Talk:Morisco

Barbary Privateers

Muslim pirates had been routinely causing trouble, even devastation, to Christian coastal areas on the European side of the Mediterranean CENTURIES BEFORE THE MORISCOS EVEN EXISTED, let alone after their expulsion. One of the reasons they were expelled was the strongly held suspicion that they were informing the Barbary privateers where and when to launch a raid. It was the devastation these raids caused that made Spaniards furious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.75.57.15 (talk) 07:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Number of expelled

In my reasearch, somewhat unrelated, I have come across the number 300,000 a few times, never 3,000,000. At this time it is estiamted that there were only 7-8 million people living in Spain, and there is no way that a nation would expel nearly half of its population, or if there did, other events in Spanish history would point to such a massive exodus indirectly, which isn't the case. If anyone disagrees, feel free to discuss.

I agree. The figure 3 million is false. 300,000 would be a more acceptable figure. Recent studies have shown that the expulsion was more of a failure than had previously been believed. Land owners refusing to follow edicts of expulsion fearing to lose their labourers, and moriscos simply moving to different regions of Spain taking up the identities of northern colonists.

Discontinuity

There is a major discontinuity between this article and Timeline of Muslim presence in Iberia. The way the Morisco are treated in the two articles you would think they were different people. Someone with better historical knowledge than myself needs to take a look and change one of the articles to bring the accounts into agreement. --StuffOfInterest 19:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Racist Term

The use of word 'Moro/Moor/Morisco' is in fact racist and is used by spanish racists when they refer to Moroccan people. Where do Moro's come from - if you really think about it?

Having lived in Spain I soon realised that the use of the word 'Moro' is in fact racist and is used by spanish racists when they refer to Moroccan people. A Moroccan man killed a Spanish man because he called him a MORO. This happened in the Spanish city were I was living at that time. Where do Moro's come from? Here's a clue (M-O-R-Occan/M-O-R-Occo) - if you really think about it why do people have to deny this when it is a fact? Every Spanish person I know do not deny this. I even have met a Spanish man who ha said that one of their ancesters are Moroccan too! The Spanish really confess that they are too proud to admit defeat by the Moroccans who so happen to belong to a culture and different religion and who so happen not to be white so to cover this up they start inventing words such as 'the moors or moors once conquered Spain'. This is not any different to the racist terms used to refer to black people and Pakistani people.

Historically, Morocco and Spain have always had a bittersweet relationship due to the very close proximity of the two countries, where they have each conquered some parts of each other's countries. During the Spainish Civil War the dictator Franco even recruited Moroccans to join the Spainish army refering them to being strong people in regards to their colonial presence before in Spain for 800-1000 years. In the last bloody conquest of Spain the Spanish forcibly converted anyone Muslim or Jewish to become Christian or they would be killed. So ironically as if in an act of revenge, soon after the re-conquest the Moroccan sultan, Moulay Ismail was responsible for enslaving around one million white europeans [1] Most of the slaves were Spanish and just as the Spanish treated the Moroccans during the reconquest, they forced the Christian slaves to convert to Islam even though no forced conversions were made when the Moroccans were happily living together with fellow Christians and Jewish in Spain. Acquiring jobs are made difficult due to racism especially in gaining Spanish citizenship even though Spain still colonize two Northern Moroccan cities - Ceuta and Mellila! Many Spanish people were born there and have lived there without problems in regards to difference of culture and religion and celebrate Christian festivals, have their own cemeteries all on Moroccan soil with absolute no problems! In contrast to this, there are around 5 million Moroccan people presently living in Spain and who are the largest Muslim group living in Spain.To even have a Mosque as a place of worship involves a lot of bureaucracy from the local governments as well as the many racist protests held by the Spanish people as well as an ever increasing presence of Nazi Spanish movements where they grafitti on walls ' Fuera Moros' - This means 'get out Moros', aimed at the Moroccan people whose increased migration to Spain has forced these Spanish racists to come face to face with their ancestral past whether they accept it or not.

In 2006 the Andalusian government had introduced a recent Article into the law to allow any Moroccan person to acquire Spanish citizenship with ease, as they are found to be descendents of 'Moriscos' (Moroccans whose ancesters are of Moroccan and Spainish mixed descent during the time of Islamic rule in Spain). The Spanish and Moroccan Academics and historians have called for equality for the Moroccan people since 1992. Currently Morrocan people have to live and work 10 years in Spain for them to gain Spanish citizenship, and only 5 years if a Moroccan is married to a Spanish person.

The Spanish tried energetically to remove historical facts as to the origin of the Muslims who ruled in Spain between 800-1000 years and have used the word Moro to hide the fact that it was the Moroccans who conquered Spain. The word 'Moro' has been extensively used within Tourist books and brainwashed into tourists to Spain to describe the historical Islamic past of Spain without realising that the word is racist. Soon after the Spanish reconquest, Spain colonized Philippines. Once again anything non-christian was eradicated to almost all parts of the Philippines where the people were forced to change their names to Spanish names and forced to convert to Christianity or be killed. No tactic was any different to how the Spanish treated the Muslims and Jewish living in Spain during the reconquest. The Spanish worked so hard to remove any evidence of pre-colonial times before colonization. The only part of Philippines which the Spanish couldn't be bothered to colonize and covert remains an Islamic part of the south of Philippines (Mindanao), where the filipinos remain Muslim. This is the greatest evidence to suggest that filipinos were once Muslim. The Spanish even had the cheek to call muslim filipinos 'Moros' which is still used in Philppines to describe a Muslim person! If you think about it, if a 'Moro' is supposedly a person of muslim/arab descent then how come the term 'Moorish' and 'Moro' are not used at all in the Middle East to describe anything Arabic or a Arab person? 81.157.160.4 (talk) 22:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what exactly you are trying to say in what relates the present article. I didn't see a reference to any change, a suggestion, a correction, merely a lot of opinions on the pedigree of the Spaniards and the racism inherent to several terms.

In any event the terms "Moros" ("Mouros" in Portuguese) is commonly used in all schoolbooks. It describes the Berbers and the root of the name is easy to see in "Mauritania". Is it "racist"? Well, it describes an ethnic group and in general it does so when talking about open warfare, so I guess you can think of it as "racist" if you squint the right way - just has every other word that described an ethnic reality. As such it isn't a "slander" work by origin, it is historically well-defined and saying "Fuera Moros" expresses a wish that can be viewed as "racist" but the word itself is merely a qualifier.--Bellum sine bello (talk) 01:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

---

What about "Mouriscos" on Portugal´s History?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.22.18.69 (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

---

1. "Moro" comes after the latin word "maurus", as Morocco, Mauritania, etc. do.

2. Moors ruled _Granada_ nearly 800 years. In Asturias, northern Leon and northern Catalonia, from none to few years, depending on where. By 1000 aC, they had only the southern half of the Peninsula, and around 1200, only the kingdom of Granada.

3. The "last bloody conquest" the Spaniards mad, was in fact a REconquest. When the Moors invaded Iberia they did not find an empty land. Guess who were the former inhabitants.

4. The forced conversions happened sometimes, and sometimes not. The same thing is applicable to the Moor side.

5. Are you proud of your people enslaving Europeans? I must say that in medieval iberian Christian Kingdoms didn't exist such a thing as traffic of slaves. Not even for Moors.

6. You have forgotten too that before the expulsion, there were rumours that Moors were concentrating in North Africa in order to invade again Iberia, and the Moriscos sublevated, killing every christian they caught, man, woman or child, but only after castrating the men, raping the women and torturing everybody. It seems that you have forgotten too, that the Moriscos assisted the Berber and Turkish pirates as a fifth column. What do you thing the king should have done with a war in the Alpujarras were all the christians were being massacred? Maybe congratulating those Moors who were killing his people and giving them back Iberia? Hey, they were just spelled. In any other country of those times they would have been executed. And I reckon that they would been killed too in some countries of today ruled by the Sharia, and not for slaying thousands of innocents, but just for building a church.

7. Under Moor rule they were not "happily living together". Jews and Christians were Dhimmis, and there were periodical progroms. I wonder why the Jewish philosopher Maimonides had to run away from Al-Andalus, when he was living happily together with the Moors.

8. Adquiring jobs is difficult for everybody, but when you have broken illegally into a country, I guess it's a bit more. In the rest of the world, you don't get a job either, and besides you get spelled as an illegal alien. Be happy that millions of your fellow countrymen -as you have previously stated- can stay in Spain even without papers.

9. Ceuta and Melilla were already Spanish centuries before a country called Morocco even existed. They never have been Moroccoans, because they are older than Morocco itself. What makes you think then that they belong to Morocco?

10. How many churches are in Morocco?

11. Five millions? Officially there are 3.5 millions of Moroccoans in the whole Europe, so you admit that there are millions and millions of Moroccoans illegally staying in Spain. And you are so shameless to ask Spain to give them privileges for violating Spain's borders! A mosque, a shop, a church of whatever involves a lot of bureaucracy. Why do you think you are so special to skip in Spain what Spaniards, whatever their religion is, must do? And anyway, opening a church in Morocco is completely forbidden. I guess you wouldn't be happy if a bit of reciprocity is applied.

12. The Andalusian government hasn't made a right thing since it came to existence. Opening the door to people who say openly that they want to take over your land and rule over you usually is not a good idea.

13. I wonder why there were Muslims in Philippines. I thought Islam appeared thousands of kilometers far away in Arabia. I bet you whatever you want, that they were not islamized by the means of love and nice words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.16.30.100 (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

I see several problems in the head of the article

 "A morisco (Spanish) or mourisco (Portuguese), meaning "Moor-like", was a nominally Catholic inhabitant of Spain and Portugal of Muslim heritage.
Over time the term was used in a pejorative sense applied to those nominal Catholics who were suspected of secretly practicing Islam.
Similarly, converted Jews (conversos) who secretly held to Judaism were called marranos."

Firstly, there is no translation of the word, therefore the use of "moor-like" only contributes to misunderstanding.

Secondly, there is no clear reference to the fact that they were moors converted to christianism. However, it should be clearly termed, because the historical definition of morisco is: baptised moor who remained in the Peninsula after the Christian conquest. In addition, it is a term used since the 16th century (1502), the moors not converted into christianism and living in Christian territory were called Mudéjares. Thus, it is clear that only when the Christians forced them to conversion (1502) they received this name.

Thirdly, the term was used both for those who converted voluntarily and those who were compelled to.

Finally, I see absolutely no need to talk about the converted Jews. If any it should be included in the text. But actually I don't see the point of the reference nor the fact that this article is part of the WikiProject: Judaism. The jews were expelled in 1492, and the moriscos come to existence in the 1502 (as a group termed like that). Apart from being both in the Iberian Peninsula I see no other connexion. --Grimelhausen (talk) 20:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC) (I had edited it for clearness, hope it is understandable)

On last point an opinion only; I find it helpful to see briefest mention of [Marrano] on [Morisco] page (and reverse), for a link to quickly refer to each. They were both [conversos] as I understand the term, they shared centuries of interdependence, and then a mutual suffering connexion as victims of the [Inquisition] and ever-growing intolerance. That actions upon them in that era are separated by a decade does not need to preclude a link. The connexion can be seen as far more than "on the Iberian Peninsula at the same time." Thanks---Look2See1 (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Quinquis

I removed the following speculative trash:

"Scholars have suggested that the Mercheros (also Quinquis), a group of nomadic tinkers traditionally based in the northern half of Spain, may have had their origin among surviving Moriscos."

The older members of my family remember the "Quinquis" well. Most were quite pale or even very pale and quite a few were blonde and blue eyed. They were solidly, unmistakably of ancient European ancestry. There is no way, as a group, they were largely of Morisco descent, regardless of what "some scholars" may "think", that is, speculate.Provocateur (talk) 03:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Respecto a su origen morisco, las cosas ya no están tan claras. Si bien es cierto que nuestros modernos quinquis no presentan rasgos físicos que recuerden al magrebí actual más de lo que sería habitual en la generalidad de la población española, tampoco podemos caer en el error frecuente de asimilar las características físicas de los actuales norteafricanos con la de los moriscos españoles de los siglos XV o XVI.

Minorías malditas, chapter 3

and, among the Moriscos, there could be some elements of Saqaliba (i.e. Slavic) origin.

--Error (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Provocateur Talk about being speculative. Someone in your family remember a quinqui as being blonde so they can only be "solid ancient¨European" not "Moors".... Do you know how many blonde, blue eyed people there are in northern Morocco? Or in Algeria? Jeez what a race complex some Spaniards have....Asilah1981 (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Source

Hi, I would like to know, why , according to The Ogre, Collective work under the direction of Louis Cardaillac, Les Morisques et l'inquisition, Publisud, 1990, preface of the book cover is not an acceptable source ?!--Morisco (talk) 13:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It may be an acceptable source, but we have no means of knowing if the statement you want to include (that the moriscos were forcebly converted) is backed up or nor by that source since it is not available. The Ogre (talk) 11:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Mind you, I'm not saying the moriscos were not forcebly converted! I know many were - but it dependes on the exact historical moment (for instance, before or after the expulsion, etc.). The question here, besides that of a simplistic depiction of such a complex and durable social phenomenon, is one of proper available (ex. online), published and credible academic sources. Or at least provide a citation (checkable one, please) that states exactly what you mean. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 11:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, it does not depend of the exact historical moment, in 1502, all the muslims (Moriscos) were forced to convert, they did not have the choice.

Les Morisques et l'inquisition is a very serious book, a work of Louis Cardaillac, Juan Aranda Doncel, Rafael Benitez Sachez Blanco, Raphael Carrasco, Jaime Contreras, Monique Coste, Jean-Pierre Dedieu, Mikel de Elpalza, Julio Fernandez Nieva, Pau Ferrer, Jacqueline Fournel-Guerin, Abd el Hakim Gafsi, Mercedes Garcia-Arenal, Ricardo Garcia Carcel, Anita Gonzalez, José Martinez Millan, Juan Bautista Vilar, Bernard Vincent.

« Les Morisques. Des musulmans espagnols convertis de force au christianisme au début du XVI siècle. L'Église et l'État luttérent pour les assimiler et en faire des sujets comme les autres. Ils refusèrent. Le peuple, d'ailleurs, les rejetait. Entre 1609 et 1614, on les chassa. Trois cent mille, en quelques mois, furent déportés principalement en Afrique du Nord.

L'Inquisition. Le tribunal de la foi, le bras armé de l'Église, chargé d'assurer l'unité idéologique du royaume. Elle fut l'un des grands acteurs de la répression. Les morisques la haïssent, car elle symbolisait, pour eux, l'oppression.

C'est le jeu complexe des rapports entre oppresseurs et opprimés qu'étudie cet ouvrage, les buchers, mais aussi les accords, les trêves, les compromis, les contrepoint entre les prétentions centralisatrices d'une institution commune à toute la monarchie et la diversité des situations locales.

Une équipe de chercheurs espagnols, français et tunisiens a été rassemblée par Louis Cardaillac pour aborder le problème sous toutes ses facettes à partir d'une documentation presque entièrement nouvelle.

L'histoire des morisques mérite d'être connue. Non seulement pour le rôle qu'elle joue dans la pensée des intellectuels musulmans contemporains, mais aussi pour l'actualité des problèmes qu'elle soulève. »

Traduction of the first paragraph:«  The Moriscos. Spanish Muslims forcibly converted to Christianity in the early sixteenth century. The church and state struggled to assimilate them and turn them into subjects like the others. They refused. The people, moreover, rejected them. Between 1609 and 1614, they were driven. Three hundred thousand in a few months, were deported mainly in North Africa. »

And if you want to check, I can scan the page.--Morisco (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello. You do not need to translate just for me. I'm fluent in French. And the quotation you make (I presume from the back cover presentation of the book) is not one of the best one - you should try to find a proper inside quotation. Regarding the quotation and your statements, they are somewhat contradictory - In fact IT DOES depend on historical context, since, by your own admission, before 1502 moriscos were NOT forcebly convert (even if the pressure to do so was huge), and the quotation only refers Spain, not Portugal. You see, this article is about the moriscos both in Spain and Portugal, before and after the conversions/expulsions. That is why you can not say, in the intro, that moriscos were plain and simply forcebly converted. Of course you may say that over time, first in Portugal (in 1496, in fact, when jews and moriscos were forced to convert or leave, even if the Portuguese Inquisition was only introduced in 1536), then in Spain, moriscos were forced to convert to catholicism, even if many continued to be islamic practionners secretly and were continuously surveilled and persecuted by the Inquisition (wich lead to most leaving or even being expelled). The Ogre (talk) 14:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Moriscos in Portugal

This article lacks the whole situation of the Mouriscos in Portugal! The Ogre (talk) 14:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Genetic impact

The section about the genetic impact requires expansion. I've included some relevant material from Genetic history of the Iberian Peninsula as to represent all sides of the story, since not all studies concluded the same. I don't know why it was deleted since nothing prevent copy/paste of relevant material from other articles, Wikipedia articles are public domain. Tachfin (talk) 16:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

You don't copy & paste contents from a page to another page in Wikipedia. That is called unnecessary duplication of content. Nobody except you does that. Contents should be put in the page where they are more meaningful. The other pages should just have a link to that page. That is plain common sense. Please don't insist in including redundant contents here or anywhere else. Jotamar (talk) 18:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing in Wikipedia policy that supports what you stated. There is no redundancy. If you have other objections to the inclusions of that material please voice them the one you've just stated is bogus. Tachfin (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Morisco and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: Mere copying from one article to another is not, alone, a reason for deletion of material. "Unnecessary duplication of material" is one of the reasons to merge articles, but to argue that mere copying satisfies that standard makes the word "unnecessary" meaningless. (And even that begs the question of whether these articles would be candidates for merger.) I would note, however, that Wikipedia articles are not in the public domain and that copying material from one article to another without following the procedures described in the Copying within Wikipedia rule creates a violation of Wikipedia copyright policy. As is set out in the Repairing insufficient attribution section of that rule, the remedy for that violation is not, however, removal of the copied material, but is instead providing the proper attribution, which Tachfin ought to cure. Should Tachfin fail to do so, then Jotamar should provide the attribution rather than delete the material. The question of the general appropriateness of the material for this article is not yet part of this dispute, but must be decided by consensus unless some other policy requires its removal. I express no opinion upon that issue, except to note that a serious, good-faith attempt to come to agreement about it ought to be made through discussion here on this talk page before the matter is brought back to the Third Opinion project or other dispute resolution.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TransporterMan (TALK) 13:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Note that I have provided attribution for the copied materiel in the edit summary of this edit as per WP:COPYWITHIN as well as here on the talk page. Though only a part was copied. Tachfin (talk) 14:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

First, I should mention that I was considering myself asking for a 3rd opinion. I'm certainly not happy with that opinion: one thing is copying a sentence or a reference (I often do that) and a completely different thing is copying whole paragraphs, and very complex ones at that. Eventually, the paragraphs will be changed by different editors and the page of origin and this one will come to contradict each other. I think there should be a Wikipedia guideline about this. I think the main reason why it doesn't exist is because most editors never do such massive copying. In fact, in almost six years in Wikipedia, Tachfin is the first editor I meet who does that. Jotamar (talk) 13:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

References added for expulsion section

Sorry but this is chaos. No apparent relationship to the relevant topic, it is imprecise and blur. Just pinpoint the exact argument, it does provide a page, so specify it, and transfer the idea in the article as close to the text as possible. Iñaki LL (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You don't seem to be used to reading scientific papers, or citing them. Of course they are difficult to understand. It is not usual to cite them by giving page numbers, but citing the whole paper, which will have an abstract. The text refers to multiple studies, so you should expect a number to be cited. If you don't think the issue is "relevant", then remove the whole matter - both sides of the argument. The text is not "chaos", and the references are all too precise - it is merely difficult to follow up the references, but that goes with the subject matter. You have now twice reverted different editors to remove referenced material with only the flimsiest of justifications. If you can't provide better arguments I will put the material back, and I suggest you don't try to remove it again. Johnbod (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

First of all, congratulations for the badges. Now coming down to the topic, I beg you pardon? Nor me neither anyone gets to understand what it is talking about that is relevant to the statement provided, and I urge not to mislead anyone with some twisted logic or gibberish. I have written quite a lot on this topic and I know what we are dealing with.

Also, stick to the form, not to the content. The first Mr. Dwight's reference seems to be clear and straightforward for what I can gather in another previous comment on that reference. The citing style of the second looks obscure, sounds obscure, the argument claimed is nowhere to be found..., well, because it is just that, absent, vague and obscure. I also urge 2.137.191.198 to participate, since he was doing your very same point, and clarify it. Iñaki LL (talk) 20:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

My two cents on the matter: The statement is precise and more than well sourced so the conflict is evidently based on the conflicting opinion on whether moriscos were of christian iberian origin or not. Considering that:

• The Dwight reference claiming that they were "as iberian as their christian neighbors" is a weak source with a rhetorical statement aiming to highlight the injustice in the expulsion rather than based on any scientific or historical analysis of the matter per se.
• That the eight centuries of muslim rule in iberia were not the fruit of an initial conquest but of centuries of colonization and numerous mass invasions from north africa, notably the almohads and the almoravids.
• That all genetic studies of iberian populations over the past 10 years point to unusually high levels of recent north african ancestry particularly in areas of muslim rule and in areas of the kingdom of Castile where moriscos were known to have been displaced after the revolt of the Alpujarras. That such ancestry drops to levels close to zero in areas which never had significant Morisco populations such as the Basque Country and Catalonia and is surprisingly low in areas where historical studies show very thorough and merciless deportation such as the Kingdom of Valencia.
• That genetic studies of populations in northern morocco show no significant european ancestry which would be expected in areas where moriscos supposedly settled en masse after the expulsion. European admixture is minimal in Tetuan, Tangiers and similar towns in northern morocco.
• That moriscos in north africa are not an unknown mass of millions of people but families who are well aware of their origins and often conserve Spanish surnames. In Rabat they are still highly influential families.

Then it is very difficult to categorically state that moriscos were primarily of European origin, particularly considering endogamic muslim practices. Such a statment should at least be qualified by the mass of sources pointing to the contrary. In fact, based on all recent sources, it would be easier to cast doubt on the success of the expulsion particularly in the Kingdom of Castile and to lend credence to the idea of slow assimilation of large numbers of already nominally catholic moriscos in the wider old christian population as is argued by recent studies already cited in the article.

Regarding sources on the contentious statement, since there are dozens which can be used, perhaps using the clearest and "least obscure" among the body of genetic studies pointing to the same thing can be selected, instead of having so many of them. I propose this one http://www.pnas.org/content/110/29/11791.full.pdf+html 2.137.191.198 (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

That is still irrelevant per WP:SYNTH : Genetics do not contradict the previous statement, I also believe that Genetics are off-topic for these issues, the sole study that would be relevant is that on these Families in Morocco that keep their Morisco identity and their link to the genetic pool of modern Spain/Portugal ; unfortunately these studies do not yet exist, thus conforting my first statement : current Genetics' studies are off-topic, and WP:OVERCITE won't change anything to that, as long as all cited refs are actually off-topic. --Omar-toons (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Sadly no one seems to agree with you. I hesitate to ask, but why is genetics "off-topic" in relation to a statement about ethnicity? Johnbod (talk) 03:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I fully agree with Omar-toons, still it is not even a matter of content, the way of presenting the information is obscure, full of uncertainty, and not a proper citation. The reader is to have the possibility to check the information straight on the source, as per WP:CITEHOW and WP:INTEGRITY. If you are to check it, you only find loads of pages with figures and hyper-specialized details with an unknown link to the matter in question, and in the article, Johnbod's or the IP's POV of what that would mean, according to their views. Iñaki LL (talk) 08:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a POV, nor much interest in the subject, nor a history of blocks for edit-warring in this area. But I do know what a citation to a scientific paper is supposed to look like. Johnbod (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense, clarity is always an overriding concern in any citing style. Furthermore, the above cited WP:SYNTH applies. By the way, a purpose-specific account seems to have been created to revert the edit while this is being discussed. It will be reverted when the discussion is finished. (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Iñaki, which purpose specific account has been created? The citations are clear and as per wikipedia citation policy. All sources link directly to an abstract which is easy to understand by anyone with a reasonable fluency in English. Your arguments are simply nonsensical. Evidently, population genetics is very much relevant to a weak source which erroneously yet categorically states that Moriscos had little to no north african ancestry. It is statement which is just plain wrong as proven by population genetics. There is no way around it. 2.137.191.198 (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Omar-toons I think I understand what bothers you about this issue. The point is not to deny Moriscos had spanish descent. Obviously they did and those morisco families in morocco such as your own do as well. They were in every sense Spaniards. The issue is that the statement which is being pushed here states as categorical fact something which is not true. That all people of berber or arab ethnicity were fully purged from Spain upon conquest and that those muslims who remained as Moriscos between 1492 and 1604 were somehow "clean" and "pure" europeans who had been duped into following the religion of former "oppressors". An argument which beyond being obviously wrong (over 10% of modern day Spaniards have berber ancestry and muslims were a doomed minority long before 1604), also makes me uncomfortable for its racist connotations, being reminiscent of the old Spanish obsession with "limpieza de sangre". I may be making assumptions but what you don't agree with is the portrayal of moriscos as "alien" or foreign elements. Am I correct? 2.137.191.198 (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Do pinpoint the page and the exact statement. Disruptive editing is taking place now, that is the main concern now. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

A scientific question is at at issue here; the movie documentary referenced is not an adequate source to cite for such a contentious and even radical proposition concerning genetics as: "The huge majority of the people that were being expelled, by blood, by DNA if you will, may have been as Iberian as their Christian cousins in the North." Dwight Reynolds' expertise is not in genetics or even science, it is in religion and music, which does not remotely make him an authority to cite for this subject. You need to find a better source for this dubious assertion. Carlstak (talk) 14:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Iñaki, I've made my point here, the consensus here as far as I can see, is against your change, so you are edit-warring. Carlstak (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• This is becoming laughable. A dubious remark in an inappropriate source is kept by reversions, and a raft of academic papers with contrary evidence are removed by two local editors with strong POVs, who won't address arguments other than with bluster. If it can't be sorted soon an RFC may be needed. Johnbod (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Quite right. Two intransigent editors have made this discussion a farce. They are reverting well-sourced statements to be replaced by exceedingly dubious assertions made by a non-expert on the subject, with a laughably inadequate source to boot. We need an RFC. Carlstak (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

For a start, highly contentious, if not intelligence defiant, is making Manichean assumptions of what coexistence was at that time (Moorish vs Christian, European vs African, absolute nonsense, an extremely poor insight). The historian leading the documentary is perfectly fit for it for what I have read on her skills. As for the genetics article, WP:SYNTH applies, nothing is stated related to the conclusion added to the article, but if there is anything like that, pinpoint it, otherwise it will be considered original research and removed. By the way, have more respect to editors by not changing while something is being discussed, especially now that ghostly Usernames have risen up to alter the text. Iñaki LL (talk) 14:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

A puzzling argument. Dwight would seem to be the one making "Manichean assumptions" to me. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Reynolds is a historian, his opinion has to be kept.

Oh and, I see Carlstak saying that there's no consensus... but a consensus for what? I see that Reynolds' opinion was there before the edit-war actually started, then the new consensus to reach should be about its removal, and it seems that there's no consensus to remove it. Things work that way: consensus should be reached before editing, per WP:BOLD. --Omar-toons (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Omar-toons, you are misquoting me egregiously. I said, addressing Iñaki, "the consensus here as far as I can see, is against your change." Carlstak (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Edits conflicts... Comments a bit too fast. For Johnbod: ??? Sorry, if you know what it means, the clear-cut division of ethnic groups and religions and their purity have been claims of European Manichean Catholicists for ages (evil vs good, civilized vs Barbarians, etc.), e.g. in the Spanish dictatorship. Dwight speaks of a realistic mixture, conversion, and re-conversions of peoples, that is nothing Manichean but the opposite.

Your calling inappropriate a straigthforward statement, Dwight's one on the expulsion, is hardly tenable, especially when compared to the unrelated sources on genetics, connection nowhere to be found, but for your or others conclusion. Still it remains POV conclusions, and not what the sources state. WP policies are clear. However, pinpoint the exact statement (argument) to be found on the sources, I will be fine with it, discussion over. No problem. Iñaki LL (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

There is an obvious problem of attitude: No change can be made until consensus is built, it is not enough to make your point. Iñaki LL (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

For information: the "Dwight Reynolds" ref was added on Sept. 4th 2011 and remained stable for more than 3 years (then making a consensus), if it has to be removed ones should seek for a new consensus (not the opposite), and there is NO consensus right now, but only an opinion supported by 3 contributors vs. a second opinion supported by 2, and this is not WP:CONSENSUS but only WP:VOTE.

In the other hand, Dwight Reynolds (who is a historian, no matter what people think) doesn't talk about genetics but about "blood lignages", obviously because the "Limpienza de Sangre" was the main reason invoqued bu the Spanish during the Expulsion. Talking about "DNA" is a way to explain, to generalize, not the main subject. Oh and, I forgot: DNA has nothing to do here as long as (as I said before) there's no DNA study on Morico descendants. --Omar-toons (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

And, unlike what has been stated by Carlstak, Dwight Reynolds has not "published scholarly works only on medieval Andalusi music" [1] but he also published many works on litterature and interaction between different communities in medieval Iberia, thus his opinion matters. --Omar-toons (talk) 15:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Show us links to these published works by Reynolds that you mention, Omar-toons. These assertions by Reynolds are unsupported by any other authoritative sources that I can find, and it doesn't matter how long the reference has been in the article if it is unsupportable. You and Iñaki are being intransigent here, and your command of English is lacking, making your arguments incoherent. Carlstak (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there are two refs (Hughes and Reynolds) for the same statement: that "Moriscos weren't of Arab/Berber descent but mainly Iberian (Muladi)".

An alternative: can we keep Hughes and replace Reynolds by Chejne? (2 refs being enough per WP:OVERCITE)?

--Omar-toons (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

We are at a resolution stage. The matter discussed is on form, discussion on content leads us nowhere, and gives rise to speculation. The video is good until a clear and specific allegation proves the opposite, other than that it is bla-bla-bla. Add whatever is relevant and accurate, with reference to a specific statement cited on the source. Carlstak or whatever editor name happens to be each moment, as Omar-toons pointed, the video reference was settled when you added to the fire by meddling on it. Your level of aggression against the other editors increases along with your lack of arguments grows. Iñaki LL (talk) 08:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

My "level of aggression"? This is surreal coming from you, Iñaki, the one throwing false accusations around. How dare you insinuate that I am using sockpuppets. I see you have added my name to the list of suspected sockpuppets; this is a false claim based on zero evidence, as any admin can quickly see. Shame on you for this disgusting behavior. You "discredit" yourself with such laughably inept tactics, and you should be banned for it. Carlstak (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Carlstak, Johnbod: Another valid source relevant to this conflict to be included: [2], Could either of you incorporate in relevant section? 08:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Asilah1981 (talk)

Yes, that is useful, especially as it specifically addresses the Moriscos. I won't have time to add anything for a few days, and there doesn't seem much point while the edit-warriors are still reverting all changes on sight. Johnbod (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree this is useful, as Johnbod says. I will wait till the dust has settled and the edit-warriors are behaving, which may have to be enforced with sanctions (one hopes). Carlstak (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Iñaki LL Please desist from removing sources and sourced statements from this article. I agree with Carlstak and Johnbod that for now this must be taken to RFC, even if no coherent arguments have been given beyond what is clearly your displeasure with the content of these sources. Otherwise, additional measures should be taken in the face of such disruptive behavior.Asilah1981 (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I won't say anything that is apparent in this section and that can be naturally gathered from your destructive intervention here and the article history, you discredit yourself by pushing your POV through, skipping all collaboration and WP rules and policies, you are out of control, and you are wasting my time, and that of other good editors. I have posted this also on your talk page. I have not time to go through your edits, but you (what username really should I address?) overtly failed to engage in dispute resolution, and have bulldozed your views. Any original research by WP:NOR will be removed. By the way, Johnbod, your attitude speaks volumes, very sad. Iñaki LL (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Iñaki LL you can address me on this user name since it is my only account. As stated, an RFC is required, since there doesn't seem to be any space for rational discussion. All I ask is the same as other editors are asking of you. Please don't remove relevant sources from the article without a good reason to do so. On my side, you are welcome to include the Reynolds source into the relevant sentence, even though I agree it is an extremely weak source and not worthy of special attention (I would remove it altogether, but am willing to agree to it staying for the sake of consensus). Asilah1981 (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Johnbod,

Did you read the "Adams" ref? It does absolutely not address Morisos' genetics, thus it does not contradict the "Muladi origin of the majority of Moriscos" as supported by historians.

Regards,

--Omar-toons (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Omar-toons the sources refer specifically to Moriscos and go as far as explain how the 1571 dispersion of moriscos from granada has affected geographic distribution of North African haplotypes.

Please do not delete sources until after an RFC has clarified the matter, it is now bordering vandalism of the article. You are welcome to add any sources you feel are relevant.Asilah1981 (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Question: does it contradict the "Muladi origin of the majority of Moriscos"?

Answer: No.

Then: off-topic/WP:OR.

--Omar-toons (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you serious Omar-toons?? I can only conclude bad faith and a refusal to read the sources you are so avidly deleting. Will keep this page on my watch list and periodically check for your vandalism. Asilah1981 (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

First, thanks to read WP:POINT.

Then, and because you have to justify the information that you want to put in the article (and not the opposite), could you please tell us, for each reference you give, the page where it is stated that Moriscos weren't mainly of Muladi descent?

Thanks in advance.

--Omar-toons (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't really have time for this but just from the first source I will quote directly for you: The most striking division in North African ancestry proportions is between the western half of the peninsula, where the proportion is relatively high, to the eastern half, where it is relatively low (Figure 4). This distribution could reflect genetic drift, as well as the history of enforced relocations and expulsion of moriscos. The entire large community of moriscos in Granada was relocated northward and westward following the war of 1567–1571.23 In addition, the final expulsion of moriscos, ordered by Philip III and beginning in1609, was highly effective in some regions of Spain, including Valencia and Western Andalucia, but less so in Galicia and Extremadura, where the population was more dispersed and integrated.

The North African descent of moriscos is a given and population genetics traces their historical movements. It is demonstrated scientifically by now. There is this source which discuss this but there are many others scientific studies, Omar-toons, all of them discussing morisco north african genetic markers as a given. Please can you drop this and move on to something else. The sources are there, they are undeniable and you can't just censor them. Asilah1981 (talk) 16:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Look at the last sentence in the abstract, Omar-toons, it concludes that North African genetic markers in Iberia are not due to muslim rule in generally but are SPECIFICALLY morisco and the result of Morisco Population movements. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2668061/ Asilah1981 (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a sockpuppet investigation going on now, that has activated somewhat inadvertently, since evidence went astray in the process. I won't even check Asilah1981's last comment. Do state on the article what the source says, and that is all. Original investigation will be removed immediately. Iñaki LL (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The "Am J Hum Genet. 2008 Dec 12; 83(6): 725–736" (Adams) ref still does not contradict the statement that "the majority of Moriscos descended from Muladis", it only attributes the high % of some haplogroups to Moriscos.

Let's play maths and logics:

Let's say that in a region X, there is 5% of North-African haplogroups ;

What does the "Adams" source say? That these 5% are mainly because of Morisco, Muladi and Mudejar presence ;

Now, let's say that, in this region, 12% of inhabitants are of Morisco descent (in the beginning of the 16th century all Mudejars (including those of Muladi origin) became Moriscos), that gives 7% of non-NorAf haplogroups, right? Ok, let's continue ;

Does the "Adams" source contradict that? Absolutely not, but it does not support your affirmation, that Moriscos were not mainly of Muladi descent.

If you have trouble understanding that then please read WP:SYNTH.

--Omar-toons (talk) 00:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations for taking so much time, Omar-toons. However, the burden of the proof is not on your side, it is really a shame that you should spend your time doing so, like I am wasting, when I should be doing other important stuff. If someone claims something, they should point exactly where exactly is the assertion or idea in question. If the connection between the referenced source and the idea/statement claimed is not clear or open to interpretation, it is original research. Since it seems to be an open interpretation, add exactly what the source says, period! If it does not fit in the paragraph, do not force its inclusion, that is POV pushing. Johnbod should know better, since he is a long time editor, even longer than me. Iñaki LL (talk) 09:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Omar-toons Frankly, I'm at a loss for words with your response and reasoning: Source 1 says A, and Source 2 says B, but what if C, D and E were true? Then that would mean that Source 2 is wrong when it says B, meaning sources claiming B are not relevant to the fact that A is true and B is false. Furthermore sources which state B are contrary to WP:SYNTH. I understand that erasing these sources is important to you but do you realize how illogical and desperate this sounds? Asilah1981 (talk) 17:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Iñaki LL, I no longer assume good faith with you since, when you saw that Carlstak, Johnbod and I wanted to take this to RFC you panicked and preemptively launched a bogus sockpuppetry accusation. I strongly suspect you launched this because you are aware how ludicrous your position is and that an RFC would simply attract attention to this edit conflict. I also think you know full well that no one here has engaged in sockpuppetry so far...Asilah1981 (talk) 17:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I would have not had any problem with the RFC or any scarecrow you may have wanted to brandish, at all, in fact I just thought, "do it!", but there was this preliminary matter that had to be clarify. I have nothing to hide, I acted on honesty and WP specific rules & outlook, something you have not, I am afraid. I attempted to engage in dispute resolution on a basis of clarity in the sources, and observance of WP rules, and spurred initially by unacceptable editing and attitudes. Anyway, everything is in the history, and this discussion, fortunately. Iñaki LL (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Moriscas

The section seems pretty random, devoid of meaningful information and pointless. I suggest it is removed and, if required, its sparse content incorporated elsewhere.2.137.191.198 (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I fully agree... --Omar-toons (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. 2.137.191.198 (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Source missing

"While the descendants of those Moriscos who fled to North Africa have remained strongly aware and proud of their andalusi roots,[citation needed] the Moriscos' identity as a community was wiped out in Spain"

Omar-toons Since you are moroccan of andalusi descent yourself, could you find an adequate source for this statement? ana ma9dertch nel9aha...2.137.191.198 (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should the Expulsion section state as fact that "Moriscos...were overwhelmingly the descendants of...native Iberians"?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

It appears that consensus was that "historians say x. However, y" was a good format. AlbinoFerret 20:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

---

Should the "Expulsion" section state as accomplished fact that Moriscos were mostly not descendants of Arab settlers, but overwhelmingly the descendants of native Iberians who converted to Islam? Carlstak (talk) 03:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

A couple of editors insist that this statement be left as it is: "Contrary to popular belief, the Moriscos were for the most part not descendants of Arab settlers, but instead were overwhelmingly the descendants of Muladis, native Iberians who converted to Islam under Muslim rule, and were as ethnically Iberian as the Christians who expelled them." The only supporting source given is a documentary on the British Channel 4. They allow qualifying information to be appended, but revert any attempt to rephrase the declarative statement so that it doesn't represent this as an objective fact, as the article's history will show. Carlstak (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The debate is actually more on form than content, which is what led me to act. Engaging calmly in dispute resolution would have done the trick, but other editors insisted on going straight to reverts, lengthy argumentations, etc. In fact, on the heat of the moment I also undid edits two times. Now, as to the debate, it should be over and I should be fine with that if the sentence added to the paragraph just stated what the genetics sources say, and not an elaboration on what the genetics conclusions may imply according to some users, that is personal research (see discussion above), and not acceptable. The present sentence is just confusing, it is difficult to understand it exact meaning, besides adding "modern" studies, as if the video statement was old. In fact, the idea that Hispanic population expelled the Others is the old Manichean assumption: the "native Civilized Christians" expelled the "alien Barbaric Muslims" (sigh).

As to Dr. Dwight's statement, it was fine when the edit conflict on sources started, and then an editor (instead of cooling down tempers) insisted on removing that also (see discussion above). The documentary seems to have been produced not by Dwight, but by Hughes, another specialist historian, and should be considered to have her authoritative support. Iñaki LL (talk) 09:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The (erroneous) statement has been pasted obsessively all over the article and Iñaki LL has gone to great lengths in deleting properly cited scientific articles which contradict the POV he is pushing. He clutches onto a mistake made in a passing statement in a UK Channel 4 Documentary - an extremely weak source to practically rewrite history, rejecting all serious studies on the matter which contradict him - attempting to delete them claiming they are "non relevant". Evidently a documentary by a non-specialist cannot be taken as the absolute truth when this statement is contradicted by modern historical and scientific sources. I don't mind the source being there so much as the way the sentence is formulated, that the erroneous statement of a weak source is the defacto unqualified reality regardless of what all other sources say. The version which said "some sources say x, although y" was not accepted by Iñaki LL, prompting an edit conflict. Asilah1981 (talk) 13:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course. We know at this point that the intransigent prefers to get personal and evade the issue rather than to cooperate, so let's hope that an administrator will intervene with the voice of reason. This categorical statement based on such a tenuous source upends the consensus of almost all scholars in the subject and should be relegated to a footnote stating a tiny minority hold this radical view, rather than held as fact. Carlstak (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I've been distracted by the false sockpuppet accusations made by Iñaki, so it just hit me that the dubious quote from the Hughes documentary movie, "The people who were being thrust out were as native to the peninsula as the Christian kings." isn't even germane to the assertion, "Despite the fact that its people were overwhelmingly ethnically Iberian...." it is being used to support. Yes, the Moriscos were native to the peninsula after being there for centuries, but that doesn't support the statement that they were ethnically Iberians. This is indisputable, and negates his whole case, since all he has for a source is that one quote from the movie, but the intransigent will have it no other way than his distortion, and seeks to obfuscate the issue with absurd misdirection, such as meaningless (in this context) references to "Manichean assumptions". Carlstak (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course, no one is doubting that Moriscos were native to the Iberian peninsula and were as Spanish as any other Spaniard regardless of ethnic origin... So even the weak source has been misquoted by Iñaki, Carlstak? Btw, as you know, I was accused of being your sockpuppet along with a bunch of other people. :-) Asilah1981 (talk) 17:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, at this point, it strains credulity to believe that he and his ally are acting in good faith, in the face of all contrary evidence and logic, not to mention the objections of established editors. I doubt his false, unsubstantiated accusations would ever have been taken seriously by an experienced clerk. The novice clerk Vanjagenije is too diffident to even close the case himself. Carlstak (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Carlstak To be fair on Vanjagenije, I don't know how these cases work, maybe perhaps it is good practice to get someone to double check your decision before closing it? I understand you are upset by false (and I agree possibly bad faith) accusations but since they will come to nothing you should not think more of it. Asilah1981 (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Asilah1981 Good advice, but I must say that when I wrote "it strains credulity to believe that he and his ally are acting in good faith..." I was referring to their edits at the Morisco article.:-)

Yes, I understood what you meant Carlstak. :-) In any case, I find this whole edit conflict extremely bizarre. I tried watching the youtube documentary which is being pushed here as the only acceptable source, although I had to switch it off half way through since it was amateurish and horribly researched. I don't think it would qualify as an acceptable source on wikipedia. At which minute is the statement in question, so we can verify the misquotation you mentioned? On another note, can I ask you to fix reference number 29 in this article, if you have time? I'm not very good at these things.Asilah1981 (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Asilah1981 I'm afraid I can't watch much of this execrable "documentary" to verify the Dwight Reynolds quote attributed to it. I hadn't tried to watch it until now, but Bettany Hughes is extremely annoying. I can't bear her, nor the overly dramatic production with its grating musical score. I have to agree with the typically caustic YouTube commenter who called her a "self-important, affected dolt." The ref was added by an IP user here. It's possible that the quote is not even featured in the movie.

It is astonishing that the two POV-warriors who have effectively ruined the article prefer this historically unsound pop pablum to the genuine scholarship that they keep deleting. It's my guess that they haven't watched it themselves. I merely tried to clean up the mess someone made of the citation referring to it and spuriously attributing it to Princeton, with which it had nothing to do. I suspect that whoever added the ref was trying to dress it up and make it seem respectable, which it most definitely isn't. Having seen what I saw, I think it's more imperative than ever that an admin who understands what authoritative sources are should inspect the POV pushers' destructive edits. Speaking of citations, I fixed those you mentioned. Carlstak (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Bettany is really irritating! As she is on tv a lot, we have a biography at Bettany Hughes. Her home beat is ancient Greece, but she will present a tv programme on anything you care to commission. Johnbod (talk) 03:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• This has been going on for longer than the edits discussed above. It is instructive to compare the article as it was last year, before this edit on Feb 6 removed over 17K bytes, in Omar-toon's first edit to the article. Before that the article had been pretty stable for a long time, although someone else tried to remove genetic material last August and was reverted. It seems very important to some people that the Moriscos were all racially pure Iberians. Johnbod (talk) 03:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

It does seem so, Johnbod. One has to wonder what are the motives of persons doggedly pursuing such an irrational crusade. I've been thinking all along that there might be some internalized racial self-loathing involved. Carlstak (talk) 04:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Carlstak and Johnbod: It seems to me that Omar-toons had genuine OR concerns. I read the SYNTH rules he pointed to carefully and re-edited the phrase and he seems happy with it. Omar-toons, I have to say I don't fully understand what the problem is, since if it was interpreted so strictly we would have to edit out every single comparison of two sources which contradict each other - there are millions of similar sentences throughout wikipedia qualifying statement A by statement B. But it is a relief to see that you agreed with my edit. I only wish that you held the Reynolds source to the same standard because it is beyond sub-standard both inherently and in terms of the way it is misquoted. And none of us understand why you still support Iñakis position as presenting the Reynolds source as the unqualified truth. Logically it doesn't make sense and in your case leads to an understandable suspicion of having an agenda in editing this article. Forgive me for making this assumption from the info you give in your user page but I feel it may be the desire to make the point that you personally are a Moroccan of Spanish, rather than African, heritage.

More generally, I think articles related to the Muslim period in Spain are subject to two types of aggressively POV pushing which ironically are very much aligned: First, a pro-islamic stance which aims to qualify the expulsion of moriscos as something akin to the nazi holocaust and second, a more islamophobic/racist/inferiority-complexed Spanish stance which aims to purge spanish history of any muslim/north african influence or heritage. Few, actually no editors feel an emotional need to dig into sources and offer a more balanced and nuanced approach to this period of history. Spanish traditional historiography is also heavily skewed towards an islamophobic approach, whereby the inquisition and expulsion not only extinguished islam but also entirely rid Spain of north african heritage and lineages in Spain. A modern validation of "Limpieza de Sangre" which considers portraying this period as total unqualified genocide is a small price to pay to confirm Spain's European character. Modern academic studies largely debunk this myth and are supported and/or draw support from history (Trevor Dadson's findings for example) and population genetics which trace forced or voluntary population movements of moriscos during and prior to expulsion. Even in the far north of Spain, the Pasiegos for example have been suspected of being morisco origin for centuries and population genetics have confirmed their north african heritage. I agree with Omar-toons that a section on North African admixture in Spain per se may be irrelevant, but one that focuses on tracing Morisco population movements in the 16th and 17th century is extremely relevant. What is more interesting beyond high levels of north african admixture as compared to other European countries is how heterogenous and patchy this admixture is, since it shows us where Moriscos were largely expelled (Kingdom of Aragon/Valencia), where it largely failed (much of Andalusia, Extremadura and Castile) and where Moriscos sought refuge within the Iberian peninsula - a significant number seemingly sought refuge in North West Castile probably via the transhumant cattle herding route running down the western side of Spain and which exists to this day. These things are of particular interest to this article and are specifically discussed in sources rather than being OR.

Beyond that, I would say that there are so many high-quality sources regarding this subject matter, so many recent academic papers, that half of the sources currently present (blogs on Israeli newspapers, BBC documentaries, books written in the 1950s etc...) should be substituted. Asilah1981 (talk) 10:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Wise words, Asilah1981. I'm glad you and Omar-toons seem to have reached some sort of rapprochement, yet we still have the problems of the "documentary" and the categorical statement regarding the descent of Moriscos from native Iberians, as you say. It would be helpful if we could obtain the opinion of an expert on the subject, but I'm not sure anything will sway the two dissenters. I can't see any middle ground on these points of contention. In the meantime, I will do some work on the sources. Carlstak (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

If this is the case (and I haven't been keeping up), then the positions of both sides (if there are sides) should be put. What was unacceptable was the repeated removal of one set of assertions and references and the retention of the other, especially when those kept (if more clearly to the point) were of far lower quality. But don't let's call it a "controversy" in the absence of signs of academics actually arguing over the matter. Johnbod (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Asilah1981, I already proposed to replace Reynolds by Chejne [3]. I won't replace it by myself but feel free to do it.

I'm not a fan of the "Y-chromosomes" thing but it seems that there's no consensus to remove it, then my only concern was WP:SYNTH ; according to these "DNA sources" (imho) it is fine to talk about sth like "a substantial NorAf element among Moriscos", but certainly not to say that these studies contradict the previous statement as long as -as I said before- there's no specific "DNA study" on recognized Morisco's descendents (ie: old urban communities/bourgeoisies of Rabat, Tetuan, Chefchaouen, Testour, Koléa and a few other cities). That's all.

Regards,

--Omar-toons (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The main point of contention here, as I understand it, and the purpose of this RfC to resolve, is the categorical statement that "Contrary to popular belief, the Moriscos were for the most part not descendants of Arab settlers, but instead were overwhelmingly the descendants of Muladis, native Iberians who converted to Islam under Muslim rule, and were as ethnically Iberian as the Christians who expelled them." Chejne says "The neo-Muslims, mostly of Spanish stock and known as Muladíes (Ar. Muwalladūn), constituted the bulk of the Muslim population of the Peninsula preserving Islamic values and culture. They were the ancestors of the Mudejars and Moriscos, whether of Spanish, Berber, Jewish, or Black ancestry." That is true, but it does not support the assertion that the Moriscos were ethnically "Iberian". The Moriscos were not "ethnically" Iberian. All these different peoples were Iberian insofar as they lived in the Iberian peninsula, but it is incorrect and meaningless to say they were of "Iberian" ethnicity, unless we were referring to the pre-Roman Iberians who occupied the peninsula in ancient times, who are not the topic under discussion. As Chejne says, the Moriscos could be of "Spanish, Berber, Jewish, or Black ancestry." I can accept that, but how does it sit with the dissenters? Carlstak (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Omar-toons ok... I understand your position. I think as Carlstak points out the only issue is the categorical nature of the previous statement not the conjunction. I think (barring Iñaki) a consensus here would be "certain historians say x. However, y (as per the edit I made yesterday and you agreed to). All we have to do is replace the youtube video with Chejne and I think all four of us will agree. Carlstak, Johnbod?Asilah1981 (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Carlstak, could you also please fix source 39? Or at least send me a link on my user page on how to do it myself! Citations are my weak point since Im an on and off wikipedia user.Asilah1981 (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course, as soon as I get a chance I'll take care of the citation. I'm okay with the deletions you just made to the "Genetic legacy of Moors in Spain" section, and I get Omar-toon's point there. I must say that my eyes are bleary from all cross-checking I've been having to do, but I found the diff where the objectionable addition, "Contrary to popular belief..." was made here by an IP user. I have removed its second occurrence as unnecessary duplication. I've also found Dwight Reynold's Curriculum Vitae, which is substantial. I can find no other occurrence in Google search results of the quote attributed to him, "...perhaps the most shocking thing in the expulsion is they were not actually expelling Arabs nor were they expelling Berbers. The huge majority of the people that were being expelled, by blood, by DNA if you will, were as Iberian as their Christian cousins in the North who were kicking them out of Peninsula...", supposedly occurring in the Bettany movie and cited in previous versions of this article. I plan to email him and solicit his comments soon as I can. Carlstak (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow Carlstak that makes you a hardcore wikipedian! I will continue to collaborate with you guys on this article and a couple of related articles over the coming days/weeks. Any edits I make from now, like the deletions I made, will be tentative/proposed. Feel free to revert or modify them if you disagree and/or feel they require discussion.Asilah1981 (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The debate you are having the two comments right above could have made much earlier, and much of the endless talk and ugly talk above would have been spared. (What I wrote before the above two comments:) This happened to be an open forum, but there are the same actors dwelling on the same bla-bla-bla, why keep pushing that "it contradicts"? Nothing like that is stated by the sources! Sadly the academic level is descending to new lows; don't miss it, now we have the "Spanish", as opposed to Berbers, Jewish, or Blacks! (What sort of category is that? Political, geographical, ethnic, administrative..., O! Are the Portuguese in?) FYI, Carlstak, Iberian refers to Iberia / Iberian Peninsula.

Sorry, I am done with this boring discussion, no honest attempt has been made by some editors to engage in a constructive compromise (not very difficult to reach actually), but rather kept going on with a never ending lecturing on what the Moors or the Moriscos were or were not, accompanied by a strained tone and unacceptable hostile comments against me, like all that put above by Asilah1981 (you portray yourself...). In the present wording and state of the debate, WP:SYNTH remains there, although all the sources are good as far as I am concerned. I am stubborn and somewhat direct but always prone to resolution and compromise in all my previous disputes. I am not putting up with any personal dismissive or gang-up style, so I am leaving this, the atmosphere may get better, and it is not worth my time, nor the effort, I have other fish to fry. You know? All yours. Omar-toons, wish you well, good luck. (For the sockpupetting case, still open, please address there any new comments you may have on that matter) Iñaki LL (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Part of the problem was that your fractured English is sometimes hard to penetrate, especially when you're making involved points, and then your edits and comments can be quite opaque. It's hard to work in a collegial manner with someone who flings false accusations against those who disagree with him. You obviously don't get it on many levels, as your understanding is often obtuse, demonstrated by this latest comment. I'm saying that a person can't be "ethnically" from the Iberian peninsula. So now maybe we can get things done without the trolling behavior. Carlstak (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Omar-toons, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.21581/abstract Asilah1981 (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

"Supposed to be migrants from southern Spain"...

Also, it says "suggesting a North African origin for this ethnic group": this often contradicts the Andalusian origin of this ethnic group, I hardly see any transposition on all Morisco communities.

For instance, I remember having read a similar study on the Anejra tribe of northern Morocco, with the same results: no significant European flow ; but the authors only relied on the tribes own claim of Andalusi descent, while no historian supported that.

Btw, that doesn't convince me: to make any conclusion, we should have a DNA study on recognized/undisputed Andalusi ethnic groups, the sole ones being Urban bourgeoisies (partially). --Omar-toons (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, I would not say that "certain historians say x. However, y", since Muladis making the majority of Iberian Muslims is a view largely accepted among historians [4][5] and Chejne's view is often cited by historians. --Omar-toons (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It should be made clear that Chejne's view is "Muladíes... were the ancestors of the Mudejars and Moriscos, whether of Spanish, Berber, Jewish, or Black ancestry." Chejne is explicitly stating that Moriscos could have any one of, or a mixture of, those ancestries. He is saying that a Black person could be a Morisco, and indeed they were. A certain user, not Omar-toons, doesn't seem to understand that I was quoting this source already present in the article, not put there by me. The person freaks out, and loses all rationality. Most revealing. Carlstak (talk) 01:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll say it again. The phrase, "Contrary to popular belief, the Moriscos were for the most part not descendants of Arab settlers, but instead were overwhelmingly the descendants of Muladis, native Iberians who converted to Islam under Muslim rule, and were as ethnically Iberian as the Christians who expelled them..." offends scholarship, as well as common sense, because there is no monolithic "Iberian" ethnicity, anymore than there is a "Spanish" ethnicity. A Catalan is not of the same ethnicity as a Galician or a Basque. That is why the phrase, with its "source", which no one as yet has even shown at which point in the movie the supposed quote starts, does not belong in the article. Does everyone get it now? Carlstak (talk) 11:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I was asked to intervene in the sockpuppetry investigation (SPI) related to people working on this article. Everyone should be aware that this SPI is being closed without any action being taken.

Also, for what it may or may not be worth, Iñaki LL indicated to me on my talk page that he "gave up" on this article — an action which may or may not affect the RFC discussion going on here.

I saw quite a bit of edit warring and accusations of vandalism in this article's edit history, and I think it would be good to note some things about these two policies. First, edit warring is inappropriate (and can result in blocks) even if you are convinced that your version is correct and the other editor(s) is/are in error.

Second, although reverting "vandalism" may be a legitimate justification for repeatedly reverting changes (and a valid defence against accusations of edit warring), the definition of vandalism in WP:VANDAL is very narrow. In particular, note the following from the policy: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism." Rather than engage in an edit war when it's clear that people disagree over content, sources, etc., the correct approach is to discuss the problem and seek a consensus (escalating if necessary to higher levels of dispute resolution). Even if you really do think that someone else is truly vandalizing an article (per our formal definition of vandalism), you're still better off taking the matter to the vandalism noticeboard (WP:AIV), rather than trying to fix the problem yourself via repeated reverting which someone else might decide merits a block for edit warring. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

(...) I will skip the "vandalism" word thing, for which I made my comment on Richwales' talk page. As for the decision, very sad, a blow to the WP, sockpuppeting is clear. I am glad at least that the clerk determines it is not about Carlstak, who after debate and investigation I do not believe either he is the sockmaster. I hang and will hang on to criteria-based debate and editing, the grounds for any credible and collaborative resolution, something I have not seen in this debate on some users while I was active on it. I keep for myself the possibility of bringing this to a higher resolution level. Iñaki LL (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Iñaki LL so after miserably failing in your accusation against poor Carlstak, who are you going to go after now? You are welcome launch the whole thing against me, if you like. Its actually quite entertaining...Asilah1981 (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Take your drama act somewhere else! Iñaki LL (talk) 14:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

For the sake of transparency and a full picture on the discussion above, I add link to relevant section in Richwales' talk page. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2015 (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.

Revamping population genetics section

Omar-toons, CarlstakI think I begin to see the solution to this issue which everyone will agree with. In any case the para is in the wrong section now.

Carlstak could you fix the study on tunisians and post it here, please? I can find use for it (Don't worry Omar-toons, I won't use it in a way you will disagree with it, Im pretty sure.)Asilah1981 (talk) 12:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure, Asilah1981, but I can't link it here as a ref because this page has no reflist. You can get the wikicode from this editing page. Carlstak (talk) 12:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Carlstak Here P537 is relevant. I seem to remember that Toledo or Granada Moriscos were exiled to Sayago, its in the book on the purging of muslim spain. The Morisco origin is discussed here to explain a sub saharan ancestry which is off the chart.

Excellent. Scientific evidence that supports statements by Chejne, et al. Nicely done,(talk). Carlstak (talk) 03:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikiicode:

Carlstak Have started fixing this section. Any comments or help on sourcing appreciated.Asilah1981 (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Morisco descendants

There are some low quality sources with erroneous understandings and misconceptions about Morisco descendants today. I have begun to add info and sources. Does anyone object to me removing the line that "there are millions of morisco descendants who are impossible to identify" even though certain sources express this view? Morisco descendants in Morocco, are very much identifiable.Asilah1981 (talk) 11:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Reflect what the studies say

The edits I have entered actually reflect what the genetic studies say. The traces of Berber ancestry are only higher when compared with other parts of Europe, not referred to as "high" in general. The studies consistently say the Berber traces are tiny compared to the indigenous Iberian markers, with a distinctive and large genetic divide between Iberians and North Africans. Berber markers are absent altogether or tiny in north-east Spain (Aragon, Catalonia, north-east Castile), and among the Basques. What was deemed "unusually high" was actually the frequency of Sephardic Jewish markers or similar markers of eastern Mediterranean origin (e.g. J1), which was explained and attributed to earlier Neolithic migrations (ancient Iberian civilization) and/or Phoenician colonization (especially the case in the Balearic islands). 173.238.79.44 (talk) 23:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, your first edit reflects a misunderstanding of English grammar - or even Spanish grammar for that matter - grammar in general. "High compared to" means "higher". There is no conceptual difference. The rest of what you are saying is either a) irrelevant to your edits or whatever point you are trying to make by blanking a paragraph or b) incorrect. Asilah1981 (talk) 09:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I didn't blank a paragraph, so I have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not sure you have a solid grasp of the grammar of any European language, be it English or Spanish. The study does not say, whatsoever, that the "North African markers" are "unusually high", only that the markers attributed to Sephardic Jews are unusually high, and that they explain this by the fact that such markers are likely associated with indigenous Neolithic settlement from eastern Mediterranean and Phoenician settlement pre-dating the arrival of Sephardic Jews. All that was unusual was the occurrence of some of the North African markers in some northwestern regions like Galicia, Asturias and Leon. The North African markers are only noted as being higher in some Iberian regions or ethnicities than others, in more of an unexpected east-west gradient than simply north-south, and that they are the highest for any native European population. The level of Berber markers on average, 10%, was not unusual, as as the traces of a small amount of Berber ancestry in Iberia were already detected in previous studies.

"Mean North African admixture is 10.6%, with wide geographical variation (Figure 4, Table S2), ranging from zero in Gascony to 21.7% in Northwest Castile. Mean Sephardic Jewish admixture is 19.8%, varying from zero in Minorca to 36.3% in South Portugal (the value in Asturias is unlikely to be reliable, because of small sample size)."

It's also worth noting that the study attributed some of the results to poor sample selection, and inadequate sample size for some locations, especially Asturias. Other studies, briefly mentioned in this one, have also observed that some of the genetic markers from certain subclades of hg E1b attributed to North Africa or Berbers are in fact indigenous in origin, originating in settlement of Iberia of Neolithic farmers. Veritas2016 (talk) 10:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Veritas2016 every now and then this article and other similar articles are attacked by Spaniards (or Latin Americans), normally from or with origins in some remote northern part of Spain who want to make it clear how European and Western their specific region is. I'm not sure if it is one person or various individuals, but it has been going on over the past couple of years intermittently. It's actually quite comical considering that its the more mixed parts of Spain where people are most good looking. So being inbred is certainly nothing to be proud of. I accept that Spain is a diverse country wrought with deep complexes and bickering and every now and then someone is going to feel offended by history and reality. The problem is 1) English: "unusually higher" is bad English, to a native speaker it just sounds bad and logically makes little sense. 2) You don't seem to have read the different studies on this topic. Iberia, as a whole, has unusually high levels of North African ancestry regardless of regional variations. 3) Sure, those Basques and Catalans who have no ancestors in other parts of Spain have much less North African Ancestry, it is mentioned in the section you are trying to edit, but you cannot edit an article with the sole objective of appeasing your insecurities. The history of Moriscos in Spain is a rich and fascinating topic and the brief genetics section is simply there to help elucidate their history and population movements. People with complexes and axes to grind should just move on, this article should not include a disclaimer on how "clean" the particular town you are from is. We are in 2016, for goodness sake.Asilah1981 (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what you are rambling on about here. If you ignore the genetic distinctiveness of the indigenous peoples of Spain, that is your issue, not mine. Spain is a country consisting of different, indigenous ethnicities and nations. There is a difference between these indigenous, Iberian, Celtiberian and Basque peoples and those of foreign, non-Iberian heritage or origins.

1) My English is fine, and better than yours, and again I doubt your proficiency in the command of any European language; 2) I have read all the studies, and you are misquoting them. NONE of the studies say Iberia as a whole has "unusually high" levels of North African genetic markers, and the tiny frequencies found among some indigenous Iberians is not considered unusual; 3) the supposedly Berber markers, some which may actually not be of Berber origin according to other studies, are virtually absent among native/ethnic Iberians in northeast Spain: Basques, NE Castilians, Aragonese, Catalans, etc. People in the Basque country of non-Basque descent are NOT ETHNIC BASQUES, and the same is the case with people in Catalonia and Aragon with origin from other parts of Spain.

You clearly have an axe to grind, or a foreign (and possibly Islamic, Arabist or immigrationist) agenda to push. You are trying to distort what is actually said in the study to exaggerate tiny frequencies of possible Berber markers among some indigenous Iberian populations in southern and western Iberia. Unlike you, I care about representing the facts and about genetic distinctiveness of ethnic groups. As for your point about "the best looking Spaniards", they are the actual, indigenous Spanish women, especially the Catalans and Asturians. As for "being in 2016", that is not a valid reason for tying to forcefully change native ethnic groups or alter nations and peoples for foreign peoples to take over. Veritas2016 (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Veritas2016 Ok you are clearly a neo-nazi with personal issues brought about by the contradiction of having your head filled with white supremacist ideas while having the face of a gypsy. In any case, please leave this article alone. Its about history, not how pure your blood line is. I'm automatically reverting all edits made with "racial hygiene" in mind. I suggest you go edit articles about Melendi, the greatest and most beautiful of the legendary Asturian race. Asilah1981 (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Now you are accusing me of a being a "neo-nazi" ??? What ?? This is an insane accusation. I only care about reflecting what the actual studies say and not trying create some false narrative downplaying the distinctiveness of indigenous Iberian ethnic groups, as I would for any ethnic group. Please stop from making personal attacks; please see WP:No personal attacks. All your recent edits in this article will now be reverted as a result of your hateful attacks, lies and insults towards me and towards Asturians. This article is about history, and what small legacy was left by the Moriscos and Moors in indigenous Iberians, especially the Andalusians. Veritas2016 (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Veritas2016 This article is not about Asturians. It does not and shall not mention Asturians. It is about a 16th and 17th century religious/cultural minority in Spain. It is also not about race. Population genetics is only mentioned where sources discuss how they help us understand where Moriscos - their descendants and their ancestors - lived, moved and settled. This article will NOT be damaged by race-obsessed nut jobs. I refuse to engage any more with you. The problem is not that you have an agenda (that would be fine), the problem is that your agenda is totally unrelated to the subject matter of this article. You don't care about Morisco history, only about your racial BS. Asilah1981 (talk) 13:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Genetic markers of Neolitic Migrants, Iberians, Pheonicians, Berber, Arabic and Sephardic populations in Iberia are hard to distinguish from themselves. Even more after centuries of admixture. Its hard to make a distintion between populations who come from the same area and are in origin related populations between themselves. In other words. Its almost imposible to distinguish the Neolitic farmers contribution in iberia to that of Phoenicians, or that of Jewish Sephardic ones. So its easier to make an aproximative account of populations from an expecific area rather than an especific etnicity. The closest figures I've seen in scientifical articles for all the spanish populations that about 30% of spaniards have a part of their DNA, small or big related to populations from for the Middle east and North African. Being 10% North African and 20% Middle eastern (Sephardic jewish, Phoenician, etc...). Still that is people with a part even one single gene in their entire genome related to those populations. On the other hand, that means that 70% of the population have no genes related to this populations, but to others, such as Paleolitic iberians, Romans, celtic, Roman slaves, vikings, greeks, germanic tribes, iranians (Alans), european settlers, Basques, etc.. This figures make sense since Arabs and berbers have been estimated to make about 50 000 people, comprising mainly the elite of muslim Iberia. For a population of around 4 or 5 million spaniards. Visigoths for example were estimated to make between 150 000 to 200 000 people. That was about 5% of the population out of a total of 4 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.34.72.123 (talk) 23:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

We should not come to this article to discuss genetics of modern day Spaniards/portuguese (all anyone seems to care about who comes here - quite annoying - particularly since many editors display an incapacity to understand the studies they quote. These studies don't say that 10% of Spaniards have "one north african gene", they say 10% of the Spanish gene pool is of North African origin as estimated from haplotype frequency/. Nor should we talk of 8th century history (Visigoths and Islamic conquest??? how the hell is that related??). Moriscos were a population from the 16th century, i.e. 500 years later. But, out of general interest, Spain was conquered in the early 8th century, initially by Berbers, later reinforced by Syrians. The figure of about 50,000 people for that event is roughly correct. However, tens of thousands more came during the later Almohad and Almoravid conquests (largely Berbers) and throughout the 7 centuries of peaceful migration to and from Al Andalus and the rest of the Islamic world. Only the conquest of Algeciras by Yusuf Ibn Tashfin's army in the 11th century required a Moroccan army of 70,000 men. That is one event out of many. As for Visigoths, Iberia barely has any Germanic DNA (limited to Catalonia and the Northwest), the reason for which their genetic imprint is so small is subject to debate - either the Visigoths were not as large in number as believed or they were already very mixed before arriving. In any case, if you come to the article Moriscos please discuss the subject-matter of the article. 83.63.216.14 (talk) 13:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041216045612/http://70.1911encyclopedia.org/M/MO/MORISCOS.htm to http://70.1911encyclopedia.org/M/MO/MORISCOS.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1373/is_4_52/ai_84804714/pg_2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051125192155/http://islamic-paths.org/Home/English/History/Details/Treaty_Granada.htm to http://islamic-paths.org/Home/English/History/Details/Treaty_Granada.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080430054951/http://usuarios.lycos.es/departamento_arabe/17_articulos_influencia_morisca.htm to http://usuarios.lycos.es/departamento_arabe/17_articulos_influencia_morisca.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Morisco. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081211014807/http://noticias.ya.com/local/andalucia/07/10/2006/mesa-propuesta-iu.html to http://noticias.ya.com/local/andalucia/07/10/2006/mesa-propuesta-iu.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051024143114/http://www.arabic-islamic.org/aljamiado/textos_aljamiados/a1p_I.html to http://www.arabic-islamic.org/aljamiado/textos_aljamiados/a1p_I.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Split of morisco (casta system)

The use of the word morisco for the casta system in the Spanish colonies in the Americas is mostly unrelated to the main topic of this page, therefore it should be split to a new page, or included in the aforementioned casta page. --Jotamar (talk) 17:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Carlstak (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Monuments de Salé.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

This article almost contradicts itself? & Why is E-M81 being labeled 'Islamic'?

The article makes the point that, "Historians generally agree that, at the height of Muslim rule, Muladis or Muslims of pre-Islamic Iberian origin were likely to constitute the large majority of Muslims in Spain."

There is one sentence between that one and this; "A wide number of recent genetic studies of modern-day Spanish and Portuguese populations have ascertained significantly higher levels of North African admixture in the Iberian peninsula than in the rest of the European continent.[101] which is generally attributed to Islamic rule and settlement of the Iberian peninsula."

The same short section ends with, "As for tracing Morisco descendants in North Africa, to date there have been few genetic studies of populations of Morisco origin in the Maghreb region, although studies of the Moroccan population have not detected significant recent genetic inflow from the Iberian peninsula.[citation needed] A recent study of various Tunisian ethnic groups has found that all were indigenous North African, including those who self-identified as Andalusians."

So were most of the 'Moriscos' of North African origin or not? After reading this I'm more confused that I was before. It goes on to mostly talk about Y-DNA Haplogroup E-M81 for the rest of this section as evidence of said "settlement".

Is Eupedia a valid source? https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_E1b1b_Y-DNA.shtml#M81_origins

The origins of E-M81 in Europe far predates the Islamic invasions and goes back to the Phoenician, Carthaginian, & Roman Eras. Furthermore the age and distribution and of E-M81 and its subclades within Iberia and across Europe suggest it spread within the borders of the Roman Empire. In fact transmission during the Roman era would be the only real explanation for its existence in mountain areas of Wales and Scotland and other areas of Europe given the estimated age of E-M81 is only about 2200-2900 YBP.

The distribution of E-M81 in Spain that is commonly being attributed to the Islamic era makes very little sense. How can E-M81 come from Islamic era migrations when many of the places it is found most in Iberia are in isolated northern mountain communities of Asturias and Cantabria that were farthest from the areas the Muslims conquered, never held any substantial control, over much less settled? If it came from Islamic migrations it would make sense maybe if the concentrations would be highest in mountain of southern Spain like the Sierra Neveda; not those in the north.

Note E-M81 exists in higher % in Wales than it does in England likely because Wales was a holdout for the Romano-British population from the Anglo-Saxons; suggesting its presence in Europe was more common outside of Iberia during Roman times and reinforcing the evidence it was transmitted during Roman times. This is corroborated by references in other Wikipedia articles as well; "E-M81 is also found in other parts of Western Europe, in the British Islands (mostly in Mountain areas of Wales and Scotland) and in France, 2.70% (15/555) overall with frequencies surpassing 5% in Auvergne (5/89) and Île-de-France (5/91)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_E-Z827#Europe

Note also the highest concentration of E-M81 today is in Tunisia, where the former capital of the Carthaginian Empire was located, and not in Morocco. And which would later become a major Roman senatorial province and the breadbasket of Rome.

So I don't understand; why is E-M81 behind talked about as evidence of Morisco or Islamic genetic legacy when the reality is obviously far more complicated and more ancient than that going back to Phoenican, Carthaginian, and Roman eras? None of this is to deny the presence of E-M81 in Iberia or that more of it came during the Islamic era; but rather to question to what extent Iberia's 'relatively higher' amount of E-M81 can be attributed to the Islamic era and not the Phoenician, Carthaginian, and Roman eras.

The fact E-M81 is found in higher frequencies in isolated mountain populations not only in Iberia, but also in Wales and Scotland, I think clearly speaks to a more ancient legacy than one that came during the Islamic era. --Avarserda (talk) 3:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

So were most of the 'Moriscos' of North African origin or not? Moriscos cannot be defined in ancestry terms, as there were no DNA tests back in the 16th century. They were perceived as different or Moorish-like because of their customs, language, clothes or whatever. All the DNA speculation in the page is obviously based on the assumption that they had more North African ancestry than the rest of Spaniards of the time, an assumption that perhaps should be made explicit. --Jotamar (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The issue I see here is that in essence this section talking about E-M81 being evidence of Islamic era migration is committing the exact same error that is often seen when people talk about J1-P58 being evidence of Arab migration into Europe; it is an error committed out of ignorance of the fact the histories of these haplogroup and their diversification is much more complicated than J1-P58 = all Arabs and E-M81 = Islamic era Berbers. An misconception if not committed by the article then it surely only propagates by makingwhat appear to be assumptions lacking context that the amount of E-M81 in Iberia is explained better by era that preceded the Islamic one.

I'll quote what Eupedia says about J1-P58 on this topic because it is 100% applicable to how E-M81 is being interpreted in this article.

"All three branches of J1-L858 (S640, YSC76 and FGC11) are found in Europe, principally in Spain, Italy, central and eastern Europe. Their relatively recent time of divergence with their Middle Eastern cousins (Late Bronze Age to Iron Age) suggests that they would have arrived with the Phoenicians (Sicily, Sardinia, Spain), and later in greater numbers with the Jewish diaspora. Spain and Portugal have the highest percentage of FGC12 (Arab) in Europe, but this amounts to about 12% of J1 lineages, i.e. less than 0.5% of the population, suggesting that the Arabs had a much smaller genetic impact on the Iberian population than the Jews and the Phoenicians.

Looking at the map of J1-P58, it is easy to assume that P58 is a marker of Arabic ancestry because it reaches its maximum frequency in and around the Arabian peninsula. That would be an oversimplification.

Most present-day Arabic speakers outside the Arabian Peninsula are likewise only very partially or not all Arabic genetically. In the northern half of the Middle East, most of the people who call themselves Arabs of today are in fact mainly descendants of other historic peoples, such as the Phoenicians, Assyrians, Babylonians, or even the Hurrians. Most of these peoples are predominantly J2, with many minority haplogroups (E1b1b, G, J1, L, Q, R1a, R1b, T).

The true lineage of the historic Arab people (so mainly from Jordan and Saudi Arabia) is J1-FGC12 (aka S21237). This subclade started expanding in the Arabian peninsula a bit over 3,000 years ago and did experience a tremedous expansion in the last 1,300 years, as can be seen in the completely phylogenetic tree on Yfull.com. Nowadays these more genuinely Arabic J1-FGC12 lineages are found throughout the Arabic-speaking world, but they only represent a small minority of lineages in any region but the Arabian peninsula.

The other subclades of J1 cannot be considered to be the paternal descendants of first speakers of Arabic. These other J1 lineages were Arabicized alongside other haplogroups (J2, Q1b, etc.) during the Islamic expansion from the 7th century onward. More importantly, J1-FGC12 is not the only haplogroup that spread with the Arabic expansion linked to the diffusion of Islam. Nowadays only 40% of Saudis and 30% of Jordanians belong to J1 (most but not all to FGC12). E1b1b-M34 is another important Arabic lineage, being found in 25% of Jordanians and 10% of Saudis. Like J1-P58, E-M34 it is also shared with their Semitic cousins, the Jews. Haplogroup E1b1b is considered the prime candidate for the origin and dispersal of Afro-Asiatic languages across northern and eastern Africa and south-west Asia. The Semitic languages appear to have originated within a subclade of the M34 branch of E1b1b. One specific deeper subclade is surely associated with the development of Arabic language and with J1-FGC12, but it hasn't been identified yet. Note that E-M34 itself is many thousands of years old and is also found in non-Semitic countries, including Turkey, Greece, Italy, France and Spain."

https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_J1_Y-DNA.shtml#Arabic

Note how at the end of that it is talking about E1b was associated with the origin and spread of Afro-Asiatic languages rather than J1 and how the spread of both of these is mostly taking place thousands of years before Islam and not during the Islamic era. These are common misconception Wikipedia does very little to clear up and even seemingly propagates in some areas like this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.91.82.125 (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

---Avarserda (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)