I may have removed, its fine, but please keep to the current structure rather than reverting the whole thing. This structure will allow for coherency. Before I started editing it was a string of statements which sought to contradict each other but when one reads the sources they were not linked to what was being argued against. So please add stuff rather than destroying/reverting the structure which is not and cannot be POV.

Also note, that I do not simply re-revert. Every time I try to fix those things where possible based on your more reasonable observations.I even tried to cut down the last controversial section to size despite the huge amount of sources available. I request again you calm down and engage rather than using your "edit summary" to threaten other editors.

Thanks.--Jeezuuz1934 (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevant sources supporting fake statements

I have deleted three paragraphs with random statements again aiming to minimize african admixture and sources linking to totally unrelated articles which not only in every case don't support the statement, in one case it actually stated the exact opposite. Finding it hard to assume good faith, but I'm trying. Its either that or a difficulty in understanding written english together with a total lack of comprehension of subject matter. --Jeezuuz1934 (talk) 14:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, reg. African section: I have found the actual source for Moorjani et al. and reincluded the para. (I deleted it originally since source was wrong). I have also noted that the initial Pompeu Fabra 2013 study (which was deleted a few times) finds low levels of sub-saharan ancestry among all Europeans (including Iberians), something that you should have picked up on and surprisingly I did, so included that. I have added more sources and checked that they are in agreement with text. Have also made sure that everything remains divided according to Autosomal, YChromosme and Mtdna analysis. Seems to me now bottom section is ok, but someone should provide more info for main section of article which is quite empty and, should be the largest and most interesting one. I hope this article becomes a serious one, rather than a battleground for racists. Will keep it on my watch list. --Jeezuuz1934 (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Latest crazy edit: Finding a picture of blonde children and putting it at top of article

This person and his/her now clearly psychotic edits are just mind boggling. What the hell? Still refusing to engage on talk page so automatically reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.226.33.45 (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Evidence from Ancient DNA

I see that this article is plagued by controversy, so I'm posting here before I edit anything. The article, in my opinion, should clearly be making reference to new studies of DNA from archeological cultures in Iberia and elsewhere (most recent example http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0105105). Like others in the wave of ancient DNA studies, this article shows that conclusions from modern DNA do not just theoretically encourage incorrect conclusions about ancient affinities and movements, but that any history inferred from modern DNA has to be entirely rewritten. (The main conclusion requiring modification in the present case is the position of "fault lines" where there are major differences in populations.) This is not to say that modern DNA studies have nothing to say about genetic history, but just that they need to be interpreted in the light of ancient DNA which can much more tightly constrain models of evolution that can also include modern data. The insights from ancient DNA will improve the science of inference from modern DNA alone, but this has largely not happened yet. Mellsworthy (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

---

Plagued with controversy? You are more than right. This article has been hijacked from the very beginning by Afrocentrists, Nordicists and others that have an ax to grind and use internet the way we all know. Subsaharan-African influence in Europe is extremely minority, even in the Iberian peninsula(and now much greater in countries like France or the UK due to recent immigration). The fact that it may be greater than in other areas does not mean that it is significant, but these propagandists continue manipulating the article and dedicating it fundamental comments and space. The real great influence in Europe is the Asian influence, a major influence in some areas. I challenge anyone here to find in Wiki an article dedicated to the Asian influence in Europe, or articles dedicated to other peoples of Europe, where this fact is given this extension that we can see here, being in their case much greater, as said.

Moreover, what is a fact, with a lot of importance from the point of view of genetic discovery is the following: The population represented by male Haplogroup Rb1 is the largest in Europe, and where is this population one of the largest? In Spain, representing an incredible 70 per cent as average and in some places more than 90 per cent. The population represented by female Hapologroup H is the largest in Europe, and where is this population again the largest? Again in Spain )look how this part of the article reads: it is laughable!). This is the real surprising evidence that should be the core of the article for two obvious reasons 1. Because it represents the vast majority of the population. 2. Because these typical Western European genetic traits are most represented in Spain,and 3. Because this is one of the big discoveries of Genetic Anthropology regarding Spain or Portugal! But most importantly in relation to your article: It contains information that will be forbidden by these propagandists who are the masters of the article: It speaks of influences of Neolithic Middle Eastern origins but with strong connections with Germany. Another recent article speaks of the incredible genetic similarities of the Bell Beaker remains found in Germany and modern Iberia populations, etc. Real interesting, real new information that is transforming the perception of reality and will have many books rewritten. But do not worry. Those articles have no space here. Our formerly mentioned friends will take care of it. Here you have a reference to the article: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-24475342. ¨From there I cut and pasted this: Largely absent from Central European hunters and scarce in early Neolithic farmers, H remains the dominant maternal lineage in Europe today and comparisons between the Bell Beaker people and modern populations suggest they came from Iberia - modern Spain and Portugal¨ One conclusion already known by all serious genetic anthropologists is that the Iberian population is very similar to the populatios thousands of years ago. Genetic continuity in Iberia is impressive. It is impressive that Beaker People of Germany show incredible genetic affinity with modern day Iberians, for example, as this article explains. You can also see it here: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-22252099, from where I cut and pasted this ¨The origins of the "Beaker folk" are the subject of much debate. Despite having been excavated from the Mittelelbe Saale region of Germany, the Beaker individuals in this study showed close genetic similarities with people from modern Spain and Portugal¨. But do not worry. These our friends will set up guard to erase or downplay this type of information or will answer back with absurd accusations of White supremacism etc while they will carefully select and cherry pick those studies that best suit them and ignore all the rest. This article is a shame and has no solution. I wonder. Are the Spanish or Portuguese something special for this type of obsessed people!? Pipo.

→ Please sign your posts, since it's hard enough to follow the overwrought discussion here without uncertainty about who is posting what! It sounds like there has been a serious breakdown of assume-good-faith on all sides. It will not be at all impossible to make the article better if we assume good faith. There are plenty of good editors out there. A concrete proposal, so that people have something to tear down: I propose adding a section on ancient DNA that goes through genotyping of the La Braña-1 fossil from ~5000BCE, the sharply divergent Neolithic samples from various parts of Iberia, and then to later metal-age samples that only confusingly relate to the modern distribution of modern genoclines. Separately, since newer evidence results flatly contradict some earlier assumptions (the Paleolithic age of R1b, for example, primarily based on invalidation of STR as a method of age determination), I would also like to edit some other sections, but I would like to know if anyone else is actually trying to review the recent scientific literature as well, and what they've found. Mellsworthy (talk) 01:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

---

Go ahead. You seem a good-faith editor. I gave up trying long ago. Good luck. Pipo (Sorry do not remember how to sign)

I'm not going to edit anything here for at least 3 weeks. I hope that in that amount of time there will be some more response. (FYI, you sign with ~~~~.) Mellsworthy (talk) 06:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

................ By the way, is this horrible article not supposed to be a Genetic History of Iberians: Here you have a serious one: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1529-8817.2005.00194.x/full . It is long, but I cut and pasted its conclusion: ¨Along with the Etruscans, this is the only study where a distinctive pre-Roman population has been genetically studied, following the strictest authentication criteria for ancient DNA. Our data suggest that long-term genetic continuity has existed in the Iberian peninsula since at least the 6th century BC to present times. The documented, posterior arrivals of groups from Europe and North Africa did not significantly alter the pre-Roman genetic background; however, they probably increased the relatively low genetic diversity of the Iberian groups¨. ºººº(As if people here cared! In genetics Wiki is the laughingstock of the experts!) Pipo.

---

"Pipo" it is pretty clear what you are doing on this article, who you are and how limited your understanding of genetics is. You are a white supremacist. I see this from not only ignorant but also increasingly desperate and irrational edits. It is also clear from your use of terms such as "nordicist" and "afrocentric" which are only used in debates among different racist organizations. You may have the misfortune of being Spanish or having some Spanish background (probably the latter since the small number of Spanish racists dont have the intelligence to learn a foreign language). Recent discoveries in population genetics (as well as any minimal level of common sense if you know the country) probably fill you with angst as it hits the foundations of your belief system. I recommend you let go of such a hateful ideology as racism and move on to something else. Maybe soccer? This issue obviously leads to high levels of cognitive dissonance and not just wikipedia (concretely this article), but also you suffer.Motifwrit55 (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2014

---

Wow, I just feel sorry for the people who published the articles in the links that I provided. I am worried about their safety. I hope nothing will happen to them. I have not even touched the main article and never will I. One just needs to see your comments to understand the type of people behind this article, and behind the genetic articles in Wiki and Internet in general. Goodbye and if there is someone here of real good faith, no obsessions, no hatred, no big issues and no agenda, God help them, especially when they have to confront these users. By the way, a genetic map of Euope including the Spanish based on autosomal.:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/science/13visual.html and this one based on Y-Chromosome and Mitocondrial is already well known: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/science/13visual.html But do no worry. The fundamentalist warriors in this article hate the big picture, since, as we all know, it leaves much less space for bias and manipulation Pipo.