Misplaced Pages

Talk:Ethnic groups in Europe: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:57, 28 August 2009 editMathsci (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers66,107 edits →This section must be removed immediately← Previous edit Latest revision as of 20:39, 9 December 2024 edit undoZ71sam (talk | contribs)3 edits →Bosnia and Herzegovina: new sectionTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit New topic 
(530 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkpage}} {{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject Europe}} {{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=
{{Ethnic groups|class=|importance=}} {{WikiProject Europe|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Ethnic groups|importance=High}}
{{archives|auto=yes}}
}}
{{Archive box|search=yes|
* ] <small>(May–December 2007)</small>
* ] <small>(Aug 2007–June 2008)</small>
* ] <small>(June–July 2008)</small>
* ] <small>(Aug 2008–Sept 2009)</small>
* ] <small>(Jan 2009–Aug 2015)</small>
}}
__TOC__
{{Clear}}


==Native European==
== Small changes ==
Almost all populations in Europe are native, yet the page says they are all extinct... what? Germans are extinct in Germany? Britons are extinct in Britain? This is a severe case of poor-quality lying. Who are you trying to fool, 3 year olds? Do you think an Irish people will read this and think they are extinct in Ireland or actually immmigrants from Mars? <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the articles about ethnic groups ==
I have copy-edited one paragraph. Please note, I am using "colonised" rather than "colonized", this being the European spelling, and this is to policy. I have put "French Fries" into brackets, along with frites, which is the word widely used in Europe for chips. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 08:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Seemingly there is a significant number of commentators which support the general removal of infobox collages. I think there is a great opportunity to get a general agreement on this matter. It is clear that it has to be a broad consensus, which must involve as many editors as possible, otherwise there is a big risk for this decision to be challenged in the near future. I opened a ''Request for comment'' process, hoping that more people will adhere to this proposal. Please comment ]. ] (]) 07:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
-ise being "more European" than -ize is a myth. It depends on where you look. See ]. ''frites'' isn't English, be reasonable. --] <small>]</small> 21:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,


I have just added archive links to {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
== Malta ==
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20151205031959/https://books.google.com/books?id=YRtnAAAAMAAJ to https://books.google.com/books?id=YRtnAAAAMAAJ


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.
I made a change in the historical populations list to reflect the Maltese people's uniquely Semitic European heritage: this has been made to refer to 'creoloid' mixing. While I don't have a problem with this as such, it backs up an (erroneous?) similar claim on the Maltese language talkpage. Which prompted my doubts. Feedback? Cheers, ] (]) 15:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
:This just looks like an attempt to turn Maltese into a non-Semitic language. I've seen several attemps like these, namely in ]. ] (]) 16:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
::I've fixed it. ] 17:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Thanks ] (]) 18:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
== Ethnicity and genetics ==


Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">]:Online</sub></small> 20:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Someone keeps returning a huge chunk of genetics-related text which was removed by consensus, with the explanation: ''ethnicity IS based on common descent, presumed or observed; genetics is related''. While ethnicity is partly based on common descent (which can be real or mythical), the fact that genetics has some relation to descent has no import. Deducing from this that a section about genetics is germane to a text which is '''strictly''' about the ethno-linguistic classification of groups is pure OR. I'd like IP 76.xxx.xxx.xxx to come and discuss this here rather than constantly reverting against consensus.--] (]) 18:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2016 ==
* I myself have read over the discussions about that section and understand why some have argued to remove it from the article, however, I personally disagree. This is mainly on the basis that the origins of peoples, ancestry and physical apperance are very much part of their ethnicity. Many who trace their common descent do so on the basis of various diacritics including from commonalitites in physical appearance (eg. the long presumption that indigenous Europeans have a common ancestry since all have commonalitites in physical appearance, i.e. being "white" compared to more distant visitors who were not "white", has been confirmed by genetic studies). Even though the common descent of ethnic groups isn't based obviously on genetic studies, the studies nevertheless deal with factors regarding the origins of ethnic groups. On this basis, I don't feel the section should be removed since countless ethnic grousp articles all over Wiki mention genetic studies as modern evidence that discusses ethnic origins. If the ] takes samples from ethnic groups all over the world for information on their origins, I don't see why a section containing related material should be removed here. The article is called 'European ethnic groups', not ']' or ']'. ] (]) 23:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected|Ethnic groups in Europe|answered=yes}}
<!-- Be sure to state UNAMBIGUOUSLY your suggested changes; editors who can edit the protected page need to know what to add or remove. Blank edit requests WILL be declined. -->
<!-- Begin request -->


I need to edit, change and update "by country" paragraph for accuracy. There is a need for removal of some possibly inaccurate and unsourced edits. For example, Frisian-Dominant-speaking (0.01% is too small, unless there are places like islands where Dutch is hardly spoken) in "others" in the Netherlands, and replace it with information on Iranians in the Netherlands, who form among the top 10 ethnic groups in the country. Reference link https://www.internations.org/netherlands-expats/iranians The Netherlands census categorizes South Moluccans apart from Indonesians. http://www.safecom.org.au/dutch-moluccans.htm
::As you said: ''the common descent of ethnic groups isn't based obviously on genetic studies''. No genetic studies that I know of claim to prove or disprove ethnicity bnased on their results; at most, some studies have looked for correlations beween ethnicity and some genetic markers; sometimes such markers have been found (for some ethnicities) sometimes none have been found. Saying the two are linked is definite OR. Besides, previous consensus has estabnlished that the focus of this article is ethno-linguistic, which doesn't include genetics.--] (]) 00:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
<!-- End request -->
] (]) 20:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


:] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] ] <small>Please &#123;&#123;]&#125;&#125;</small> 04:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
:::Agree with Ramdrake. The correct article to discuss genetics is ]. Genetic studies of Europeans rarely (and none that I am aware of) claim that any particular genetic markers are associated with any specific ethnic group, mostly they discuss the clinality of the genetics of Europe. Whether single alleles are used, or multi-locus clustering, the distribution of genetic markers is usually discussed in terms of clinal variation rather than discontinuous variation associated with social, cultural or linguistic groups. If there is research that points to the genetic homogeneity of such social, cultural or linguistic groups, then of course it should be included, but the sources previously included make no such claims. ] (]) 08:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
::::For example this quote: "The overall geographic pattern in Fig. 1a fits the theoretical expectation for models in which genetic similarity decays with distance in a two-dimensional habitat, as opposed to expectations for models involving discrete well-differentiated populations. Indeed, in these data genetic correlation between pairs of individuals tends to decay with distance (Fig. 1c). For spatially structured data, theory predicts the top two principal components (PCs 1 and 2) to be correlated with perpendicular geographic axes9, which is what we observe (r<sup>2</sup>=0.71 for PC1 versus latitude; r<sup>2</sup>=0.72 for PC2 versus longitude; after rotation, r<sup>2</sup>=0.77 for ‘north–south’ in PC-space versus latitude, and r<sup>2</sup>=.78 for ‘east–west’ in PC-space versus longitude). In contrast, when there are K discrete populations sampled, one expects discrete clusters to be separated out along K-1 of the top PCs8. In our analysis, neither the first two PCs, nor subsequent PCs, separate clusters as one would expect for a set of discrete, well differentiated populations (see ref. 8 for examples)." So this recent paper provides evidence that European people are not distributed into discrete genetic clusters, but are isolated by distance, with geographic distance predicting genetic difference better than membership of any discrete well differentiated group. "" (2008) ''Nature'' {{doi|10.1038/nature07331}}. ] (]) 09:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


My apologies, let's try it again.
:::::''"The correct article to discuss genetics is ]. Genetic studies of Europeans rarely (and none that I am aware of) claim that any particular genetic markers are associated with any specific ethnic group, mostly they discuss the clinality of the genetics of Europe."'' That article may be the main section with which genetics and factors related to it are discussed in more detail, but I do not understand why a sub-section on that topic (and one which is adequately referenced with valid sources) can't be included in this article. For example, this article isn't specifically about ], yet it understandably contains information about the languages spoken by European peoples since language, along with other traits such as history, culture, religion, descent, etc. are a part of what compose ethnic identities. I do not not doubt that there is a clinal nature to genetic variation across Europe but this variation is not perfectly or evenly-distributed in the same pattern, of course not. The nature of the clines or gradients vary. In addition, many genetic studies in fact do claim that particular genetic markers are associated with specific ethnic groups, since certain populations, ethnic or non-ethnic, have higher frequencies of markers than others, or they have a distinct frequency of markers compared to other populations. This is why several (in fact, most) studies use a source ethnic population when discussing genetic variation, specifically when it is regarding the indigenous populations of the region(s) involved. This mentions specifically ''Basque'', ''Celtic'' and ''Frisian'' populations or markers to detect the possible presence of ''Danish Vikings'' and ''Anglo-Saxons'' in certain regions. In ]'s book, 'Origins of the British', he even begins the book by his interest at finding out the genetic differences between the 'English' and the presumably 'Celtic' parts of the Isles. The fact that genetic distribution corresponds with geographic distance doesn't exclude its relation to ethnic populations, it actually enforces it since the development of that geographic variation coincides with the distribution of ethnic populations (the development of ethnicities are also intrinsically linked to geography and location). The ], funded by ], uses samples from ethnic populations across the globe. Here are which claim that ''"the genes of a European person can be enough to pinpoint their ancestry down to their home country".'' Clearly Alun, many studies do acknoledge the predominance of certain genetic markers in specific ethnic groups. No studies claim a marker is only or specifically 'English' or 'Czech' or whatever, but they do acknowledge that various markers have certain distinct frequencies in specific populations and appear 'very predominant' in some, or are 'absent' in others. Using that example again, ] have a much higher frequency of the ] than ], and that same haplogroup is completely absent in ] or ]. ] (]) 06:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
<!-- Begin request -->
::::::Nothing you say is at all relevant. The fact that genes are shared between different geographic regions is a well known fact, indeed all of the papers you link to support this obseration. The sharing of genes between people from different geographic regions is direct evidence that genetics is not relevant to ethnicity within Europe. Indeed the New Scientist article you link to is reporting on the article I link to above. As I say, I would be more than happy to include research that shows that European ethnic groups represent distinct genetic populations, if any such research exists, but I know of none, all of the papers I have seen clearly show that there is no genetic discontinuity between ethnic groups. Your argument doesn't provide any compelling evidence and seems to be somewhat confused, genetic variation within Europe does not follow ethnic identity, so it is not relevant to this article. I don't think that's anything like a contentious position to take. This article is about the ethnic groups of Europe, these are not genetic populations. ] (]) 08:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Please change the mention of Frisian-speaking Dominant to ] in the Netherlands in "by country" section of the article. The article states 200,000 South Moluccans live in the Netherlands, which the country has 18 million residents, so they make up over 1% (1.5%?) of the population.
:::::::BTW neither of the papers discussed in the ''New Scientist'' article you link to claim that "the genes of a European person can be enough to pinpoint their ancestry down to their home country", while the ''New Scientist'' makes this claim, it does not appear to be supported by the articles themselves. Indeed these articles directly contradict two studies that were conducted about two years ago. and both performed clustering analyses on genetic data on people of European origin, and claimed to have identified population clusters in Europe, Bauchet claimed five such clusters and Seldin three. Bauchet ''et al.'' claimed that Basque people, Finnish people and Spanish people formed discrete clusters, but that the rest of Europe falls into two clusters, a "northern" cluster and a "southeastern" cluster. Seldin found only three clusters, southern European, northern European and Finnish. This hardly amounts to evidence that the ethnic groups of Europe each form discrete genetic populations. Both of the papers the ''New Scientist'' cites ("" and "") make the opposite claim, that the genetics of Europe is isolated by distance, and that geography and not ethnic identity is the primary determinant of genetic difference. This is an important observation, it means that a two individuals living in close proximity either side of the French-German border are likely to be more similar to each other than they are to individuals from their own ethnic group that live a greater distance away. Sampling strategies are not relevant to ethnicity, when population geneticists do these sorts of studies they ''do'' need to sample from populations, labelling these samples by the ethnic origin of the person in question is not evidence of the genetic homogeneity of the ethnic group from which they derive. Indeed the practice of sampling by ethnic group, rather than by geography has been highly criticised by many geneticists and anthropologists because this sort of sampling strategy is prone to bias. Your claim that paper "A Y chromosome census of the British Isles" discusses "Basque", "Frisian" and "Celtic" markers is just plain wrong, they do discuss these populations, but don't claim that any markers are unique to these populations. All they claim is that markers that are shared between these populations and British populations derive from a common male line ancestor, there's nothing about that claim that supports the equation that "ethnic group"="genetic population". Let's stick to substantive claims made by the scientific papers themselves as per ] and not introduce ] of what we ''believe'' they are saying. A research paper will inevitably contain primary sources, which we should avoid, what we should be including are the substantive discussion and interpretation of the results that are made ''by the authors of the paper'', and not what ''we'' think they mean. ] (]) 09:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
<!-- End request -->
:: Just a note: The page you cited above was written in userspace by one editor and is not policy; please reference the correct ] and ] pages instead. ] (]) 02:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
] (]) 04:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
* First of all Alun, my points are very relevant and I am not confused whatsoever. I really don't understand how you can't see how variation between geographic regions (isolation by disance) most often''correlates with the geographic distribution of ethnic groups'' which develop, originate or are indigenous to these regions, something widely acknowledged by most studies in their use of ethnic terms to characterize populations. I already explained quite clearly the relevance of genetics to articles on ethnic groups which are based on aspects of descent, including factors which correlate to markers which can be analyzed in genetic studies. One of the few ''featured'' articles on ethnic groups for example, ], includes sections involving genetic studies. I must stress that I am ''not'' claiming there are markers wholly unique to only one population, but there is a ''frequency distribution of markers'' unique to certain populations (i.e. certain markers are most common or least common in specific populations or ethnic groups). In addition, there are markers which are unique to certain specific numbers of populations (i.e., there are various groups which have markers which are not be found in others). Some of your responses here also exemplify your POV in this matter quite clearly by making claims ''not mentioned in any studies'': "The sharing of genes between people from different geographic regions is direct evidence that genetics is not relevant to ethnicity within Europe." No study I know of, especially those which were just posted above, make any claim of this sort. "All of the papers I have seen clearly show that there is no genetic discontinuity between ethnic groups." What papers are you reading ? Practically all that I have read do mention a ''degree'' of discontinuity between various groups and populations, especially between those which are from more distantly separated regions. This is simply because if there was no discontinuity at all, there would not be any of the differences observed between regions, populations or various genetic markers. Let me put it to you this way: all you are focusing on is the similarities (and therefore continuity) between populations. I already provided several examples above which use ethnic terms for populations in their studies and even though these studies don't directly state that the genetic variation correlates with the distribution of ethnic groups, ''there are none which deny it anywhere''. Almost all of the studies, and all the ones posted here, actually show the correlation in geographic distrubution of markers and that of ethnic groups. None mention anything even remotely similar to what you stated about indigenous ethnic French and Germans in relative geographic proximity. Yes, often they will share more similarities to each other than to others within their ethnic groups, but ''this is not always the case''. No study says this rule is uniform and they acknowledge that the distribution of genetic markes is not perfectly or evenly spread out in Europe or elsewhere. The degree of continuity (or discontinuity) between regions varies and it is not uniform. ''Some neighbouring populations have starker differences than others''. An example of this is this map you yourself created of the ditribution of Y-chromosome markers in England and Wales (from the study "Y-chromosome Census of the British Isles"). Notice that the the NW (Llangefni) and SW (Haverfordwest) populations of Wales have a ''sharper discontinuty'' from the eastern/southeastern population of Wales (Llanidloes) than that same population does with neighbouring populations in England (of nearly equal geographic distance). The discontinuity between the NW and SW Welsh samples and the other Welsh sample is also starker than that between any of the English samples. This is mentioned in the study itself and the study also mentions that the population of eastern/southeastern Wales has a large population of people from outside Wales (''"The peculiar position of Llanidloes might reflect recent migration in the past two centuries."''). The Southwest and Northwest parts of Wales by contrast are the strongest culturally and linguistically Welsh parts of Wales (see ), with the populations overwhlemingly of indigenous origins. This is just one example of how the level of discontinuity or continuity between neighbouring populations is higher or lower in some regions than it is in others. ] (]) 16:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
::I'm not interested in your explanations of "relevance of genetics to articles on ethnic groups which are based on aspects of descent", I'd be much more interested in you citing a source than you giving your personal "explanations". Likewise when you say "there is a ''frequency distribution of markers'' unique to certain populations", well let's have a source that says that. But a population is not an "ethnic group". For example the frequency of Y chromosome types in one population of England will be different to that is a different population in England, how is that relevant to ethnicity? Indeed the frequency of a specific set of alleles is probably unique however one defines one's population, a household, a hamlet, a village, a town or a city, I'm not sure how that fact would mean anything substantive, but what we need is a source that says this is something important. I can't be bothered to read all of your response, it's too long and seems to be more of a personal essay than at all relevant to the article. ] (]) 09:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


== Indians link ==
* "there's nothing about that claim that supports the equation that "ethnic group"="genetic population". Let's stick to substantive claims made by the scientific papers themselves as per Misplaced Pages:Primary_Secondary_and_Tertiary_Sources#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources and not introduce WP:SYN|a synthesis of what we ''believe'' they are saying". I could not agree with you more but I'' do not make the claim anywhere'' that a population based on genetic markers = ethnic group. However, what I am claiming is that the geographic distribution of genetic markers does correlate (to varying degrees) with the geographic distribution of ethnic groups. This is evident in all of the genetic studies mentioned (btw, all of these studies reflect indigenous European ethnic groups or those of claimed indigenous European descent). You mention how the two studies from the ''New Scientist'' "make the opposite claim, that the genetics of Europe is isolated by distance, and that geography and not ethnic identity is the ''primary'' determinant of genetic difference." Notice they claim it is the primary determinant, ''not the only one''. I also notice they don't deny anywhere whether or not ethnic groups correlate with that variation or whether or not ethnicity is also a determinant. Your claim here is confusing: "Sampling strategies are not relevant to ethnicity, when population geneticists do these sorts of studies they ''do'' need to sample from populations, labelling these samples by the ethnic origin of the person in question is not evidence of the genetic homogeneity of the ethnic group from which they derive. Indeed the practice of sampling by ethnic group, rather than by geography has been highly criticised by many geneticists and anthropologists because this sort of sampling strategy is prone to bias." Clearly I provided examples above from various studies, whether it be the ''Y-chromosome census of the British Isles'', the ''HGDP'' or other studies which clearly ''do'' show the relevance between these populations and ethnicities (ethnic sampling). Showing the predominance of certain genetic markers in an ethnic group indeed does show the relative homogenity of a group, or of that marker in that group. I'm surprised you even disagree with this Alun. Whether or not the practice of sampling by ethnic group is criticized by you or whoever ''doesn't matter'' because those studies and opinions are sitll highly valid sources. The researchers who carry out those studies or use ethnic populations for sampling are in turn highly critical of those who have issues with their methods of sampling, most evidently with their (possibly politically influenced) stance against biological factors which may coincide with ethnic groups as well as cultural or linguistic groups. You go on about claiming we need to present material as is mentioned in studies, and not through our interpretation, but in fact ''that is exactly what you seem to be doing''. Clearly ethnic sampling is part of various studies, and for good reason, so I don't see why such a section on the correlation between ethnicity and genetics amongst European groups should not be in place. ''All'' of these studies on various populations of Europe didn't collect sampels randomly from regions which may contain many foreign or foreign-descended peoples, but they collected it form people who are inidgneous or claim to be long descended from European ancestors (therefore, a type of ethnic sampling). They also take samples from regions not known to have any significant foreign settlement or cosmopolitan populations. This was mentioned quite clearly for example in the "Y-Chromosome census of the British Isles", especially when using samples to represent so-called "indigenous" samples in Ireland: ''"To represent the indigenous population of the British Isles, we have selected a site in central Ireland that has had no known history of contact with Anglo-Saxon or Viking invaders".'' This is a type of ethnic sampling since the sample being chosen is based on historical, cultural, or (claimed) ancestral factors. ] (]) 17:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
{{edit protected|Ethnic groups in Europe|answered=y}}
::Epf, this is not a chatroom, this is not a forum for your personal opinions. We can't publish OR here. Your ideas are clearly a synthesis and don't represent the published conclusions of the papers you have cited. Find specific reliable sources that support what you are saying. ] (]) 09:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
please change ((Indians)) to ((Indian people|Indians)) <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)</small>


:{{Done}} - by another - ] (]) 16:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
EPF, when you write this, "distribution of ethnic groups. This is evident in all of the genetic studies mentioned (btw, all of these studies reflect indigenous European ethnic groups or those of claimed indigenous European descent)." it sounds like you are drawing on other sources to develop your own interpretation/argument which violates NOR. The question is, is this a significant view among experts on ethnicity? ] | ] 17:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


== germans without Immigrant background same as Ethnic germans? ==
Well, I admit that I am giving my own point of view on the matter here, just as Alun is giving his, but neither are represented word for word by the sources. Is the goal not to come to a consensus when there is a difference of opinion ? The two studies from the ''New Scientist'' don't claim anywhere whether or not ethnicity has anything to do with the distribution of genetic markers in various populations. Since they do mention that geography plays a ''primary'' (not unilateral) role and since the ethnic groups correspond to said geographical regions, I don't understand why even those studies can't be included. The researchers didn't simply sample from all sorts of people of all sorts of backgrounds in those regions, otherwise their results would not have made any sense. Clearly, when they are discussing indigenous populations, they sampled groups known to have ancestors who have long inhabited those regions, based on historical, cultural, ancestral or other evidence. I mentioned this from an excerpt in the Brtish Y-chromosome study. Obviously when all these studies discuss groups descending from migrations which happened thousands of years ago, they would have to sample indigenous Europeans. Some of the studies don't even mention specifically ''who'' they sampled or ''how'' they sampled but clearly if they are looking for 'indigenous' samples they had to do so based on some sort of ethnic and cultural grounds with historical evidence to justify whether or not the population has long inhabted that region. I understand why Alun would argue against their inclusion if they don't specifically mention sampling from ethnic groups, but the studies which have used samples from ethnic groups or used certain populations, markers, etc. to represent an ethnic group should certainly be included. The studies (and I personally belive all of them do) which do use some sort of ethnic sampling like the ] or the ] do so based on the fact that geography plays a role in the formation of ethnic groups and that most base themselves on some sort of common descent, even if presumed.] (]) 18:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Is the true percentage of Ethnic germans lower than 81% in the form? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)</small>
:I agree that collaborating and reaching a consensus are admirable and certainly would never ever want to discourage an open, thoughtful, mutually respectfu, constructive conversation between you and Alun (or anyone else for that matter). But even if you and Alun reached an opinion that you both agree on, if it violates NOR or SYNTH it cannot go in. Conversation that i great and even important in a chat-room, cafe, or classroom is not necessarily appropriate when writing an encyclopedia article that has to comply with Misplaced Pages policies. But if you guys can come up with something that is fully compliant with NOR, well, more power to you! ] | ] 18:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
:Actually Epf the goal is to include the published conclusions of reliable sources. The studies on genetics that have been published do not claim to have any relevance to an article about the ethnic groups of Europe. I don't see any attempt to reach a consensus on your part, only the repetition of your personal interpretation of genetic studies over and over ''ad infinitum''. Untill you produce something substantive then I don't see what you hope to achieve. ] (]) 10:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
:::The problem with Epf's arguments as I see it is that they are backwards. DNA researchers decided to sample regions with few historical immigrants because they assumed this would give a clearer picture of historical populations and of what were the genetic composition of the earliest ethnic groups to inhabit certain regions. You can't then use the conclusions of those studies to provide genetic definitions of those groups since the groupings were already decided a priori to the study. Further more the studies don't seem to justify a belief that even because certain regions with little historical immigration show greater genetic coherence that that coherence reflect a current ethnic grouping. It might reflect an historical ethnic grouping (like Angles, Picts or Saxons) but those groups don't exist as european ethnicities any more, and arguing that the genetic homogeneity of certain areas reflects a current ethnic group is likely to lift regional groupings like "geordie" to ethnicity status which would be a completely novel idea. ] 05:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Wow, you just said, in a much more eloquent way, what I was trying to say. Indeed the fundamental problem is that the arguments Epf is using are not used by the studies he so often cites, and therefore they constitute OR. The reason these studies do not make these arguments are exactly the same as the ones you have given. Especially the argument that a specific frequency of certain alleles present in a population can be unique, well that's clearly true, but it's true for all populations, however defined, and if we use this as a template for defining ethnicity, then even individuals would be "ethnic groups", because individuals have a unique set of genetic markers, or things like ] would not work. One of Epf's favourite papers is "A Y chromosome census of the British Isles", but all sampled populations of this study have unique frequencies of Y chromosomes, but no one would claim that the people of ] or ] are ethnic groups. Furthermore to study the genetics of an ethnic group one would need to sample by self identity, regardless of the origin of the individual. For example if we wanted to determine the genetic makeup of the English, then we'd have to only sample from people who respond positively to the question "do you consider yourself English?" In that case we may well find that a great many of the respondents have ancestry from places like the Indian subcontinent, the West Indies, Africa etc. None of the studies have used a sampling strategy where ethnic identity was the criterion for inclusion, rather the criterion for inclusion has generally been "was your grandfather born within 30 miles of the region you live in today", I don't think any population geneticist has ever claimed that this is equivalent to ethnic identity. Most of these studies are interested either in the prehistoric movement of peoples (and prehistoric human groups do not conform to modern ones, as you point out) or in determining if some medical interventions will work better for some populations than for others. Studies of the prehistoric movements of peoples has had some success, but there is still a great deal of disagreement regarding the utility of population genetics when it comes to biomedical practice, specifically that there is a great deal of evidence that human genes are far too mixed up between population groups for intelligent diagnosis of medical conditions based exclusively on ethnic identity. ] (]) 05:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Here's an example of genetics and culture being linked: "While the Caucasus Mountains have diverted human traffic to the few lowland regions that provide a gateway from north to south between the Caspian and Black Seas, highland populations have been isolated by their remote geographic location and their practice of patrilocal endogamy. We investigate how these cultural and historical differences between highland and lowland populations have affected patterns of genetic diversity." in "": "Because highland Daghestani populations practice patrilocal endogamy, we would expect that they would exhibit reduced genetic diversity and larger genetic distances when compared to other populations with respect to the NRY but not mtDNA. Our observations are consistent with these predictions." This sort of paper might be more useful to cite in articles about ethnicity that also want to discuss genetics. ] (]) 11:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


== American (United States) expats in Europe ==
==Reversion by Mathsci==
Europe has between 4.5 to 5.5 million American expats, with the highest numbers in the UK, France, Germany, Italy and Switzerland, but they live everywhere in the continent. This is the highest number ever for US citizens and/or descendants in Europe. Many came to the continent to retire, as well those who do business and a few for political, economic or personal reasons finding Europe a better place than the US. ] (]) 14:33, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
This edit by ] seems to remove several ethnic groups of Europe such as Assyrians, Persians, Turks, Bangladeshi, South Asians and Vietnamese. I wonder what the reason for reverting this material is? ] 15:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
:I reverted 70.164.195.196's edits. He/she added a number of facts without sources as he/she has done before. He/she has been warned 3 times on his/her talk page and has had his/her edits reverted now by four editors. Please see his/her talk page. To describe the Lebanese diaspora as Arabs is inaccurate. Jews in Europe are considered European as are some of the Turkic peoples. If the changes of 70.164.195.196 are to be allowed, he/she must provide sources. Previous edits were equally problematic .
Hello fellow Wikipedians,


I have just modified {{plural:6|one external link|6 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
:I think, however, you are quite right that certain diasporas have disappeared in the confusion, e.g. the Turkish diaspora, already mentioned in the table, the Vietnamese diaspora in France, and the others that you cite. Anyway sorry for the confusion. The article suffers from a perennial problem of sourcing, which can be corrected bit by bit. Finding sources/statistics for these diasporas shouldn't be too hard, but is quite time consuming. I will try to help myself. ] (]) 16:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111217151026/http://2001.ukrcensus.gov.ua/eng/results/general/nationality/ to http://2001.ukrcensus.gov.ua/eng/results/general/nationality/
::I made a few quick checks. ]s were lumped together previously, but with a misleading wikilink. Similarly it might be better also to have ]s, ]s, ]s, and ]s. There are problems with statistics for the British Latin American population. I am not sure about the use of Persian and Assyrian (as opposed to Iranian, Iraqi, etc), but that should probably be discussed here. ] (]) 16:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706163803/http://belstat.gov.by/homep/en/census/2009/main.php to http://belstat.gov.by/homep/en/census/2009/main.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110510003403/http://www.mfa.gov.lv/lv/latvia/integracija/integracijas-politikacopy/ to http://www.mfa.gov.lv/lv/latvia/integracija/integracijas-politikacopy/
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090504094914/http://www.en.bmi.bund.de:80/nn_148248/Internet/Content/Themen/Auslaender__Fluechtlinge__Asyl__Zuwanderung/DatenundFakten/Deutsche__Auslaender__mit__Migrationshintergrund__en.html to http://www.en.bmi.bund.de/nn_148248/Internet/Content/Themen/Auslaender__Fluechtlinge__Asyl__Zuwanderung/DatenundFakten/Deutsche__Auslaender__mit__Migrationshintergrund__en.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120918155443/http://www.ssb.no/emner/02/01/10/innvbef/tab-2012-04-26-04.html to http://www.ssb.no/emner/02/01/10/innvbef/tab-2012-04-26-04.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006110329/http://www.gks.ru/free_doc/new_site/perepis2010/perepis_itogi1612.htm to http://www.gks.ru/free_doc/new_site/perepis2010/perepis_itogi1612.htm


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).
==Worst page ever==
I wonder if this page is bad beyond repair. It seems to consist of nothing but original research and wild ideas, almost nothing is sourced. I lost count of the population claims it makes without providing references, and obviously its authors are as unfamiliar with WP:WEASEL as they are with WP:OR, we are constantly told by them that something is "assumed", but we never get to know who this mysterious oracle who assumes these things are. I was particularly amused by the claim that the Lebanese are an ethnic European diaspora group in the Middle East. I found absolutely nothing of value here that is not found on many other pages already, perhaps this page should just be deleted but let's wait for some brave and patient person who is willing to rewrite it with sources. ] (]) 16:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
:The Lebanese have a diaspora in Europe. <s>Go and look at ] before making meaningless comments here</s>. You seem to be <s>trolling.</s> ] (]) 23:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
::Mathsci, if you would have bothered to read my comments and the page, you would have noticed that I was not commenting on the Lebanese diaspora in Europe, I was commenting on the fact that the Lebanese ''in Lebanon'' are mentioned as a Euopean diaspora ''outside'' Europe. Please read comments more careful in the future, and stop hurling personal abuse at other users. I would also appreciate if you stop removing fact-tags just because you don't like them ] (]) 08:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
I find it interesting how quick people are to slap "OR" tags on perfectly verifiable information that is already satisfactorily sourced on wiki, just a click away. Transferring references would just be a menial task of copy-paste, but hey, that would mean thankless boring ''work''. It's much more attractive to throw your weight around and complain that the unpaid volunteers haven't done the job for you yet. JdeJ is right that the ] were unduly listed under "European diasporas". Well, you just blew your chance for a helpful edit by choosing to blank half the article instead of just unobstrusively fixing that item (the rationale appears to be the European genetic markers found among the Lebanese, traced to the time of the Crusades. This makes for historical migration out of Europe, but hardly for a contemporary "diaspora").
It is also true that this is still more of a list article than anything like a coherent account. That's because nobody ever did any constructive work on it. I find it peculiar that nobody seems to be interested in ''building'' this article while it does get lots of attention from people trying to deconstruct it. --] <small>]</small> 04:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
:Dab, I did not "blank half the page", I remove table that was not sourced in any way. In case it was sourced and I missed the source, then I did a mistake and apologise for that. Even without any source, I must admit that it would have been better to discuss the table and other claims with no references here first, and while I've inserted the fact tags that Mathsci removed without providing any other reason than his failure to understand my comment about the Lebanese, I have left the table in as it is possible I may have missed something and it is indeed sourced. Given the persona abuse hurled at me by Mathschi, I am of course grateful that you took the time to write a proper answer. Everybody stands to gain from constructive discussions rather than the sort of personal attacks that Mathschi seems to prefer. ] (]) 09:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 22:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
::you did not read my comment. What claim are you contesting in particular? E.g. that the ] are a Slavic ethnic group of Europe and number approx. 42 million within Europe? This is perfectly undisputed and well-referenced right there, in the ] article. You are saying we should copy-paste these references into this one? I answer, ideally, yes, and you are free to help. Or alternatively at least forgo wasting editor manpower by raising futile non-issues. I am not quite sure whether you are consciously trolling, but if you are not, it is still the case that your edits are effectively indistinguishable from trolling. --] <small>]</small> 10:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2016 ==
:::With all due respect, this tendency to call other editors trolls all the time is a bit disturbing. No, I don't contest the number of Poles in Europe and I don't contest that they are speaking a Slavic language. Whether or not that makes them ethnically Slavic is an interesting topic, but we can return to that later on. Some of the things I am contesting:
{{edit semi-protected|Ethnic groups in Europe|answered=yes}}
:::* Are the Maltese one of the smallet ethnic groups in Europe? I can easily list 40-50 smaller groups ethnic groups in Europe. You removed the tag, so can you inform me why the Maltese in particular is a small group and according to whom?
:::* Who is it that assumes that the Basques are directly descended from the populations of the Atlantic Bronze Age?
:::* Are we sure that the Finnic populations are indigenous to Northern Europe? I can answer that one myself: No, we are not. It's one of many theories, and not the one accepted by most academics.
:::* Where and in which languages is Europe "widely used as a synonym for the European Union"? I live in the EU myself and this kind of usage is very rare. It might be different in the US or the UK, but at least it should be sourced. Now it's just someone's personal opinion.
:::There are other vague statements and even plain errors on the page, but I hope this is enough to highlight the types of errors that I've tried to point out.] (]) 10:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


Modern ethnic Europeans are a recent and ongoing evolution. The original ] migrants to Europe from Africa arrived 40,000 years ago; these ''prehistoric'' Europeans were predominantly ]ned, short of stature, ], and looked dramatically different in comparison to modern Europeans.{{citation needed|date=July 2016}} The genetic lineage of Europe mysteriously{{citation needed|date=July 2016}} transformed about 4,500 years ago, with changes in diet, body size and skin pigmentation, when ]n and ]n migrants arrived with taller height and ] genes, respectively.<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3028813/Europeans-dark-skinned-8-000-years-ago-Pale-complexions-brought-Europe-Near-East-study-claims.html</ref><ref>http://www.livescience.com/28954-ancient-europeans-mysteriously-vanished.html</ref>
:::Regarding the table, Dbachmann claims that all the facts in it can easily be found on other Misplaced Pages pages. Perhaps it's true, and I'm very willing to give him/her the benefit of doubt. I've decided to take one group in particular to focus on, but similar arguments could be made for all groups. I've focused on Baltic group.
{{reflist-talk}}
:::* The table claims that there are 5 million Lithuanians in Europe. Where on Misplaced Pages is this sourced. Not on the page ], it speaks about 4-5 millions but this is both unreferenced and around 1 million of these are living outside Europe.
:::* The table claims that there are 7 million Balts in Europe. The uncertainty of the 5 million Lithuanians are dealt with above, the 1.5 million Latvians include about 100.000 outside Europe. But then Samogitians and Latgalians are added to the total! Is the author not aware of the fact that Samogitians are Lithuanians and Latgalians Lativans - that is to say that they are counted as such in censuses. When including them here, they are counted doubble as they already make up a part of the Lithuanian and Latvian populations.
:::In other words, the data for the Baltic population is pure guesswork and, with due respect, based on insufficient knowledge. The figure is a mix of unsourced estimates, large populations outside Europe and counting part of the population twice. I guess there's no reason to believe that other population groups are dealt with in a more scientific way. I duly repeat my question: on what is the table based? ] (]) 12:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


This entire section needs either removing or re-writing. Especially the first couple of lines which make some outrageous and very offensive as well as vague claims about European history with no evidence to back them up (citation needed, etc) <br/>
Ok, in the two posts above I've outlined the reasons for why I feel tags are needed. They are a tool to help people with knowledge and interest to improve articles and are ultimately very helpful in that way. As no objections have been made to the many errors and ambiguous statements I've pointed out, I take it that there is no disagreement and that I can insert the tags again. I will, however, wait a few hours more before doing so. Even though the users who have removed the tags have been editing actively after I wrote my posts a few hours ago, it is of course entirely possible that they have not had the time to take a look at this page yet. I hope this is helpful in highlighting some errors in the present format of the article and I would hope that some users would be less eager to call fellow Wikipedians names in the future. Cheers ] (]) 13:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
The article in the 4th line about Europeans being darked skinned 8000 years ago has also been debunked.


Please clean up your site and check sources as well as remove content that has no validity but aims to confuse the public who use your site.<br/>
ok, JdeJ, I am convinced that you contribute in good faith. You raise some valid points. You will note that this article is tagged with {{tl|refimprove}}. This means that we need people (unpaid volunteers) investing time improving the references for this article. I fully endorse that the tag's presence is justified at this point. Calling this "the worst page ever" etc. isn't going to help, we all agree it needs work, ok? I am willing to invest ''moderate'' amounts of time to that end. I will be grateful and pleased if you will join me. To start out, we could tag the less obvious items with inline tags, so people will know where to begin. In passing, I note that ] is in a much poorer state -- but nobody seems to bother to even look at it or comment, while this article here gets an endless stream of people complaining about everything (but only very rarely willing to invest even 15 minutes to help adding a reference or two) --] <small>]</small> 18:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thanks.


] (]) 20:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
:We're making progress :-) Yes, calling the page the "worst page ever" was silly and it's not surprising that it caused you to question my sincerity. What I try to do by inserting the tags on specific places rather than just the refimprove at the top of the page is to call attention to some particularly problematic claims in the article, for two reasons. One is to make it easier for interested readers to know which claims are particularly uncertain, the other is to make it easier for editors to know where a source is needed. Of course I'm willing to help and I will have a look at the text, but I must admit that I remain sceptic to the table, for the reasons I've listed above. Do we really need the table in the article. I'm not I'm sure we don't, I just want to open up a discussion about the issue. ] (]) 19:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
::in my view, the table is at present the best part we have. It claims to be nothing more (or less) than a ''list of ethno-linguistic groups in Europe''. If it is too controversial to keep a list in an article not explicitly titled "list", it could also reside at ] I suppose. It is important to have this list to get an idea of what we are looking at: a hierarchical set of ethno-linguistic identities. I have no opinion if "ethnicity" applies to the level "Slavic", "West Slavic", "Polish" or even subordinate to that. We don't need to decide this. But it is important to come to terms with the major ethno-linguistic structure of European populations, since this is what the article as a whole is supposed to deal with. The main division is "] (Central-Eastern), ] (Western-Northern), ] (Central-Southern), ] (West), other". Then there are sub-divisions to these. --] <small>]</small> 19:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
:::It's great if a new editor can help adding sources. That, along with careful checking, is what has been going on bit by bit for some time now. It is an intrinsic problem of the article, since such a large collection of different facts and statistics are gathered here. Dab's table was a helpful addition. When the article was ], it was indeed one of the worst articles on wikipedia. (See ] for comparison.) ] (]) 22:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


:Thanks for your concerns. If you have a suggestion for the text, please re-open the request. Requests are typically of the format "Change X to Y". While the section may need copyediting, your request as currently phrased is very difficult to act on. — ] <span style="font-size:88%">('''] ·''' ])</span> 20:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
:::First of all, I've chosen to ignore ] at the moment since he is continously attacking me in an uncivil way on many pages. I've left a message at his talk page, and will report him if he continues as I don't think that being a moderator is any excuse for bullying other editors. I'm glad that dab and others have not followed suit despite my unfortunate labeling above; indeed I've never seen a moderator behave like Mathsci during my years on Misplaced Pages. This is just to explain why I'm not engaging in any content discussions with him at the moment; I've tried, but he only responds with insults about my intelligence, my intentions and my level of English.
:::Dab, you've convinced me of the advantage of the table, so what we should work on is improving it. By that I mean making sure that it is as accurate as possible. I'm sure you've done this already and all in all you appear to have done a good job, but I hope you don't mind some help :-) To be able to do so, may I ask you how you've arrived at the numbers in the table and how you have defined different ethnic groups. I'm asking this with the Baltic examples that I mentioned above in mind, as there appears to be some uncertainty in the numbers there. I'm sure we'll be able to further improve the article! ] (]) 10:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
:::: Hiya, popping in as an uninvolved admin. For best results, could everyone please try to keep discussions focused on the article, instead of on the contributors? And for even better results, it would be nice if folks would consider going back to older comments, and changing them to a somewhat more civil tone (yes, you can always go back and change/delete stuff you've already said). Sometimes changing an older post, and ] words said in the heat of the moment, can have an excellent effect on de-escalating disputes. Which helps to get everyone back on track towards our main goal, of high quality articles. :) Thanks, --]]] 00:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
::::: It is quite hard to know how to refer to the willful blanking of a laboriously prepared table, containing the work of multiple of editors, notably Dbachmann, described by the edit summaries:
{{quotation|Very poor page. Inserted some tags and removed a table that managed to break WP:OR over and over again. Verify your claims, thanks}}
{{quotation|This page is probably the worst case of WP:OR I've come across in a long time. Most of it should be deleted, but perhaps sources can be found for some of its ideas}}
::::::Were these edit summaries reasonable? Should most of the article have been deleted as JdeJ suggested (without justification)?
{{quotation|Inserted fact-tags for statements that are unsourced and often very vague. Mathschi already deleted the tags once without providing any reason, I hope he will contribute in a more responsible way.}}
:::::: Was the above response to my reversion and edit summary "restoring blanking by JdeJ - incoherent justification was given on talk page" reasonable? I made one edit to the article, that's all. JdeJ chose not to have noticed this edit . JdeJ admitted later that some of his edit summaries and actions were "silly". His edits to the lede of ] were also equally "silly" and unhelpful. Remember I made just '''one edit''' to this page after JdeJ.
::::::Elonka's comments don't address these edit summaries at all or the fact that well over a third of the article was blanked, prior to tagging. Is her intervention here as an "uninvolved administrator" not encouraging these kinds of actions and edit summaries in mainspace articles? Blanking one third of an article? Surely, Elonka, you cannot be serious? ] (]) 05:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::As Mathsci knows, I saw the table as problematic due to its lack of sources and the many errors I found in it. With hindsight, yes, it would have been better to discuss it here first, as I have already stated above. I'm waiting for Dab's response before I start working on the table, and a Mathsci has continued to wage his vendetta against me despite warnings from both me and an administrator, I've reported him at ]. Once again, could we perhaps now focus on improving the article? The table needs sources, and I'll be happy to help with that once I know which sources Dab has used when compiling it. ] (]) 08:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::What vendetta? I stated my point of view fairly clearly ]. I stated there after my restoration of the table blanked by you and and my consternation at your extraordinary edit summaries, I had decided not to engage with you further. I made a statement above agreeing about the recurrent problem of sources, which are slowly being added bit by bit to this article, sometimes by me. I did initially misunderstand the one wrong line of error concerning the Lebanese, which Dbachmann fixed; I apologize that I confused with the Lebanese diaspora in Europe. ] (]) 16:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


== DailyMail as a source? ==
when I compiled the table, I went to the individual articles of the groups linked, all of which have insanely detailed "]", including insanely detailed population figures, all of them referenced. This is just a matter of copy-pasting the sources given there into this article, if that's what you're into. Take ]:
The genetic lineage of Europe rapidly transformed about 4,500 years ago, with changes in diet, body size and skin pigmentation, when Central Asian and West Asian migrants arrived with taller height and light skin genes, respectively. There is no precise or universally accepted definition of the terms "ethnic group" or "nationality"..
----
<small>
{{flagcountry|Germany}} {{nbsp|6}} 67 - 75 million <ref></ref><ref></ref> {{flagcountry|France}} <small>(mainly ] and ])</small> 1.5 million <ref></ref><ref></ref> {{flagcountry|Netherlands}} 320,000 <ref>, as of 2006</ref> {{flagcountry|Italy}} 290,000 <ref></ref><ref></ref> {{flagcountry|United Kingdom}} 266,136 <ref>German born only; </ref> {{flagcountry|Spain}} 208,349 <ref></ref> {{flagcountry|Switzerland}} 164,000 <ref>163 923 resident aliens (nationals or citizens) in 2004 (2.2% of total population), compared to 112,348 as of 2000. . 4.6 million including ] ]: , identifies the 65% (4.9 million) Swiss German speakers as "ethnic Germans".</ref> {{flagcountry|Poland}} 153,000 <ref>2002 census; mainly in ], see ].</ref> {{flagcountry|Austria}} 74,000 <ref>0.9% of the population (German nationals or citizens only) , ; see also ]; 7.9 million including Austrians, if Austrians are regarded as Germans: Austrians are ethnically also included under "Germans" by the </ref>{{flagcountry|Belgium}} 70,000 <ref></ref> {{flagcountry|Hungary}} 62,233-220,000 <ref></ref> {{flagcountry|Romania}} 60,000 <ref></ref> {{flagcountry|Czech Republic}} 40,000 <ref></ref> {{flagcountry|Denmark}} 15-20,000 <ref>in the German-Danish border region; see </ref> {{flagcountry|Ireland}} 11,797 <ref></ref> {{flagcountry|Slovakia}} 5-10,000 <ref></ref>
</small>
----
And so on. Now please put your money where your mouth is and start transferring these references into the table. Have fun.
The one single source that will get you furthest will probably be the ]. --] <small>]</small> 13:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
:I wonder what the validity of these data are. For example the figure given for Germans in the UK is actually for people born in Germany who live in the UK. That doesn't tell us how many people who identify as ethnically German live in the UK. I tend to agree with you dab, the data are insanely detailed, far too detailed, and I think misleading. They don't tell us about ethnicity, they tell us about demographics. People born in Germany who live in the UK do not all necessarily identify as ethnically German. I'm sceptical of these sorts of data. They may be referenced, but we need to be careful that our references are actually saying the same thing that an article claims. Personally I don't think these sorts of artificial constructs add any value to articles about ethnicity, they should be used in articles about demography. ] (]) 16:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
::you have a point, but your point boils down to ethnicity being a fuzzy concept that is impossible to measure precisely, which is granted from the outset. I am not entirely happy about how the population breakdown in these infoboxes is handled, but that is a question affecting hundreds of articles, and should be discussed at ]. ] <small>]</small> 16:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


What? The first part is absolutely false and has been debunked. So. Many. Times. It's a pseudoscientific myth. And the second sentence is a pointless statement and reeks of ideological subjectivism (especially in the light of the current political events in Europe). And who on Earth thought that DailyMail is a scientific source? :D What is this garbage?
== Image:Simplified Languages of Europe map.svg ==


Also:<br/>
This image should not be so prominent. A more appropriate one should replace it. <tt>]•]</tt> 15:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
"Modern ethnic Europeans are a recent and ongoing evolution"<br/>
:we should probably restore ] -- it is rather better, and if it is good for ] it should certainly be good enough here. --] <small>]</small> 19:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Since your first original statement is false, the "recent" part is false too. And all ethnicities are in ongoing evolution, so that also is quite pointless.


'''I am alarmed that the DailyMail source is still up there, especially after multiple removals.''' And now the edits are forbidden for the common folk, that makes it perfect. Shame, wikipedia! <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)</span></small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::To be quite honest, both those maps are bad beyond belief. The map ] doesn't look right for a single European country. Ireland, Sweden, France, the UK, Spain... They all look hillarious on this map, I honestly cannot imagine anyone with even a modicum of insight into European minority languages thinking that this map has got anything to do on Misplaced Pages. Sorry for the harsh tone, but the map is an embarrassment to Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 21:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


:That particular section had some citation needed tags on it, but since nothing was ''actually'' done about the issue (and a citation was not actually needed), I removed them. If you think the source is incorrect or poor, you're free to either fix it yourself or at the very least add the ] to it.
what you call "bad beyond belief" and "hillarious" is a somewhat conservative treatment of minority languages. The distibution of, say, Gaelic or Breton, is that of about a hundred years ago, not that of today. Which makes the map particularly useful for illustrating "ethnicity", because ethnic identity tends to linger on for a generation or two after linguistic identity was lost. --] <small>]</small> 08:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
:For what it's worth, yes, the sources for that part were very poor and dubious. However, the correct approach to this situation is not to complain about it on the talk page, or just tag it and move on; if you know the information is incorrect, '''remove it.'''
:(also, when going through the page's history, I did not notice anything that looked like multiple prior removals of that information)
:-- ]<sup>]</sup> 23:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


== Article structure/content improvements ==
The major problem with either of these maps — especially sans-caption — is that they seem to suggest that, for example, almost the entire popluation of Ireland is ethnically english. And while there is something to be said for norse migration historically having an affect on the populations ethnicity, this would be regarded as a pretty extreme fringe theory. Yet it partically gets presented as fact. Well a unreferenced wikipedia fact, which is about as disreputable as they come. <tt>]•]</tt> 14:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
At the time of writing the article contains (or contained) a massive amount of tables. I have removed the longer set of these tables, from the section, as the information in them should be—and already is—in the separate ] article.


I don't really like the look of the other table either, because it takes up a lot of vertical space and interrupts the prose on the page. Maybe it should be moved to the bottom of the page, or moved to a new page entirely (eg. "List of ethnic groups in Europe"). Either way, I've left it alone because its contents are relevant to the article.
:I respectfully disagree with ] but wishes to apologise for sounding disrespectful of the contributors to the map. Yes, I find it to be very bad but that's not a reason to use such phrases.
:The map, however, is not just conservative in its treatment of minorities. At times it's about 800 years wrong (Breton, Estonian) and sometimes it claims areas for languages that never have been spoken there (Catalan, German). Let me list just a few rather obvious errors
:*Spain. The Catalan area as indicated on the map has little to do with reality. The map claims that most of southern ] is Catalan-speaking, just as part of eastern ]. Those parts of Spain have never been Catalan-speaking and most certainly aren't now. In contrast, Catalan is still very strong all the way down to ], but the whole area between Elche and ] is marked as Spanish-speaking here.
:*France. The eastern half of ] has not been ]-speaking for the last 800 years, the traditional language there is ]. The map is about 200 years wrong when it comes to Dutch in France. As for Alsace-German, the map has little to do with any linguistic reality, it simply outlines the areas annexed to Germany in 1870. These areas are thoroughly French-speaking today and have been so for quite some time. ] is listed as Italian-speaking, and although Corse is close related to Italian, it's neither Italian nor the dominating language on Corsica. For ethnic purposes, I can assure you that people in Alsace don't identify as Germans in any way, nor do Corsicans feel Italians.
:*Italy. The map overlooks the ] completely. The French-speaking area of Italy isn't even a third of the area shown on the map, it's restricted to ]} and retreating even there. Just as in France, the German speech-area takes on almost absurd proportions. While ] definitely is German-speaking, ] is just as Italian-speaking despite being marked as German on the map. And the relatively large German area in Val d'Aosta is pure fantasy, despite a few settlements having existed there previously.
:*Switzerland. German is once again inflated. While only a small part of French-speaking Switerland is coloured as German-speaking, it's strange to see that ] occupies about a fourth of ]. The population of is 79 and the majority of them speak Italian these days.
:*Belgium. Once again German is extending far beyond ] into areas that never were German-speaking
:*Scotland. 90% of the areas marked as Gaelic-speaking were still Gaelic-speaking 100 years ago, but are more than 98% English-speaking today. In many of the parts marked as Gaelic-speaking here, there isn't a single Gaelic-speaker left. Gaelic isn't a majority language anywhere on the mainland, only in the ].
:*Ireland. The Irish dialects of Clare, Limerick, Sligo, Tipperary and Eastern Cork have been extinct for more than 50 years now. About 10% of the area coloured on the map here is Irish-speaking.
:*Poland and Lithuania. What language is the brown colour meant to represent? Turkish? That area includes Vilnius and last time I checked, people in the Lithuanian capital were speaking Lithuanian and not Turkish. If the creator of the map thought about the ], this is as out of proportion as Bosco Gurin in Switzerland.
:*Latvia. There haven't been any Estonian speaking areas of Latvia for the last 600 years.
:*Sweden. There are only four municipalities where Sami is official and it's not the majority language anywhere in Sweden, yet one third of the country is claimed as Sami-speaking here.
In short, the map is far from just conservative, it's wrong for almost all European countries. And for ethnic groups, it would be an even bigger disaster. I doubt anyone feels like telling the Scots and Irish that they are English unless they speak Gaelic, tell the Corsicans that they are Italians, tell people in Alsace, Lorraine, Trentino, Val d'Aosta, Ticino, Luxemburg and Luxembourg that they are Germans, tell people in Vilnius that they are Turks and so on. The map has been removed from all other Misplaced Pages articles and I see no reason why it should reappear here.] (]) 18:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


-- ]<sup>]</sup> 00:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
There are two issues here: first, a language map should be used to illustrate language, not ethnicity, unless the source says that in this case the two are isomoprhic. Yes, language is very often an important deictic of ethnicity. But just because it often is does not mean we can assume that it always is, or that because people in an area spoke a particular language 100 years ago the ethnic identity has remained the same. I think this could be true, all I am saying is we need a reliable source that says so or we are violating SYNTH. The second issue JdeJ raises is that even as a language map at a particular time, this mape is a ''un''reliable source. This is an RS issue. Now, I cannot judge which map is or is not a reliable source. But I am sure we all agree we need to comply with our RS policy. ] | ] 18:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


== who selected languages in the "Overview map of the distribution of the major languages of Europe" ==
::I agree with those who do not think that this is a good map for illustrating ethnicity. Even if it were correct it would only illustrate languages. Sources specifically on ethnicity would need to be the basis for a map of european ethnicity. ] 05:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Why do we have 'South Estonian' and 'Rusyn' - both being varieties / kindred languages of Estonian and Ukrainian - while we do not have Low German for Germany and Kashubian for Poland and Occitan for France and Pomor for Russia?<br/>
(France does not even have Breton language!) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)</small>


:Thats also my question. Were are this languages? ] (]) 11:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I still think that Image:Languages of Europe no legend.png is useful, precisely because it exaggerates minority languages. But I am not pushing its restoration. The removal of the simplified map is out of the question, however, until a better replacement is suggested.
I am very tired of strawman arguments along the lines of ''just because it often is does not mean we can assume that it always is'' when nobody has even remotely suggested what is being denied.
I have also come to look on certain recurring issues in this field in terms of ], as in, let me prove to you that ethnicity doesn't exist by sabotaging discussions of ethnicity by means of a tongue-in-cheek devil's advocate attitude. We have plenty of sources stating that ethnicity is composed of (a) language, (b) culture and (c) ancestry, which means that illustrations of any of a, b or c are fair enough. Of course, if you have a map illustrating all three in one go, I'll be ever so glad to endorse it. --] <small>]</small> 15:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
:Perhaps I'm missing something here, but I fail to see how a map would be ''more'' useful because it's wrong. Fair enough, though, nobody suggests its restoration. If ] feels that some user(s) are "sabotaging discussions", it would be more constructive if he would name them and show in what way they are sabotaging.] (]) 15:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,


I have just modified {{plural:3|one external link|3 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
::dab, I didn't think I was making a straw-man argument. If you are not denying that linguistic groups are not necessarily ethnic group, then we remove the map. This is an article on ethnic groups. Perhaps the map belongs in an article on languages. I am glad you agree that languages are not ethnic groups, this makes removing the map a no-brainer. ] | ] 19:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121202023700/http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_393_en.pdf to http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_393_en.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060524004644/http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf to http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150608162822/http://www.24chasa.bg/Article.asp?ArticleId=252055 to http://www.24chasa.bg/Article.asp?ArticleId=252055


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
:::I agree with the above. ] (]) 19:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
:::wow. then we'll have to remove the migration period map, the empires map, and the religions map on the same grounds, won't we, after all, they don't show ethnic groups either. Nobody ever claimed they did, but apparently this isn't relevant. We probably need to remove the image of the Saami family because it isn't a map of ethnic groups. A yurt isn't an ethnic group, hence the removal of an image of a yurt is a no-brainer, yes? I am afraid you tend to take the term "no-brainer" a tad too literally, Slrubenstein. --] <small>]</small> 09:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|needhelp=}}
JdeJ, it seems a little disingenous to claim "The map has been removed from all other Misplaced Pages articles" on 18:41, 9 December 2008 when the removal has actually taken place at 13:02, 9 December 2008. I realize this is a wiki. It is also unsurprising you defend Slrubenstein's ''constant'' shooting of strawmen (he has literally been doing this for years) in the light of ''I doubt anyone feels like telling the Scots and Irish that they are English unless they speak Gaelic''. Wth does this have to do with anything? Nobody ever tried to merge the Scottish or Irish with the English table row, so what you are doing is pure rhetorics, you are attacking a position nobody is defending in the first place. The amount of poor judgement informed by well-intentioned paranoia, the hallmark of Slrubenstein's involvement in this topic, is positively crippling to any sane discussion of the actual issues. --] <small>]</small> 10:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 17:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
I found two maps showing ethnic groups, ] and ]. We are experiencing the ]/] dilemma here. Respectable maps will be either unfree or more than 90 years old. Any free map ''based'' on respectable maps will be open to attacks on the ] front (which I do not doubt for a second will happen on this page). So we would seem to be stuck with a 1914 map, which moreover does not show most of Scandinavia or European Russia. --] <small>]</small> 10:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
:I think that it might be relevant to show several maps each showing the extensions of different correlates of ethnicity, e.g. language, religion, cultural practices etc. However this should be in a section discussing exactly this. I don't find it useful to include the historical maps - since they illustrate the outdated nationalist idea of ethnicity more than they provide useful information about modern european ethnic groups.] 11:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,


I have just modified 2 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
''it might be relevant to show several maps each showing the extensions of different correlates of ethnicity, e.g. language, religion, cultural practices etc.'' -- indeed. This is what I would have expected to be a "no-brainer".
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081002184956/http://www.mankindquarterly.org/samples/niskanenbalticcorrected.pdf to http://www.mankindquarterly.org/samples/niskanenbalticcorrected.pdf
'' I don't find it useful to include the historical maps- since they illustrate the outdated nationalist idea of ethnicity'' -- well do we want a map or do we not want one? Of course nationalism essentially builds on notions of ethnicity (nation), but to conclude that any discussion of ethnicity must automatically be nationalist is a simple fallacy (]). The 1914 map is perfectly innocent. You are only entering nationalist territory if you begin deriving irredentist claims based on it, but you cannot blame the map for the ideology that ethnic boundaries "]" correspond to state boundaries. If you object to the 1914 map because it is (gah!) German, we can still use the 1896 British one. The near-identity of the two maps, however, should be sufficient to establish that their content isn't controversial (Germany and Britain weren't exactly on the same page in the period 1896-1914). I chose the 1914 map simply because it works better as a thumbnail. --] <small>]</small> 12:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030421233303/http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2001_v69_p1314-1331.pdf to http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2001_v69_p1314-1331.pdf
::I think I understand why you dug up the map - basically to show that there '''are''' no good maps of ethnic groups available online free. I am exactly not saying that a discussion of ethnicity is automatically nationalist - but I am saying that in 1914 any discussion of ethnicity was nationalist because back then concept of ethnicity was understood in the same way as nation. Ethnicity isn't used like that anymore by most social scientists (except those few ones who ascribe to the essentialist/naturalist primordialist viewpoint). This is why a map from 1914 only gives an idea about what people thought european ethnic groups were in 1914 not what modern scholars who work with european ethnicity think they are. Basically it is only of historical interest. ] 12:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
dab has demonstrated to us that there are no good maps of ethnic groups available online for free. that is why we need to delete the map. I am glad dab agrees with me, no more strawmen, we just delete the map following dab's reasoning. ] | ] 16:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
I have demonstrated no such thing, and your reasoning is ludicrous. You show once again that your motivation is pure ]. What I have demonstrated is that there is ''consensus'' as to the distribution of ethnic groups in Europe prior to WWI, and that the maps look the same regardless of whether they were drawn by German, British or Hungarian cartographers.
is an excellent map drawn by US American cartographers in 1923 (and hence probably not PD). is a simplified 1899 version which agrees perfectly with out ethno-linguistic listing. is the 1880s ''ethno-linguistic map of Europe'' of ''Meyers Konversationslexikon''. is another one with the same content (source unidentified). If I have demonstrated anything, it is that it is perfectly straightfoward to show such a map. And what is more, these maps do nothing but illustrate what is already contained in the article anyway. --] <small>]</small> 19:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
:Hmmm. You agree that ethnicity and language are not the same, but want to include a map that identifies ethnicity and language. Okay. Of the new links you present, the first one is races, not ethnic groups. As for the map you put in, is "Portuguese" really an ethnic group? White Russian? Where are the Jews (there were millions in Europe before WWII)? Roma? Kashubayans? It seems more like a map that links languages with nations or nationalist (all I mean are, groups aspiring to self-determination or sovereignty, nothing negative) groups in Europe ...] | ] 20:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
::I won't answer to that simply because you aren't making any point other than "la, la, I cannot hear what you are saying". If you think "White Russians" were considered a race even in 1923, I would recommend you consult an English dictionary. --] <small>]</small> 20:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 11:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


== Move to ] ==
As for Maunus' claim that '' Ethnicity isn't used like that anymore by most social scientists'', it is simply that: a claim. I understand this to mean that you are saying that such maps aren't drawn any more. Normally, it would be up to you to substantiate this, but I will graciously present evidence to the contrary, simply because it is so easy. , , , , , (), ]. What is more, Misplaced Pages is using such maps all over the place, without the least sign of controversy, as in ]. This is the sort of map you see in newspapers all the time. It is perfectly unremarkable. Und you are trying to suggest that such maps are an obsolete asset of scientific racism or 19th century nationalism. Please give me a break and let us stop the games. --] <small>]</small> 20:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


== Requested move 18 January 2017 ==
::dab, you are not discussing, you are simply contradicting at this stage and trying to make a consensus of one. Of course ethnic maps are still made - but apparently there are no recent ones available for europe ''' however your maps are 100 years old!''' - Of course the definition of ethnicity has changed since that - those maps could be based on craniometrics for all we know - that was a perfectly respectable way to define ethnic groups when they were made. One thing that would definitely be different in a recent ethnic map would be that also sub-national ethnies such as roma, jews, silesians, frisians, kashubians would figure and not just those ethnies that are currently in charge of a territorial unit. You have previously demonstrated that you aren't exactly on top of modern social studies and that you don't care to be - but please don't make it look like we are the fringe nutters when you are the one who is adamantly holding on to early 20th century notions of monolithic territorial ethnicity over a range of ethnic related articles. ] 20:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:::I agree with Maunus that a map reflecting a view on ethnicity (/peoples/'races') which was current in early-20th-century scholarship may not be as authoritative nowadays, especially regarding the fluidness of the concept. This particular map seems to equal ethnic groups with linguistic groups. (Note that the Frisians are actually present.) ] (]) 21:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ]. No further edits should be made to this section. ''


The result of the move request was: '''not moved'''. Clear consensus against a move here. <small>(])</small> ] ] 03:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I am "not discussing"? My maps are "100 years old!" because of the ], ok? If they weren't, they wouldn't be free. It is you who keeps making preposterous claims, and it is me who keeps sticking to the actual references. Your claim that ''One thing that would definitely be different in a recent ethnic map would be that also sub-national ethnies such as roma, jews, silesians, frisians, kashubians would figure and not just those ethnies that are currently in charge of a territorial unit'' is silly, because such sub-ethnic groups are present even in some of the old maps I provided. The resolution is limited purely for reasons of space, because you cannot show a map of Europe and label every tiny subgroup. Your conclusion from this that my view of ethnicity is "monolithic" or somehow tied to territorial control is frankly insulting.
----


] → {{no redirect|Indigenous peoples of Europe}} – Harmonization. The article title is an odd outlier. It is the only one on ] which does not address these peoples as such. Therefore it needs to be brought in line with that of the others in the ]:
What I am trying to discuss here is the ] of Europe, ok? Here is a definition from a 2002 :
*]
:''ethnic geography is the study of the spatial aspects of ethnicity. It is based on the fact that ethnic groups are highly territorial in organization. ... The beginnings of the academic subdiscipline lie in the period during and just after World War I. ... German cultural geographers in the 1930s continued this interest in ethnic groups, but unfortunately much of their work served the purpose of Nazi propaganda ... it was not until the mid-1960s that ethnic geography began to grow and thrive as a subdiscipline''
*]
From this I conclude that
*]
*ethnic geography is a perfectly respectable academic sub-discipline of geography and ethnology
*]
*far from "not discussing", I am the only one here bothering to present actual references, as opposed to sarcastic comments about "craniometrics"
Note that all these overview articles are either directly or indirectly categorized under ], just as this one, so there is no reason for making an exception for ].
*your insinuations that I am "not on top of modern social studies" are irrelevant, since neither do you need to take my word for anything (nor I yours), nor am I trying to discuss "modern social studies" here.
--] <small>]</small> 21:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


Actually, when you look at it, the whole ] is inexplicably skewed in that it is topically narrowed down on a small subset of 'exotic' minorities, while leaving out the much larger peoples of the Poles, Swedes, Germans, Italians etc., whereas in the case of the other continents even the largest indigenous peoples are included. I am not aware of any credible, non-political anthropological research which denies the term indigenous to the ethnic peoples of Europe of all alone, creating an accepted scholarly set of double standards.
No dab, you are the one playing "nah nah I won't listen to anyone." You said that the map you added represents what people at the time considered ethnic groups. The map you added includes a space for White Russians. I asked if White Russians really were ever considered an ethnicity (I did not use the word "race" in relation to the map you added to the article; I used the word "race" in relation to one of the other maps you provided a link to ... because it is a map of races, not ethnic groups). Your replies to others will make sense when you start reading what you respond to. But I am sure this comment of mine will simply provoke another massive display of AGF that characterizes all your interactions with anyone who does not say "Oh Dieter, such a good boy, we will give you a barnstar." ] | ] 21:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


Finally, while it is true that a of this article refers to non-indigenous groups, these complements have not kept the other continental articles from being titled as they are (e.g. ). Kind regards ] (]) 17:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC) <small>--'''''Relisting.''''' '''<span style="font-family: Papyrus;">] <span style="color: #000;"><small>(] &#124; ])</small></span></span>''' 08:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)</small>
And dab, please, no more straw man arguments. We all agee that there are ethnic groups and they may be spatially distributed and I for one do not question that geographers study the spatial dimensions of ethnicity (in the United States and UK, there is no academic discipline "ethnology," you may be refering to what we call Social Anthropology or Cultural Anthropology and yes, they too are interested in the spatial distribution of ethnic groups). We are questioning the usefulness of the maps you are inserting. Maps of racial groups or of languages are not appropriate. And your excuse, that these are the only maps available through GFDL, is silly. If no ''good'' maps are available, that does not mean we should use ''bad'' maps. We use good maps if they are available. If they are unavailable ... we .. do .. not .. use ... maps. ] | ] 21:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
:Agreed. Article title should be brought into line with those of every other article dealing with Indigenous peoples of a continent. ] (]) 09:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
::Perhaps the problem arises from the meaning of ], which is based upon the UN definition as those groups that are currently ethnic minorities within nations that have majority populations from colonial/settler ethnic groups. This is the definition in international law. The everyday dictionary definition of "indigenous" as synonymous with "native born" (as opposed to immigrant) is not generally accepted or ditinct; since those that have been born in a county but continue to speak the language and observe the customs of their parents or ancestors are likely to identify themselves as having a "hyphenated" ethnicity; but another individual may abandon the hyphen in the first generation. The "indigenous peoples" of Europe would only be minorities such as the ]? The peoples of Europe that do not identify as either colonized or colonizers do not fit neatly into these distinctions. Distinctions based upon historical migrations and conquests, where there may not have been majorities tied to any geographic location, become even more problematical. For example, are Celts defined by language, heredity, history, or culture? Indigenous in one country but not in another? This rename would impose the term "indigenous" on people who do not identify themselves as such.--] (]) 16:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
:::It does make sense to unify titles that discuss analogous topics, but if there is a real difference in how the topic is discussed by experts, then it would be better to follow the actual terminology in use, even at the expense of uniformity. If the UN definition is in widespread use among anthropologists, historians, linguists, and other experts on ethnicity, then that should be reflected in the article title. It is better to have a title that stands out from similar titles than it is to have a title that is inaccurate. Consider how the sources treat the term "indigenous peoples" before deciding whether to make a change. In just a cursory examination, none of the works in the bibliography have "indigenous" in their title, whereas most of them have "ethnicity" or "ethnic groups". The article title should follow the prevailing terminology used by reliable sources, before any other consideration. After looking through the articles ] and ], it seems clear that there is a distinction between the case of Europe and the case of the places described in the other articles. "Indigenous" in this sense is used to distinguish one ethnic group from different ethnic groups that settled, invaded, or colonized an area later. By that meaning, there is no way one could consider the English or Russians an indigenous people, since there are no later settlers to contrast them with (though ], ] eg. are considered indigenous to differentiate them from the current ethnic majorities of the regions they inhabit). In that sense "Indigenous peoples of Europe" would be a different article than this one, including only those ethnic groups named in ], and not those that make up the majority of the population of Europe. This distinction seems pretty consistent throughout the site, so unless you find some sources describing all of the ethnic groups of Europe as "indigenous peoples", then nothing should change. ] (]) 21:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


::::But the same objections can be applied to all the other continents. Why is it that ought only be valid for Europe? There are also those in all the other continents who are historical immigrants, many Europeans, but also those from other continents. So shouldn't all the other articles be renamed then as well? It makes no sense to have different headings for the entire world except for Europe even though the situation all over the world is the same. The only possible difference there is, is that of political motive. So either rename the other articles to "ethnic groups of", or give the people of Europe the indigenous status they are due.] (]) 16:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
:Perhaps it would be a good idea for dab to take a break from this article, as both his behaviour and his arguments are less than constructive at the moment. He seems to take any objections to his ideas highly personal and to be either unable or unwilling to take in arguments from other editors. And I agree with slrubenstein, Maunus and Iblardi regarding the maps. ] (]) 22:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


::::If there are really objective reasons for treating Europe different from all other continents, these scholarly sources should be laid out here for discussion, but I find it hard to believe that such a ''Lex Europa'' should exist in anthropology. On what grounds? My sense is that the ] is very much at odds with the general notion of what constitute indigenous peoples and in any case ]. ] (]) 00:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
::I removed the map from 1914 as everybody except dab seems to be of that opinion. Perhaps dab would want to take the time to reach a consensus here instead of edit warring? ] (]) 22:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


:::::I'm not saying that the other articles should be treated as definitive. However, no sources supporting this move have been presented. An editor's reasoning, valid or not, is not enough justification to make a move when the existing information argues against it. The (which seems like a good place to start) contains this: "Indigenous peoples are inheritors and practitioners of unique cultures and ways of relating to people and the environment. They have retained social, cultural, economic and political characteristics that are distinct from those of the dominant societies in which they live." Furthermore, the UN Guidelines on Indigenous Peoples' Issues lists several definitions, all of which emphasize a distinct culture among a dominant society that came later. If that definition of "indigenous people" is the prevailing one, then this article is not about the "indigenous peoples of Europe", and naming it such would be misleading and inaccurate. If there is a definition more generally accepted or more appropriate here than the UN one, then there should be some sources explaining it. ] (]) 02:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
you know what -- I'll just cite my sources, and you'll cite your counter-sources.
You have failed to establish that the 1914 map is anything other than a straightforward presentation of the ethnic composition of Europe as of 1914, but I'll let that pass. I'll expand the "history" section and place it there.
In the meantime, I am building an overview of the ''current'' (2000s) ethnography of Europe, based on the Pan and Pfeil ''Handbook'' (which is - scandalously - full of maps). Thank you. --] <small>]</small> 15:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


*'''Oppose'''. While the ''description'' "indigenous peoples of Europe" is accurate, the term ] is typically used (as reflected in the UN definition) for marginalized or oppressed peoples whose distinct way of life (not only language) is more noble or worthy than that of the oppressors or marginalizers. That is not the case with the peoples in this article. Instead, the term most often refers to peoples like the Lapps or Nenets. Note the usage in ] where the term normally only refers to groups like the Pygmies or Bushmen. It is the ] that has problems and should be culled. — ] 20:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
== Ethnic Europe template map ==
*'''Oppose''' even a glance at the article shows it's about ethnic groups, not indigenous peoples. Hungarians are on the map in the lead, they're not indigenous, they're from Asia. For anyone who demands an initialism for justification, there's ]. ] (]) 01:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' as argued above. This article is not primarily about "indigenous peoples of Europe" as the term is defined. The title "ethnic groups in Europe" accurately describes the contents of this article. It contains useful information that is broader in scope than "indigenous peoples of Europe", and shouldn't be cut, changed, or renamed to fit a topic that would be better served by its own article. ] (]) 05:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think this map is appropriate either, as it uses population density as a background (which has zero relevance on ethnicity), with the colour patches unexplained, and unrelated to the distribution of ehtnic groups. I would suggest it be removed, as this is '''not''' a good illustration of European ethnic groups.--] (]) 20:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per above, though we could have an article on actually indigenous peoples of Europe. It would need a whole section on different ways to define that. Many would include the Hungarians at this point, while others would not even include the Indo-European groups and only include the Basques, Lappland Finns (Saami) and other groups (mostly extinct/absorbed, like the Picts) that pre-date the Indo-Europeans. A problem here is that "indigenous" in the socio-political sense most of us are familiar with means "present in an area before European colonists arrived", so that most common definition is automatically inapplicable to Europe itself. While anthropologists and such may have alternative definitions, they are not the ones users will be familiar with. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 05:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' - clearly not about indigenous peoples. ] (]) 17:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
:I agree, the map is not representative of European ethnicities. In addition to the concerns addressed by Ramdrake, the map suffers from a high degree of original research when it comes to ethnicities. To take only two examples, the map has defined Valencians, Catalans, Andalusians, Basques, Galicians and others as separate ethnicities from Spanish, but does not acknowledge any Breton, Occitan, Alsacian or Corsican ethnicity in France where all people are simple labelled as French. Similar concerns could be made for every other country. There is no consistency in the map, it doesn't represent European ethnicities and it doesn't seem to build on any sources. I support Ramdrake's suggestion that it be removed. ] (]) 21:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
----
::I once again removed the 1914 map that all editors except dab have wanted removed. Among the more bizarre claims made in that map is that all people in Ireland who speak English are English, not Irish. The map display language borders in 1914, not ethnical borders. Regardless of what dab thinks about the maps, his habit of repeatedly ignoring the opinions of everybody else and keep reverting to what he thinks is correct is in sharp violation of ]. ] (]) 21:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a ]. No further edits should be made to this section.''</div><!-- Template:RM bottom -->
:::Please do not misquote what actually happened. It was I who added the image back. Dab then just moved it since I put it in an already compact area. The 1914 map is useful as it shows ''historical'' groupings; I would hope an encyclopedia would include information on the past as well as the present. ] (]) 22:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
::::Ok, then it was you who moved the map back. It doesn't alter the fact that the map doesn't represent European ethnic group. It would also be interesting to know why you re-added the other map, despite all the shortcomings mentioned here? And why did you removed the fact tags without providing any sources? ] (]) 22:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
::::Ah yes, now I remember why the name Mingeyqla seemed so familiar, it's one of the many accounts that were suspected of being possible sockpuppets of indefinitely blocked ]. I came across it in August on the ] page where a couple of disruptive socks where repeatedly making the same bogus-claims that Mingeyqla adopted after they were blocked. Their strategy was to disrupt pages with long arguments on talk pages for fringe views. I recommend we keep it in mind if the same behaviour should move here. I would like to stress that it might just be a coincident and Mingeyqla may be a perfectly honest user with the very best intentions and just the bad luck to start at a time and with a subject that seemed suspicious under the circumstances. Needless to say, Mingeyqla is just as welcome as anyone else to argue her/his case here. ] (]) 23:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::I did not intend to remove any fact tags. I simply meant to put in the image. I do not understand the issue with it being there - there is a whole section on the linguistic classification of people, so surely a historical linguistic map would be appropriate in there.
:::::In response to your second comment, I will make no attempt to disguise the fact that I did in fact up until recently have online contact with two of the three people behind the Malta-related sockpuppets. You'll see from my edits however, that I have not edited in the same way as them, as the things I have contributed to the ] article have not inflated the idea that Maltese is a ]. The closest I have come to that is defining the ] effect of ]s on it. If of course, my actions alone aren't enough to prove my lack of connection to them, ]. ] (]) 16:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

the map illustrates the data in the table. It isn't any more or less OR than the table itself. It is perfectly on topic, since it visualizes the size and geographic distribution of the ethnic groups in Europe, which is what this article is all about. Ontological discussions on the term "ethnicity" are not on topic here, they belong on the ] article. It is difficult enough to compile reliable information about a topic as complex as this one, even without the constant ]ion that this article has seen in the past. We should assume that the reader coming to this article wants an overview of the ethnic composition of Europe. Ethnic groups are populations, i.e. they live some''where''. The population density information is thus highly relevant, since, for example, it makes clear that the Sami inhabit a vast territory, but one that is scracely populated, which makes them a tiny group in terms of numbers. What JdeJ calls a "consensus" boils down to him and Slrubenstein trying to prevent all discussion of ethnicity because they ] the term for reasons best known to themselves, allegedly because "modern social science" has voiced some caveats. The "OR" claims regarding the identification of ethnicities have been met, I have been to the library and taken out a 2002 monograph on "Ethnic groups in Europe". This is a recent and academic source, and I will not stand the constant implication that I am pushing outdated notions unless an ''academic'' review of my source is presented which discredits its use. --] <small>]</small> 20:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
:It's amazing how much whining dab can put out without ever addressing the concerns raised, I'm no longer able to take his melodramas seriously. And it's not just me and Slrubinstein, it's also Maunus, Iblardi and Ramdrake. And nobody is trying to "prevent all discussion on ethnicity". On the contrary, I've addressed multiple problems and dab has never been able to answer a single one, all he ever does is posting long dramas containing "]", "strawman argument" and "trying to prevent discussion" all over the place. His behaviour, and constant violations of ], start to look increasingly disruptive.] (]) 21:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

ok. when will you cite your first source on this topic? I do not call this "discussion", I call this violation of "Misplaced Pages is ] a discussion forum". . So I am "whining"? So ou have raised "concerns"? If you want to be involved in this article, cite your sources. No sources, no "concerns" raised. I am not interested in your personal criticism of the sources I use, I want to see citations of academic criticism. Once I reject your academic references you can begin talking of "WP:OWN", but not before --] <small>]</small> 09:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

==Map on "Ethnic Europe", in or out==
Dab is repeatedly inserting a home-made map of his into the article, and to avoid an edit war I suggest editors post their opinion on the map. Personally I think that the map should be deleted, as it violates ] and is not representative of European ethnicities. To take only two examples, the map has defined Valencians, Catalans, Andalusians, Basques, Galicians and others as separate ethnicities from Spanish, but does not acknowledge any Breton, Occitan, Alsacian or Corsican ethnicity in France where all people are simple labelled as French. Similar concerns could be made for every other country. The main problem is that there is no consistency in the map, it doesn't represent European ethnicities and it doesn't seem to build on any sources.] (]) 21:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
:Ethnicity is often said to involve language, culture, religion, and ancestry. I doubt that these four variables are ever isomorphic. Part of me feels it would be ''very'' interesting to have four maps (races of Europe, Religions of Europe, Languages of Europe, Cultures of Europe - not sure how that would even be compiled - and juxtapose them ''precisely'' to show how the different axes so often do not line up perfectly. The point is not to illustrate ethnic groups but rather the unevenness of criteria for identifying ethnic groups. To do this would require good maps and I do not think they exist. Given what is available, I agree with JdeJ. ] | ] 21:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
::Agreed too, for the reasons elaborated on above. The current map that dab made up, with all due respect to the work he put in making it, has too many problems to be of encyclopaedic value.--] (]) 22:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Am I the only one using any ] here? I am committed to citing my sources. I have essentially built about 80% of this article. JdeJ felt compelled to come to my talkpage and accuse me of ] and ], stating that my contributions are "not helpful". What are your contributions here, JdeJ? Have you had any hand in helping build this article?
Slrubenstein's private musings ("I doubt that these four variables are ever isomorphic. Part of me feels it would be ''very'' interesting to have four map" "I do not think they exist" etc.) is supremely irrelevant per ], ]. I have been challenged, I have gone to the library, and I have produced academic references. Now let my "critics" do their homework and start ''']''' on the article topic, or else stop their ]. --] <small>]</small> 09:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
:No dab, you're the only one using vandalism to make a ]. Removing most of the page because others don't agree with you is extremely immature. That parts of it were your own contributions is irrelevant, you don't ] them. Seriously, you need to grop up, you seem to be completely incapable of dealing with situations where others disagree with you. ] (]) 10:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I do own my contributions, see ]. It is true that you are free to publish my contributions under the terms of the GFDL, which you have just opted to do. I find this strange, since ''you'' have been trying to shoot down my contributions, ''you'' have described them as "vandalism" and "home made original research", and now ''you'' have just published them. Especially, you have just restored ], the map you have gone out of your way to have removed all along. This is a joke. I require ] at this point, since it has become perfectly obvious that you are not interested in bona fide collaboration as required under WP policy.
I am perfectly able to deal with disagreement. What I have told you about a dozen times now is that I am not ''interested'' in dealing with your disagreement as long as it isn't more than a personal sentiment not backed up by any ] as required by Misplaced Pages policy. --] <small>]</small> 10:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

:Reverting to a very old version of an article just because you've done many edits is ''not'' ]. And your last action, to remove maps that have not been discussed or disputed and which are not created by you, at least not all, is just silly vandalism. Whether your interested in dealing with disagreement or not is entirely up to you, but it doesn't give you the right to start vandalising the page by extensive content removals. We've mentioned several problems with your maps and if you're not "interested" in discussing that, well, there's not much more we can do. Your attiude of "I'm not interesting in discussing with any of you, I do as I please and ignore you all" is not very helpful. ] (]) 10:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

my patience has limits. All you have been doing is disrupting my bona fide work on this article. All your contributions are of an "in or out? -- out." kind, none of them are constructive. Misplaced Pages has means of dealing with this kind of problem, but it's tedious. I am done here for the moment, but I assure you that this article will be built, in an encyclopedic and well-referenced manner, no matter what you do. --] <small>]</small> 11:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

:I'm sorry but I do find myself agreeing with Dab. Nothing he says seems to be being taken into account. A historical linguistic map of europe is perfectly relevant in a section that deals with linguistic divisions in europe.
:May I remind the pair of you however, to ].
:I agree that a ] or mediation may be necessary.
:Dab, removing content to make a ] doesn't help. The issue is with ''adding'' maps - not reverting the article even further back.
:JdeJ, if you wish to dispute the ] of the sources provided, you must present your case informatively of ''why'' they should be disguarded, or even better, provide references of your own to counteract them. Until you do, what you are stating is ]. ] (]) 13:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
::You seem to be reading too much into ]. Anyone can certainly make comments without violating OR, just as you are doing yourself. I don't know how familiar you are with academic writing, but the principle is to source every claim that cannot be thought to be general knowledge. When discussing ethnicities of Europe, such things as the existence of Bretons, Corsicans and Basques can safely be assumed to be general knowledge. If we want to make more detailed claims, we definitely need sources. Nothing I've been stating in this discussion is OR, at least not to the best of my perceptions but you're welcome to point out any comment that you'd want sourced. The existence of minorities in France, for instance, is well-known enough for it to go without a source. ] (]) 14:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

]: talkpages are for constructive discussion on how to improve articles. Talkpage comments do not fall under ], but the insistence on making claims without willingness to substantiate them is not constructive. Article content, of course, does fall under ], but "NOR" is clearly intended to include informed summary of sources cited, and judgements on ]. Otherwise, it would be impossible to write a single original sentence on all of Misplaced Pages, and all our articles would need to consist entirely of verbatim quotes. A tongue-in-cheek attitude of making editors working on summarizing cited sources jump through hoops needlessly or out of spite falls under ] or ] and is not constructive, especially if these hoops are thrown up idly and without any reference to respectable sources. --] <small>]</small> 15:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

We are going in circles. Now may be a good time for an RfC. ] | ] 17:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
:another great step forward would be your first proffering of any ] on the topic. I am still willing to look at any source presented. I am not willing to prance around as the only party honouring ]. --] <small>]</small> 18:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
::No, you are the only one prancing around saying "look at me, I am the center of attention." RFC is a way to resolve conflicts. You insist you own the article and that any view of yours is consensus no matter how many people disagree. If you reject an RfC how about mediation? ] | ] 19:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
:::Order, order, please. The problem here has always been with adding citations, which has been done little by little, because it's such a huge topic. I have helped a bit myself. I don't think there's any need for an RfC at this stage. JdeJ has made some valid criticisms and corrections to this page in the past, even if his edit summaries were slightly OTT . The page is a vast improvement on the previous "European people", but unfortunately will never be perfect. ] (]) 23:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::Hear hear. And can we please drop accusations of vandalism. WP defines vandalism as"any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages; vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, or the insertion of nonsense into articles." That is not what is going on here and such comments breach ] and ]. ] (]) 08:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism."

::::::I agree with Dougweller in principle, accusations of vandalism should not be thrown around. I'd like to point out, however, that I don't hesitate one second in calling this edit, deleting all contributions made over several months, vandalism.] (]) 10:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Surely, in view of the edit summary, it was clear that dab's capricious but harmless temporary edit was to remind people of the state of the highly problematic article "European people" before dab put in all his hard work. His version was not the "worst article on wikipedia" by any stretch of the imagination, and expressions like that are best avoided. (However, that description definitely applied to the previous version, thanks to the contributions of Jimbo-banned ] and his ilk.) Somebody should write a Ph.D. thesis about the chemistry of this page: even an anodyne and neutral article like this one, perhaps because of its murky origins, is constantly creating storms in teacups after periods of remaining peacefully dormant. We had banned editor Kurban Kossack editing a while back in a slow edit war; and I had to separate North and South Caucasian in the table - a technology I had to struggle to master - to avoid another conflagration. ] (]) 11:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I consider JdeJ's involvement here highly disruptive and unconstructive. I have avoided calling it "vandalistic", but after he came to my talkpage calling me a vandal for investing time and effort in illustrating a complex topic, I do feel rather inclined to regret that. --] <small>]</small> 09:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, re ''look at me, I am the center of attention'', this is nonsense. I would be ever so glad if you would just let me build this article in peace. It is a lot of work even without all this debility. I do invite you to ignore me and simply go away. You have wasted hours of my time without bothering to cite a single reference, and then you deign to insult me for suggesting that you shouldn't do that. If you have anything to say, cite your sources like everyone else, ok? And if you don't, please keep your animosity to yourself, this isn't usenet. --] <small>]</small> 09:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

==POV fork==

It appears to me that this article, as it has been developed by Dbachmann, is in fact a POV fork from ]. Dbachmann seems to actually admit that his intent is a POV fork is his intention here. It is true that some problematic issues effects that article, but at least there is no doubt that Eurabia is ] as an element in popular thinking (as can be seen my the multitude of YouTube videos on the subject -- at least one with over 55,000 views ). ] (]) 15:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

:Not sure where you see any ties of this article with Arab countries. I'm assuming this is either an error or a joke.--] (]) 16:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

::I don't think so, Malcolm. dab has to speak for himself, but I think you are unfairly leaping to a false conclusion. This article emerged out of aricles on the white race and white people in the context of discussions about race in articles in Misplaced Pages. If your point is that there are Arabs in Europe and they should be included as a European ethnic group, well, i would agree with that. Jews and other stateless ethnicities are given inedequate attention here. ] | ] 16:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::(edit conflict)The article, as I understand it, is about European ethnic groups, and deals with the demographic effects of newly arrived immigrant ethnic groups within Europe . There are a group of articles that Dbachmann is working on together, to develop the changing demographic situation in Europe, and this seem as good a place to note that as any. There is also, for instance, ] that he is working on. ] (]) 16:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::I think Malcolm is jumping to conclusions that just aren't there. I've read both topics and cannot really find the POV fork that Malcolm claims, nor can I see that dab's edit comment "admits" any such thing. Like Ramdrake, I wonder if this indeed the article you meant to comment on?] (]) 17:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::::Sorry if I am mistaken. Would it be better to delete this section? ] (]) 17:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::::If we didn't already have an article about European Ethnic groups we'd have to create one. There's no POV fork here - regardless of whether it was created as the result of a POV dispute.] 17:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm Schosha is obsessed with the "]" topos, and he is now following me around because I have questioned the notability of his article. Cheap tit-for-tat tactics, best to ]. I have been working on this article for half a year, while I first noted the existence of the ] article last week. THe "pov fork" allegation doesn't make any sense no matter how you turn it. --] <small>]</small> 09:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

:Dbachmann, has included, as usual, plenty of ]s when replying to me. I do not appreciate his doing that. Statements like "Cheap tit-for-tat tactics", and "Malcolm Schosha is obsessed..." are not good indicators of ]. It should be noted that my statement about POV fork did not contain anything negative about Dbachmann himself, and all I said is what I think is correct. I assume his editing intentions are good even if I frequently disagree with his views. If it should be that I am mistaken about the POV fork, I am sorry. I am, most certainly, ''not'', as he claims, following him around. I would appreciate it if he would remove the problematic statements about me. ] (]) 13:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
::Sure, dab's arguments aren't always the most well-crafted but the fact remains that there's no case here. This isn't a POV-fork in any sense I can detect and I cannot see how dab's comment that you linked to would indicate anything of the kind. ] (]) 15:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
:::I think I'll save the energy to "craft" arguments for the day anyone begins to build a case around here. I don't need to "craft" any arguments as long people keep confusing this page with a chat forum for exchanging our various notions, opinions and ideas loosely related to "ethnicity". Please do this elsewhere. Malcolm is perfectly free to follow me around, as long as he is willing to refrain from posting until he has anything remotely sensible to say. Which is evidently not the case here, for which reason I suggest we just close this section. --] <small>]</small> 16:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

As usual, Dbachmann did not reply to my request for civility, instead he threw out some more accusations such as "Malcolm is perfectly free to follow me around..." which is nothing but an accusation of ]. I would like him to demonstrate that accusation, or withdraw it. ] (]) 20:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

"follow me around" as in going through my contribution history. That's ok, I looked at yours too. Also, that's not "stalking", and I did say I was ok with it, just as long as you try to avoid creating unnecessary drama. --] <small>]</small> 10:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

== {{tl|off topic}} Tag placed on the section ==

] was questioning on my talk page the placement of the off-tpoic template on the section pertaining to the history of European ethnology. The reasoning is clear: this article is about ], not ]. The section would be perfectly at home in the latter; for the former a proper history section would give an overview of the development of the major ethnic groups of Europe (i.e., the], the ] etc.) A large section on the development of European ethnology, IMHO, does not really fit under the heading of ], and the fact that we don't have a separate article on ] (it just consists of a redirect to this article) isn't a good reason to put a section that should belong in that article in the article on ]. I believe the reasoning is simple enough.--] (]) 19:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

; History of European ethnography
Ramdrake posed the question whether this section belongs in the article. Personally, and it's of course just my opinion, I think it's relevant and contributes to understanding the topic. The notion of ethnicity has been given different interpretations at different times (both religion and language have at times been much more important in the interpretation of ethnicity than today) and I think this section can be used to elaborate that topic.] (]) 19:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

:"this article is about European ethnic groups, not European ethnology." wrong. Unless you make a {{tl|split}} suggestion, it is about both, to equal parts, as is made clear in the lead. Obviously, any one article can only reside at a single title. You are also welcome to make move suggestions. --] <small>]</small> 21:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

::Here's what I suggest: let's let other editors weigh in on the subject, and if there's consensus that the section is indeed relevant, I'll go and remove the tag. I was asking the question in good faith, based on my perception of the subject. If a number of other editors feel that my perception is not that of the majority, I'll be glad to comply to the majority view.--] (]) 23:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

:::I am not sure this is the place for a history of European ethnology. The real issue is, we need to historicize the account of European ethnic groups. Has anthropologists' definition or approach to studying European ethnic groups changed? if so, the article should make that clear - but I don't think that would be well-served by a separate section on the history of ethnology. Instead I would sugest having sections on specific, historically located debates that transformed the study of European ethnic groups, as a way of taking this into account. By the way, if this articl really is meant to be based on European ethnology it is a litle embarassing that it does not even mention Wolf and Cole's ''The Hidden Frontier'', one of if not the greatest classic single study of European ethnicity. It also leaves out other very famous works on European ethnology - Pitt Rivers and Behar's respective books on Spain, Frankenberg's book on Wales, Thomas and Zanienecki's classic ''The Polish Peasant'', Sharon MacDonald's edited volume, Sue Wright's book, Pi Sunyar, Hans-Rudolf Wicker ... all the important work by katherine Verdery, Christina Bratt Paulston and Donald Peckham's edited book on language and ethnicity ...David Rock and Stefan Wolff's book on Germans, Anastasia Karakasidou's book on Greek Macedonians ... I have no problem with claiming that this article is about European ethnology, but it seems strange to make the claim when it doesn't draw on current well-known sources. I am no expert on Europe and yet I know of these, that is how well-known they are among ethnologists. Let's build up the article based on actual research, and ''then'' we can decide how much of the history of "ethnology" itself needs to be explained. ] | ] 00:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
::::Slr, please go ahead and add these references to the article. Criticizing dab for not including them himself does not seem very constructive; everybody's expertise is valuable, in this case your own. Please go ahead and edit the article. ] (]) 06:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::indeed, "it is a litle embarassing" that we waste time here on talk exchanging petty hostilities instead of actually working on the article. Nobody said the article was finished. I certainly don't have a problem with mentioning case studies like ''The Hidden Frontier'', but I have the uneasy feeling that if it had been I coming up with these, I would be shot down immediately under charges of ]. ''The Hidden Frontier'' is a study of ''two villages'' in Europe, not on "ethnic groups of Europe" as a whole. But we should certainly mention it in the "history" section as an influential 1970s case study.
:::::To Ramdrake, I appreciate that there ''could'' be two articles, one an inventory of European ethnic groups, the other on the discipline of European ethnology. It may ultimately be wise to split these, but I do not think the article has come far enough to disect it into sub-articles, there needs to be a stable consensus on article structure for that, and an "off topic" template is also hardly the way to go about this. --] <small>]</small> 10:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
MathSci, I did not criticize anyone. I certainly did not criticize dab. I am sorry dab feels under siege. I donot know what he means when he writs about "eschanging petty hostilities" since I did not direct any hostility at him or anyone else in my prior post. I do admit to criticizing the article, but since no one owns the article no one will take this personally - and I think identifying problems with articles and making constructive suggestions is almost as important as researching and writing content. Not as important, perhaps - certainly far easier ... but still worth doing. As to dab's concerns about concerns: Books like ''The Hidden Frontier'' make two or three sorts of claims: claims about ethnicity in general, possibly claims about Europe or specific countries, and claims about specific ethnic groups. I cannot see any problem adding this information as long as we are always clear about the specific source. But yes, if anyone drew together information from two or more different books (at least, if authored by different people) I would probably question about SYNTH. Mathsci, I am sorry but I am not the one to add this information - I know enough to know that these books are very well-regarded. I would hope that of the many thousands of Wikipedians, some have read these books and could help out. Or others out there would be interested in reading them now to contribute to the article. Unfortunately my current work doesn't allow me to give Misplaced Pages that amount of time. I am not asking any one particular person here to do that work either. But Misplaced Pages boasts of its tremendous number of volunteers working on articles ... I wish more people who wish to help involved themselves, and to anyone who has the time I am glad to share what knowledge I do have, and mention these highly-respected and relatively current works of European ethnology. ] | ] 00:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
:Slr, you've been wearing those rose-tinted spectacles again :) ] (]) 17:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I did feel "under siege", and I continue to feel a lot of time has been wasted on this talkpage with pointless discussions about non-issues or offtopic issues. But luckily, at the end of the day, this is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the article was (with justification) criticized as poorly referenced. It is now properly referenced. I thus understand that the only remaining point of contention is the "identity and culture" section, to which we should now turn our attention. --] <small>]</small> 10:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

== Lebanese people? ==

Lebanese people are mentioned as both non-Europeans in Europe and Europeans in non-Europe. What is that supposed to mean? I'm going to take the initiative and remove them as Europeans outside Europe, I think they are basically ethno-linguistic Arabs like any others.--] (]) 20:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

well spotted. I think this keeps being added due to some weird kind of genetics-based ethnic nationalism. I am not sure, but I think ] sheds some light on this. --] <small>]</small> 10:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

== Tatars ==

The material in the article is not "incorrect" because it does not purport to represent the Russian POV. This article is on ethnic groups ''in Europe'', not in Russia. The Russian government has authority within its territorial boundaries, but not outside its territorial boundaries. What is relevant here is what social scientists say, and how members of ethnic groups self-identify. ] | ] 16:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
:is there any evidence that official Russia does ''not'' respect self-designation? Afaik, Russia is very careful to give a full listing of each and every grouplet within their borders. --] <small>]</small> 13:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

== Turks are not ethnic europeans ==

This article is about the '''ethnic''' Europeans not the Europeans.--] (]) 03:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

And what's the criteria for being ethnic European?--] (]) 12:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
:being "native" to somewhere (some ''place'') in "Europe". "Native" doesn't mean presence since the stone age, but continued presence for "many" generations, viz. "centuries".
:most Turks live in Asia Minor, it is true, but those Turks included as native Europeans are the inhabitants of ], which is indubitably in Europe, and which has indubitably been inhabited by Turks for several centuries.
:this is the argument ''behind'' the sources we give. The easy answer, of course, is: "because we have ] that include the Turks". --] <small>]</small> 13:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
::I don't quite understand why ] has replaced a careful sourced statement about Turkic groups with his own unsourced statement. The CIA fact book was previously used as a source. If ] wants to change sourced statements, he should provide an alternative source. ] (]) 06:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

==Armenians==
I had included Armenians in the original list because I was aware of the constant pushing of "Armenia is European" at ], not because I had any source. Pan and Pfeil do not include Armenians in their "peoples of Europe". Armenia is clearly not in Europe geographically, and the "historical cultural ties" proffered for inclusion are bogus twice over, one, there are no such ties other than the annexation of Armenia into the Russian Empire in the 19th century, and two, because "cultural ties" don't make you "European", or all of America and Australia would need to be included here. I suggest that we drop the Armenians unless a clear, ''notable'' (]) argument can be referenced that says "Armenians are Europeans". --] <small>]</small> 17:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


== Odd Group Out ==
:According to europa.eu, which deems itself "the official portal of the European union", Armenia is included in the list of "other European countries" so its conditional inclusion in the article may be legitimate indeed.--] (]) 17:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Loving the racism above. Everyone can be indigenous to a place, except Europeans, who just exist because white skin and oppression or something. Never mind that Europeans have been taken as slaves by non-European people in even recent human history. But, if disgusting racism makes you feel better about yourselves, have at it.] (]) 18:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


:That is just ]. ] (]) 15:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
After all the pedantry I had to put up with above regarding ], I think the least I can expect is a reference to the ] (not the Armenian Republic) descibed as an "European people" or an "European ethnic group". --] <small>]</small> 17:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


:If the EU acknowledges the country as an "other European country", it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that its ethnic people are also recognized as a European people. The reverse doesn't make much sense.--] (]) 18:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC) ::Sorry I am late, but the article you linked to refers specifically to the United States. From a broader perspective, the claim that: "Europeans have been taken as slaves by non-European people in even recent human history." is entirely correct. See: ] ] (]) 19:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
The website you link mentions Armenia as European because of the Armenian Republic's advances towards EU membership (see ]). This has nothing whatsoever to do with an ethnic classification of the Armenian people and is purely a current-day political issue.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
If you can show that the EU itself (as in, in a quotable document as opposed to a random website maintained by god knows who) acknowledges Armenia as a European country, you are welcome to mention it at ].
"The reverse" would be stating positively that the Armenians are Asians. Simply avoiding mentioning the Armenians isn't "the reverse", it is what we necessarily do in the absence of sources either way.
That said, it was I who included the Armenians in the first place, and I am not pushing their removal. But I do agree that since their being listed is now contested, we need to present a good source if they are to remain. --] <small>]</small> 18:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


I have just modified 2 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
There is no geographical definition of Europe which includes Armenia. Is there any particular reason to keep re-adding them here? This article is clearly based on a geographical concept of Europe.--] (]) 18:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://censimentopopolazione.istat.it/_res/doc/pdf/primi-risultati-censimento_opuscolo.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081218230512/http://vetinari.sitesled.com/euroaims.pdf to http://vetinari.sitesled.com/euroaims.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926140009/http://stedwards.edu/business/pdf/PerspectivesV0201_09.pdf to http://stedwards.edu/business/pdf/PerspectivesV0201_09.pdf


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
:May I suggest we wait until other editors have chimed in until we decide whether or not to exclude the data? I see 3 editors in a more or less 3-way split on this so far, hardly a consensus.--] (]) 20:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
The general tone on this talkpage has forced us to keep a very tight, no-nonsense regime of "] or out". I accept that when challenged, my information needs to be closely referenced, or it needs to go. At the same time, I can expect every other editor to accept the same. The debates with Slrubenstein all over this page have made painfully clear that there is ''nothing'' we can amically agree on here. In this spirit, I suggest we wait until other users have ] before we decide to ''keep'' mention of the Armenians. In the absence of sources, consensus is irrelevant. Consensus exclusively concerns the proper and adequate presentation of sources, which obviously presupposes the existence of sources. --] <small>]</small> 08:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 05:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
:I have to say I sympathize with dab here. The point is to avoid any knee-jerk assumptions. I can ''guess'' why some might consider Armenians Europeans - for a long time one important marker of the difference between European and non-European was Christian vs. non-Christian. Some people I think still hold this view, but as dab points out, correctly in my view, the growth of the EU may be leading to new definitions. But maybe my guess is wrong! The only way we will know is through research. I am making two points: first, I agree with dab that we have to be careful to see what kinds of scholarly research exists on claims about the identification and classification of national and ethnic groups. Second, I think these kinds of debates will be easier to resolve, these questions easier to research, if we assume that ethnic identities, including the very definition of "European," may change over time; what was considered European in 1500 may not be considered European in 2000 and vice versa, not because a group of people moved or changed their language, but because definitions of Europe have changed. Maybe. We just need to research this. (if i am right, this will require us to move the article away from straightforward lists to creating sections for specific epochs ... I am talking about an organizational principle, dab and many others have already added information that could easily fit into a new organization. We do have a section on history, but it is not really about the changing of concepts and definitions.) ] | ] 15:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


== Breton language is missing from the map ==
Indeed. Europe is closely associated with "]", but certainly not with Christianity as a whole. Armenian Christianity along with Syrian, Egyptian and Ethiopic Christianity are archaisms, remnants of Asian Christianity, which actually goes to ''separate'' Armenian culture from Europe, grouping it with Syria, Egypt and Ethiopia. --] <small>]</small> 11:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
If Basque is there, so should be the Breton language.


Here are examples:
== Dutch ==
*http://www.eurfedling.org/maps/Languages_Europe.jpg
*https://i2.wp.com/thedockyards.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Languages_of_Europe_map-e1428050358509.png
<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)</small>


== White people are indigenous to Europe. ==
17 million Dutch in Europe is very low. If you count all ethnic Dutch in Europe you will get a number around 25 million. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Why is this one the outlier, Misplaced Pages? Are you trying to say that white ethnic groups aren't indigenous to any part of the planet? Did they just coalesce magically from the ether? Forget about your little "UN definition" loophole, you know damn well that "indigenous" means "came from here originally". Brits are indigenous to Europe. Irish are indigenous to Europe. Germans are indigenous to Europe. Italians are indigenous to Europe. Spaniards are indigenous to Europe. Poles are indigenous to Europe. WHITE PEOPLE ARE INDIGENOUS TO EUROPE. Your rewritings of history will never change actual facts. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 06:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:Our ancestors were blacks, the 10,000 BC came from Africa. Even a racist IP can not change that. ] (]) 11:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
then present your references at ]. --] <small>]</small> 08:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


::They were not blacks like the Sub-Saharans that are referred to as that. Europeans, or "white people" and Sub-Saharans, or 'black people', have common ancestry from thousands of years ago, they have gone down different evolutionary paths, one did not give birth to another, a population from a much earlier time gave birth to both of them, and very gradually as-well (considering inter-mixture with archaic humans, multiple migration waves and the time it takes for selection pressures to make extreme effects). If we ignore that, and go by the logic you have applied, we could go even further back, to when Homo Sapiens arose out of East Africa, are not then the Ethiopians and Somalians indigenous to the lands of the Nigerians and Congolese? Are the nations of East Africa then simply indigenous to the whole world? From Europe, to Australia, to Nunavut, Araucania and even Tibet? Where-over the nations that formed there and have long histories, mythologies and ancestry there live? ] (]) 20:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
== Poles and Ukrainians ==


There were no whites in Europe until they colonised the entire continent and wiped out the indigenous population. ] (]) 15:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
The real number of Poles in Europe is estimated on ca. 42 million (ca. 37,5 million in Poland, 2 million in Germany, 600,000 in UK, 200,000 in Ireland, over 1 million in the Eastern Europe and 700,000 in the rest of Western Europe), so it is higher estimation then those in the article. On the other hand the real number of Ukrainians is lower. There are ca. 46 million people living in Ukraine, where Ukrainians account for about 80% of population – ca. 36 million. Other Ukrainians live in Russia ca. 3 million, the rest of Europe over 1 million. The total number is ca. 40 million. So, Poles are higher number ethnic group then Ukrainians. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:Naturally. WP should really stop pushing this right-wing propaganda that light skin developed through "an evolutionary adaptation to reduced sun exposure at higher latitudes" and tell people the truth. That white people are actually invaders from space who systemically massacred the Paleolithic population of Europe and then settled it for themselves. ] (]) 07:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
The number of Poles that have recently emigrated to England, Ireland, Germany are included in the 37,5 million. In The number of Ukrainians in Russia is estimated at 6.4 million, with an additional 1.2 million in Moldova. It is hard to get precise numbers. ] (]) 18:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


== Yiddish incorrectly classified as Semitic? ==
The official government statistics estimate max. up to 2 million emigrants from Poland. In contrast, the Poles in other European countries are almost 5 million. This means that there are at least 3 million Poles more than the Polish population (37,5 + 3).
I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that Yiddish, albeit written with the Hebrew alphabet, is a form of German. ] (]) 12:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)Settimeo Sarpi
For example, data for Germany does not include the subsequent 1,5 million Poles who have dual citizenship. On the other hand, the 3 million Ukrainians in Russia is data from a census, not estimate, as well as for the Poles. YES, it is hard to get precise numbers, so best to use the official statistics and where appropriate, have recourse to the estimates. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:Not exactly. From what I can see, and what little I know of Yiddish, it's sort of an amalgam of German and Hebrew--] (]) 20:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
== "White British" is not an ethnic group! ==


::Yiddish is Germanic, and Indo-European. It has words of semitic origin, but calling it a semitic language is not consistent with it's consensus based classification. I have corrected the information on the page.] (]) 06:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate that the current government likes to use this term, but it is actually meaningless (i.e.: it is undefined and ill-conditioned).
"Britain" simply refers to one main island; and British to a particular political entity that exists within defined parameters.


::: ], Yes, I see you removed it from the list of Semitic languages in section ] in ], I've gone ahead and added to the list of Germanic languages higher in that section; the parent article ] claims 600k speakers. ] (]) 21:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
"English" is an ethnic group because it comprises and describes a language, culture, and a genetic (i.e.: haplogroup-definable) identity in a way that neither "white", "british", or "white british" possibly can (i.e. there is no "whiteland", where people speak "white", and eat whitish food etc...!).


==Turks a native european etnicity?==
This should be self-evident, because I am writing in "English", a language that evolved in an ethnic state called "England", that has a well-recorded, definable and traceable history and origin that is entirely a function of a specific group of humans definable by a specific gene cluster pattern .
Turks must not be concidered neither european nor a native european ethnicity, the genetic admixture of the population the Turkish Republic is heavly related with central asian, iranic, and levantine ethnic groups, making it heavly mixed population and represents a problem to affirm that they are europeans, this is consistent with the statistics of the genetic strains of the Turkish population that show a majority of genetic halogroups not or barely related or present in native european populations, this statistic shows this:
The same applies to the other autochthonous groups of the current state that is called the UK, that happens to comprise the countries of those authochthonous groups, and has done in the current configuration for less than a century (i.e. since the partition of Ireland).


1: about the 15% of turkish population belongs to the R1b group, with the clear distinction that there are two lines, the Western European and the Western Asiatic, wich in the practice those individuals can be easly distinguished into distinct ethnic groups, this can be easly confirmed with the geographical location of Anatolia in relation as the Western Asiatic line, this mean ethnic groups not native from europe,
The autochthonous ethnic groups of the UK are: English (or Anglo-Saxon), Scottish, Welsh, Cornish, Manx, and Irish.


2: around the 24% belongs to the J2 group that is barely present in eastern-southern europe and have its origins in middle east, Levant, iranian plateau and central asia, wich itself is divided into to two sub-groups both of them (again) in massive connection with native/indigenous middle eastern ethnic groups wich clearly are non-europeans,
"White" is absolutely '''not''' an ethnic group, it's a political term (arguably of American origin), which is more than a little anachronistic in the 21st century.


3: the 10% presents G group, that is found massively within the Caucasus region, particularly the south of the Caucasus, with their origins in western Asia, not even from european regions of the Caucasus.
Please could this be corrected, as it's a glaringly obvious inconsistency in the context of that table.


4: the rest are just pure non-european, yet diverse Asiatic, and African genetic groups and sub-groups,
N.B.: Just because a particular political entity at a particular time wishes to apply a particular nomenclature to something, it doesn't behove contributors to wikipaedia to adhere to that as though it were fact (though they can of course report it as a particular view held, as often occurs... but we need to stick to objective academic and non-political sources at all costs).


Sure there are turkish citizens that have in some degree pre-turquic Anatolian, Greek, Georgian, Circassian and Slavic ancestors, but they are a minority, this issue clearly cannot make the turkish populaton to be concidered as ethnic europeans, this issue represents a mistake, concider the turkish population as ethnic native europeans on the grounds of the existence of an ethnic minority, for an example it's like concider as europeans the whole population of Mexico (130 million) just because 15-20% of them are ethnic europeans, or concider the whole population of Brazil (208 million) as europeans because 47% of them (less than the half) have partial or full european ethnic backgrounds,
] <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


another present issue, is that according to laws of that nation, all of them are concidered as part of a so-called "turkish ethnicity" this law forcibly englobes and mix on purpose, Turquic, european, iranian, and levantine ethnic groups as a single "ethnic group" misbased on the notion of a single homogeneous unified culture, based on history, customs, language and belief system, this, heavly supported by politics related to the turkish nationalism and the aspiration to become a member of the EU, when in reality all this represents a problem because none of this elements can be concidered ethnically and culturally linked to the elements of european nation-states,
this is much like ], and very far from "glaringly obvious". Starting in the 2001 census, White Irish and White British were recognised as distinct ethnic groups in Great Britain. Please read ] and ]. "White" is a racial classification, and "British" is a nationality, but "White British" is very much an ethnic or super-ethnic group, with English, Scottish, Welsh, etc. as subgroups.
You say you appreciate that "the current government likes to use this term". Well, so what is your point? Which, do you think, will be considered more ] for inclusion on Misplaced Pages, the terminology of the UK government, or the opinion of Misplaced Pages editor ]? See also ].


I suggest that we should define clearly that, Turkish is a nationality and not a real ethnic group in the same way that we understand ethnic groups like Slavic, Italic, Germanic or Iberian, If there is a truly a case of a Turkish ethnic group, should only include real turquic people, wich are neither indigenous nor native europeans, and not include the pre-turkish/ottoman Anatolians, Hellenics, Georgians, Circassians and other indigenous European groups absorbed by the Turkish invasions in Anatolia and Eastern Europe into the ottoman state.
Incdentially, the main island is ], while the "]" are the entire archipelago, including Ireland. --] <small>]</small> 08:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


In a few words, i suggest that we must make a clear distinction between european ethnic groups, and non-european ethnic groups that are living inside the current Turkish republic as turkish citizens and not concider Turkish as an etnicity nor Turks as an european population, because they are clearly not one. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)</small>
== Small Mistake ==


:Sir, the article is Ethnic Groups IN Europe. Turks are an ethnic group in Europe.] (]) 06:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
In section 3 “By country” there is a mistake with the table. For Denmark under “majority” it says “Danes 95%” but the 95% should be moved under “%” like all the other countries.] (]) 05:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


== Hungarians ==
:That % is wrong. That section in the article is a joke. ] (]) 17:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The number of Hungarians is underestimated here with 10 million. Even ] puts their number higher than that. If you add up their numbers in Europe, you get to at least 12.5 million. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:You are very right, if you consider the lowest estimates, there are at least 12.5 million Hungarians in Europe, but this number can reach even more than 13 million, because many ethnic Hungarians chose not to specify their ethnicity in surrounding countries, fearing the consequences, and we don't have exact numbers of Hungarians working abroad, with emmigration reaching outstanding levels in the past few decades. ] (]) 22:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
== Galicians ==


== Related RfD discussion ==
Galicians are portrayed as "Spanish people" because of Spain's policy of identifying all of its people as Spanish. In reality, Galicians are a subgroup of the Portuguese- most of all linguistically (which seems to be the main litmus test for this article's grouping criteria). --] (]) 17:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Please see:
*]
--] (]) 00:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


== Removal of Jewish ethnic groups ==
== Title ==
{{ip|2A02:ED0:52DE:CC00:680E:86FA:7268:F300}} recently ] of Jewish ethnic groups from the list. The rationale in their edit summary was:


{{tq2|Askenazi jewish and other europeqn jewish cant indifey as western asians because they are historial resedints of europe and they are dont holding any western asiqn cultural things also 99 of them %99 holding europeqn genetics and their cultural day life are european more than west asian and also you cant ignore the real western asians who carrying haplogroup j2 and j1 and e1b1b1 jewish holding mostly european genetics they are white and they are blonde and they look like europeqns more than arab}}
The first sentence is "The European '''peoples''' are the various nations and ethnic groups of Europe". "Peoples of Europe" makes much more sense to me as this articles title than "ethnic groups".--] (]) 17:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


I have reverted these ] because the edit appears to be controversial. Please feel free to discuss the removal of this content here. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 14:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
== 6 mil +1,3 mil +0,2 mil+0,3 mil = 7,8 mil Serbs ==


== Swedes ==
6,2 mil + 1,3 mil +0,2 mil+0,3 mil = 7,8 mil Serbs, max 8 mil. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
The article puts the number of Swedes between 10-15 million in Europe, while if you add up the number of ethnic Swedes living in European countries, according to Misplaced Pages's own article "Swedes", that number doesn't even reach 9 million (c. 8.6 million). Moreover, if you consider the fact, that around 3.2 million inhabitants of Sweden were of a foreign background in 2017, that number goes down to c. 7.6 million. I think this difference of more than 2 million is big enough to get Swedes down from that list. ] (]) 22:55, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


== Lots of OR and unsourced material ==
the insanely detailed headcount in the (sigh) infobox at ] has Balkans: 8.5 million, rest of Europe: 1.5 million, which would add up to 10 million. --] <small>]</small> 11:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
There is a huge amount of unsourced material in this article. Just because it's an article written as a parent in ], or has portions ], doesn't absolve this article from the requirements of Misplaced Pages's ]. I've tagged a few sections with {{tl|unsourced section}} or {{tl|refimprove section}}; if references are not forthcoming within a reasonable time, any editor should feel free to start removing unsourced content from the article per ]. The ] is on the editor adding the information, not on the one removing it. ] (]) 21:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


== British to English ==
== Nonsense Catalan people classification ==
I've changed the ethnolinguistic group from British to English, as ethnolinguistic seems to imply grouping based solely, or predominantly, on the language, and the various other entries in the table seem to be based entirely on native language speakers (such as Germans, French etc. etc.) within Europe, regardless of politics or self identity.


Catalan people are in three different states and they are not more Spanish that French. The classification as a subgroup of Spaniards it's a nonsense. ] (]) 21:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC) The language isn't British so referring to this grouping as British, an explicitly political term with little ethnic bearing, seems even more inaccurate than referring to them as English. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:Should also include the 4 million or so native English speakers of the Republic of Ireland, if it is to be consistent with the other entries in the table. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
it isn't "nonsense", it is a question of the definitino of "Spanish".
I realize this is difficult, and I realize the Spanish themselves do not have a proper definition for "Spanish", just look at ] linked as the corresponding article to our ]. This is a matter of the common scope of the ''English'' term "Spanish people", not of Spanish notions of the (non-)existence of a ''pueblo español''.
It is also something you would need to discuss in greater detail at ]. --] <small>]</small> 07:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


== Original research removed ==
==typo==
I have removed the so-called table of ethnic groups as a rather severe ]. The table apparently equated language with ethnicity, claiming (for example) Austrians as Germans, the Flemish as Dutch, the Walloons as French etc. That's nonsense (and rather insulting to many people as well). Moreover, both the groups, the assigned countries and the numbers were put together by Wiki-users. Again, OR applies. ] (]) 15:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
The sentence "Some living in Northern Ireland can also subsumed under British or White British. Most speak English as their Firt Language" should be changed to "Some living in Northern Ireland can also subsumed under British or White British. Most speak English as their FirSt Language", by adding an S to "Firt". -- ] (]) 15:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


== European Diasporas == == Native Americans in Europe ==
In the article, it mentions there's a small number of Native Americans, but what about the estimated 50,000 in Germany? Many are members of the US Armed Forces, and the histories of Spain and the UK had Native Americans after western contact by Europeans in the 1500s-1800s. Germans seem to have strong affection for Native Americans, their histories and cultures, including Adolf Hitler said some historians. ] (]) 07:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


== European ethnic groups by sovereign state - Switzerland ==
I have added some more Countries with European Diasporas to the 'Contemporary Diasporas' section and I have updated inaccurate and out-of-date information in the 'Contemporary Diasporas' section.
The ethnic majority of Switzerland are the ] people, not ] (the people of ]). Actually, Germans are a ]. Swiss people speak their own variants of ], ] and ], furthermore ]. Swiss German is spoken by about two thirds of the Swiss people, predominantly in the ] and consists of a group of allemannic dialects. It is used especially in everyday communication and is diffcult to understand for untrained speakers of ] (the commonly used variant in Germany), in formal contexts or written form, Swiss German speakers use ], which resembles more closely German Standard German.
I have also added Populations and replaced out-of-date and inaccurate populations of Diasporas (Such as the population of Eurasians in India; there are nowhere near one million Eurasians in India) in certain Countries in the same section. --] (]) 10:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


Swiss people pride themselves on being a linguistic diverse, but unified nation, so calling a speaker of Swiss German an (ethnic) German, might be understood in such a way that is insinuating ] concepts, meaning the German-speaking parts of Switzerland should belong to Germany. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
=="dubious" tags in table==
who added all the {{tl|dubious}} tags in the "ethno-linguistic" table? As is clearly indicated by the footnote, "unless otherwise indicated, population figures are those of Pan and Pfeil (2004)". What is there to discuss about that? The table was built to reflect this source. Nobody has any business fiddling with the table organization, or the population figures ''unless'' they can cite a quotable source on which they base their changes.
All unreferenced fiddling with population numbers should just be rolled back. --] <small>]</small> 08:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
:Probably the same person who has removed South Caucasia yet again. ] (]) 08:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
::Actually not. The person who removed Georgian was {{userlinks|Mttll}}, somebody who has has a long block history for similar troublesome edits. All his edits to WP seem to have some nationalistic agenda. ] (]) 08:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


== Relies heavily on one source that I'm not sure anyone has read ==
== map ==
Much of this article relies on one source: "German monograph Minderheitenrechte in Europa co-edited by Pan and Pfeil (2002)." The same phrase used in this article "According to the German monograph Minderheitenrechte in Europa co-edited by Pan and Pfeil (2002)..." is repeated verbatim across dozens of websites, which makes me doubt that anyone is actually reading this German book, and instead just copying and pasting the phrase and source from other sites. I can't find it in any university libraries. There is an English version, which again makes me wonder why all of these websites are citing the German version in the sentence that they're all repeating. I was able to find the introduction from the English version here (http://medien.bwv-verlag.de/9783830538660_p.pdf). Furthermore, from what I can actually find about the book, it's being misrepresented in this article here: "there are 87 distinct indigenous peoples of Europe." The book is about national minorities. It uses the phrase "traditional ethnic groups," NOT indigenous. Maybe this is a mistranslation from the German edition, but it needs to be removed unless someone can produce actual text from the book to back this up.
5th map from above: if the city Salzburgo in the map is meant to be the same as todays Salzburg, it is located in the wrong place (too far on the right). - Soulslayer from German Misplaced Pages <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


Also, this article seems very confused as to what nationality, ethnicity, and indigenous mean, and is relying on a misrepresentation of this source to do so. The references to indigeneity should be removed or limited to the Sami and few others genuinely classified as such. Pan and Pfeil define ethnicity in the introduction of their book as "Ethnicity should be understood here as the ethnic identity or sense of belonging of a person, that is, the identification with the language or culture of a people," and yet much of this article treats it as something genetic--in arguing that Ashkenazi Jewish people, for example, are "non European" by citing several articles on their genetic ancestry (one of the articles cited is actually about their European maternal DNA) and ignored a shared European language, culture, and identity (ie ethnicity). Likewise, Turkish and Hungarian ethnicities are listed as non European despite having evolved into unique place-based shared cultures in Europe. Ethnic identities change, some disappear (not the people themselves!), and new ones emerge (ethnogensis). This article gets lost in trying to decide which European ethnic groups are "native" to Europe (and thus ''really'' European) and which are not, and that discussion doesn't belong in an article about ethnicities. ] (]) 03:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
== Validity of Page ==


: ], I came here to discuss this. I'm curious to know what page of the source this claim is found on. I was able to find the actual link from the publisher here: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-211-35310-3. And, the file ''is'' out there...
I mean, honestly, what exactly defines an ethnic group as "European"? Nobody can really agree on that. Western Europeans snort at the "Europeanness" of Turks and even Balkan peoples, and even Mongolians sometimes claim they are European so that they are not classified under the same continent as the hated Chinese.
: The original version of this sentence originates from an edit by ] at . In its original form:
: {{bq|'''Pan and Pfeil (2002) count 87 distinct "peoples of Europe", of which 33 form the majority population in at least one sovereign state, while the remaining 54 constitute ethnic minorities.''' The total number of national minority populations in Europe is estimated at 105 million people, or 14% of 770 million Europeans.}}
: This was ''only changed in June 2020'' by ], who is now blocked: ]. There is no explanation for the change; as such, I am going to revert this to the ''original'' text.
: Anyway, according to ], the ] of IE language and culture is the ] c.a. 4,000 BCE. To me, this would imply that IE peoples are ''not'' indigenous to Central and Western Europe, rather the edge of Eastern Europe and Western Asia. ''And'', many IE groups migrated to the rest of Europe well after
: We know that ] prior to IE migration further into the continent (the ] may be evidence of this). I think the question of contemporary European indigineity relies on how much influence Old European culture, genetics, language, etc. influenced those groups that immigrated. However, this is a question for academics and I have no knowledge of what the consensus on this currently is.
: Personally, considering the comments above regarding the "white race" and similar content I removed from the actual ] article, it sounds like this is part of an agenda.
: {{bq|''This article gets lost in trying to decide which European ethnic groups are "native" to Europe (and thus ''really'' European) and which are not''}}
: I think your comment above dovetails well into what I've said above: the reason this article does not make sense is because modern European ethnic groups are _not_ native to most of Europe...hence the confusion. If you want to hit your head against the wall a couple more times, check out ], which is a complete mess.
: This article and related topics need a complete rework.
: --<sup style="float:right">]</sup><span style="float:right;font-weight:bold;font-color:#6495ED;margin:0 5px;padding:0px 7px;border-radius:99px;background-color:#a7d7f9;">]</span> 22:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)


==IP introducing factual error==
Frankly, I think this page is a ton of generalizations, and even racist.
Twice already, IPs have changed the claim by Richard Lewis that Uralic originated in the Urali Mountains to claim Lewis says they originated in East Siberia. This is dishonest editing, Lewis never writes that in his book and so we cannot claim that he does. We'll have to require page protection if IPs keep misrepresenting what sources actually say. ] (]) 02:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)


:I am sorry, it was indeed ]. I have now included the new study below, without changing the Lewis citation. But I do not understand why you removed the whole edit. A simple fix would have been easier.] (]) 08:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Ethnicity is a spectrum, not categories. Every region shades into the next, to quote Jared Diamond. The Spanish could be argued to be closer ethnically to the Berbers of North Africa. There has never once been a single united European ethnicity, and I don't think there ever will be.


::The IP is a sock of WorldCreaterFighter, a well known LTA editing genetic topic pushing a East Asian agenda.] (]) 20:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
And furthermore, where does Europe end?


:::The content included by the sock IP is furthermore ]. The first study about ] does not speak about East Asians or East Asian geneflow, but mentions the arrival of an Siberian component to the Baltic region, possibly linked to the Uralic expansion. This component refers to the "West Siberian hunter gatherers", not East Asians. As we can see above, the IP sock also tried to manipulate other content but was stopped by a careful user {{user|Jeppiz}}. Secondly, the content claimed to be from Reich is ] and ]. Reich did not said such things, and the modeled components are sublineages of the "West-Eurasian genetic cluster", the human lineage which split from Ancestral East Asians 45,000 years ago soon after the Out of Africa migration. The content is pure ] of the Austrian IP sock of https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/WorldCreaterFighter, see also this discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Austronesier/sandbox#Woolen_footwear.] (]) 09:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
One can make a reasonable argument that in fact, the whole Middle East would be much better placed as part of Europe than Asia. An overwhelming majority of both regions practice Abrahamic religions, a trait which is not present in India or East Asia (but still present in Western Central Asia), and the Middle East was the founder of the civilized culture which spread to Europe, making the Middle East by far Europe's largest influence.


I must apologize, but it seems I made a mistake, the content is actually fine and verifiable. I will revert my removal.] (]) 01:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
It's rather opinionated and speculative to define any trait as something that makes people European. How about some examples...


:The second part is still ] after checking again, thus removed. I have worded the first part more neutral. One study not "studies" as example.] (]) 14:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
1) Geography: This excludes the fact that Russia, which is overwhelmingly considered part of Europe, has territory in Asia. Furthermore, the boundaries of this so-called "Europe" were layed out long ago, and we can't just pointlessly assume correctness, especially when the borders were made from a rather Christian-centric, and racist European point of view.


::Can you clarify as to why this is ]? ] (]) 18:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
2) Christian Religion: May I remind us all that the Christian religion came from the Middle East? It is not a European religion.


:::{{user|TheGEICOgecko}}, the Reich paper distinguish these components, but they are all "West-Eurasian" lineages, not as distinct as modern Europeans and Chinese. As such it is ]. At least the editorial from 2018 newspaper (also fails ] in this topic.] (]) 19:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
3) Language: If we say Indo-European languages, that includes India, but not the Basques. That argument is better than geography or religion, but I'm not buying it. Much worse is that if we make a linguistic Europe, there will be areas of pockets of "Europe" surrounded by other "continents". That's a no-go.


:::: The editorial does indeed fail ], so it should not be considered. Is there a reason from the paper itself for ] to apply, or perhaps from a different reliable source? ] (]) 20:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
4) Racial appearance: Many Berber groups of North Africa have higher frequencies of light hair and blue eyes than the so-called "European" Spanish. Furthermore,


::::: The paper itself is fine. Thank you.] (]) 12:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
5) EU-membership: So, somehow, political decisions decide on people's ethnic identity? Don't think so.


== European ethnic groups by sovereign state ==
6) Residence: If we count residence as something that makes someone European, what about diasporas. And heck, what about the US, Canada, Australia, etc., where people descended from people of countries of Europe form a strong majority and are extremely culturally close to the founding nations?
I just deleted the whole list for the following reasons: Much of it was unsourced - I put the relevant maintenance template there one month ago, but no sources were added. Also: Even some of the seemingly sourced lines were ]. E.g. the line referring to Germany made the ridiculous assumption that Sorbs and Schleswig-Holstein Danes are ethnic Germans while Germans with one immigrant grandparent are not. The assumption that Basques are ethnic French is similarly ridiculous. The assumption that "White British" form a distinct ethnic group in the UK is equally unsourced. And so on. Feel free to restore a well-sourced list. ] (]) 13:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


:I agree that the lack of credible sources is concerning. However, there are plenty of ] within the mix. I believe it worthwhile to update/clean up the section, rather than just disregarding it altogether. Examining the sources case by case (with the intent of removing any ]) may be the more tedious approach, but probably more reasonable compared to a simple blanket delete. I have added an ''update section'' template to the paragraph with the hopes that it (along with this discussion) will garner the attention of editors willing to assist. Cheers, ] (]) 18:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
7: Culture: Culture is largely based on perception. But may I point out that Hungarians have a strong Central Asian influence on their culture, a language originating in the Ural mountains, and a pentatonic scale, despite being located in the heart of geographical "Europe". Is Hungary now excluded from Europe? And Russians living in Kamchatka undeniably are far more European than Kalmyks living in Ciscaucasia, despite Ciscaucasia being considered Europe and Kamchatka being considered one of the most remote regions of Asia.


::Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Russia, and Sweden have references. That's 14 out of 44. Of these, the source given for Germany doesn't support the claims, and that for the Netherlands supports only minor claims (I didn't check the other 12). I don't see how that's "plenty of WP:RS". Updating is not the problem. The problem is OR, and my template hasn't attracted any editors for a month now. ] (]) 19:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
...as you can see, the whole concept of constructing an inexistant European ethnicity is rather stupid, just as an Asian or African identity is stupid. I really see no point for this page unless you guys can make some mention of the major problems with the viewpoint of a "European" classification.


:::And your point? Some CN tags have been around for over a decade. Just because sources haven't been added in 30 days, it doesn't mean that they won't, nor does it justify a blanket deletion wherein some sources are present. If sourcing is a concern to you, you have also had a month to help fix it. Alas, Misplaced Pages is a voluntary project and ]. I can go through the remaining 12 when I have extra time. In terms of adding new ones, hopefully this talk page discussion (which was only just posted today) will draw attention. ] (]) 20:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
And frankly, there is nothing keeping countries like Kabylia or Iran from being considered European except for religious prejudice and obstinance of sticking to artificial human-construed boundaries.


::::] is a core content policy. The material in articles about ethnic groups is often abused to support nationalistic or racist views, so we have to be very careful here. Another problem is that we have very different types of society in Europe. While in some cases (e.g. Latvia), there are mutually exclusive ethnic groups, other cases (e.g. Germany) have less distinctions and the groups are more fluid. I'm going to look at each country individually and remove everything that is badly sourced and also the unsourced lines if they don't seem plausible. ] (]) 13:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
We may have to seriously consider why we even have this page in the first place. Because it seems to me it is based on largely perspective-based "information", and has no valid research aside form a ton of opinions about what is "European" and what "isn't". You could even call it racist, for classifying peoples into continental groups without much defined basis for classification, due to persistant inconsistency.--] (]) 15:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


== Germany and the UK ==
it is funny how we never get this sort of resistance at articles like ] or ], groupings by continent that are arguably far more "racist". Seriously, read the article. Nobody is "constructing an Europan ethnicity". Instead, the article discusses the numerous ethnicities (plural) found in Europe. --] <small>]</small> 06:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Where is Germany in the table ] (]) 12:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


:Also the UK is missing; besides England, this also cuts out Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. &mdash; Cheers, ] (]) 12:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
:The reason you don't, frankly, is that Africa is a continent with clearly defined boundaries, whereas the Europeans are still caught up in rather obselete racist ideas on where the end of their imaginary continent is. A much better comparison would be if we had a page called "Ethnic groups in Eurasia", as that is actually a completely legitimate continent.
:If nobody objects, I will add rows for these countries so that others can fill them in from RS. &mdash; Cheers, ] (]) 12:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC)


::While the model of dividing the population into different ethnic groups surely is a good model for some states, I'm not so sure about other ones. In the case of ] there seem to be no good sources that "Germans" primarily denotes an ethnic group. In the case of ], which one is the ethnic group ? ], or ] ? ] (]) 16:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
:You say you aren't trying to create a unified European identity, but yet the page talks about unifying factors (churches especially, which excludes numerous groups). You are racistly excluding groupps because they aren't "European enough". The whole concept of Europe is at best chauvinistic.


:::Firstly, this is a list of sovereign states in Europe. Every such state should be represented and the status of its ethnic grouping (or otherwise) summarised. So these sovereign states need to be reinstated here. Secondly, your questions are largely answered in the demographics articles I added links to but you deleted instead of following through. For example the Demography of the United Kingdom gives a detailed ]. So all that is needed is to lift the relevant facts from there and fill in the rest of the row here. &mdash; Cheers, ] (]) 17:23, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
:Supposedly, there are no generalizations, and yet at the very top of the page, Europe is described to speak "Indo-European and Uralic languages" (excluding Turks, Basques, Tatars, Bashkirs, Chechens, Circassians, Georgians, Maltese, Jews, Avars, and I could go on forever), and a number of religions are declared European (may I note that NONE of them are indigenous to what you call Europe?). I may request this page for deletion. --] (]) 13:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
== Wrong table, as usual ==


::::As I stated in the discussion preceding this one, verifiability is one of WP's core principles. Completeness of lists is not. Regarding Germany (or France): Ethnicity is not part of the census (difficult to imagine for Americans, but true), which has to do with the way our societies see themselves. Regarding UK: Is White British really the majority identity ? Or should it be English (or White English) ? Any reliable sources for that decision ? ] (]) 07:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Again, confusing ethnicity with nationality. Catalans cannot be within the Spanish group, first because they don't belong to the same ethnic group, but specially because Andorrans and the Catalans from France and Italy are not Spanish by nationality, so it doesn't make any sense.


:::::Are you having trouble following up the references cited in the section on the UK's Ethnic demographic breakdown, which I linked to especially for you to follow up? If you do so, you will see that the UK does actually incorporate questions on ethnicity in its census forms and publish the results. Why are you asking me to repeat it here? If I were to restore my edits and copy-paste those references into them, would that keep you happy? &mdash; Cheers, ] (]) 10:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
The whole thing gets even funnier when you see that Basques are in a totally independent group and that the Aranese are surprisingly in the Francophone section, when they are Gascons by language/ethnicity and Spaniards by nationality. Deliberate misinformation or politically biased nonsense? --] (]) 00:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


::::::No. ] (]) 11:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


:::::::Can you please explain why those sources are not suitable? Blanket denial is not discussion. &mdash; Cheers, ] (]) 12:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
== Removed "European identity and culture" section ==


::::::::No, that's the wrong way. According to ] it is you who should explain why certain sources answer my question {{tq|which one is the ethnic group ?}}. ] (]) 18:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
I removed the "''European identity and culture''" section for several reasons:<br>
1) This section is highly POV;<br>
2) It is unsourced and is nearly all OR;<br>
3) The tags have been on there for over a year with few changes;<br>
4) Although there was *alot* of words written in the archives sections, there has been no movement for quiet some time on the subject;<br>
5) The section is off-topic. The article is about Ethnic groups in Europe, not pan-Euroism as described in the "European identity and culture." Power to the people.... ] (]) 02:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


:::::''Is White British really the majority identity ?"'' Yes
:well, I object. The section is highlyon topic in the article about European ethnography.
:::::''"Or should it be English (or White English) ?"'' No (as they are being White British)
:Yes it needs work. As you can see about, it has been an uphill battle to even keep the straightforward "list" parts against the generic ] resistance, so the section on more "fuzzy" aspects will likely remain tagged for some time. --] <small>]</small> 06:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::''"Any reliable sources for that decision"'' the 2011 census figures which are perfectly acceptable source for this sub-section as it relates to demographics. ] (]) 02:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


::::::Thank you, Tweedle, for the helpful contribution. But still I doubt that we can decide the question based on a primary source. A quick search on Google books found , distinguishing between the 52 million English, the Lowland Scots and other groups. That the census amalgamated English and Scots into one group doesn't say that an ethnographic academic source would describe them as one group. Those Scots who voted for independence in the last referendum don't seem to want to be in the same ethnic group with the English. ] (]) 09:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
::Disagree - The whole section is unsourced and is completely ]. The rest of the page is workable, but that section is off topic, the page is describing ethnic groups, not a pan-Europa. Pan-Europa needs its own page. ] (]) 09:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


:::::::Sure, but to avoid a problem like this we can simply state that it amalgamates them so it is clear to people when reading. All of the current entries on the table list are based on primary source census figures and due to the fact there are no coherent figures on how many 'White: English' people there are its best to use White British as an effective proxy. ] (]) 12:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
:::I have reverted because (1) in general I do not think whole sections should be deleted without discussion unless there is a serious POV violation (2) in this case i see no serious POV violation, most of the contents is uncontroversial (3) the tagged sections are confined mostly to pne paragraph (I agree sentences that have been tagged for a year can safely be removed). dab, you seem to have an interest in this section. I do not have the time to do the research, but if you want to and add sources, I think that much of what is here can be sourced to Samuel Huntington (clash of civilizations) Immanuel Wallerstein (the World System) and Ferdinand Braudel on different fault lines within Europe or between Europe and other parts of the Old World, Andre Gundar Frank, Eric Wolf (Europe and the People Without History), and Peter Worsely (the Three Worlds) and perhaps Jared Diamond on the influence of Europe in other parts of the world, and Eric Wolf on the influence of other parts of the world on Europe. Dinkytown, I bet you would find these works (in all cases i mean the major or most famous works by each author) interesting, and you might enjoy doing some legitimate research starting with these significant and veifiable sources, to keep this section and perhaps even develop it. ] | ] 13:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


:::::::If you want to be specific anyhow, you can state that because the differs slightly in its ethnic question, that there exists 4,446,000 enumrated (in 2011) 'White: Scottish' people (but again this is amalgamated into the larger White British figure) ] (]) 12:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
:::I must register howeve that I do think Dinkytown has a legitimate argument that this section is not about European ''ethnic groups'' but rather pan european culture and thus belongs elsewhere. I support this, but still think (1) there should be ''some'' discussion before deletion, and (2) I would much much much rather Dinkytown remove the section ''to another article'' than just delete it. ] | ] 13:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


::::::::In my understanding, the no-OR policy of WP doesn't allow us to decide what "to use ... as an effective proxy". With regard to other countries: As far as I see, most breakdowns are according to indigenous populations (e.g. Belgium: Flemish and Walloon), and that would correspond to English people / Scots etc. ] (]) 06:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate the problems. I will try to restore an improved revision (but not today). Can we please remember that this isn't just the "list of ethnic groups in Europe" article but also the ] one?
Are you seriously suggesting that nothing can be said in informed, referenced prose about features and aspects, major commonalities and major differences wtin European ethnography? I would appreciate if we could finally move past the pseudo-skepticism doubting that there is such a thing as European ethnography and move to the stage where we iteratively and gradually improve our coverage of the topic like anywhere else on Misplaced Pages. --] <small>]</small> 13:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


:::::::::No but when a country collects ethnicity data using its national census then I think it should be rightfully included. Your never going to get a perfect metric or answer which fully gets the best picture of ethnicity within the country but when one exists it should be included and sourced.
===This section must be removed immediately===
:::::::::Belgium does not collect ethnicity data (and is not sourced to anything), neither does Finland, Iceland, Norway, Denmark, and Sweden, all of which collect 'Origin' data which is a metric based on a mix of your country of birth and nationality status, so is a poor example to use (and should probably be removed). ] (]) 09:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
There are '''''serious''''' POV violations here - a ] point of view. What organization (short of the ] and ] groups) claim to support a 'European culture'? Answer: '''''none''''' - there are hundreds of cultural organizations ], ], etc. that support individual cultural organizations, but the only organizations that support a Euro-culture are the Neo-Nazi. This is good site for the ] and ] groups. There *may* be a Pan-European identity, but it is very new (less than ten years) and largely softly-imposed administratively from above such as the ]. Get a source that has a poll taken that the people identifying themselves as "European". I doubt that you will find one. I'm sorry Slrubenstein, but I am not going to do research on something that I disagree with its basic premise.


{{od}} FWIW I have been watching this discussion and I am in agreement with Rsk6400 about the concerns which are relevant to an article like this. Ethnicity is not a simple or uncontroversial concept. People identify in many different ways at once. Ethnicity is one of them, but even just looking at ethnicity people can identify as being in multiple ethnic groups or even none. When WP editors substitute things like language or nationality they are using a proxy. It is true that some surveys and censuses ask people to identify themselves. That's about the best we can do, but of course to make this possible people are given a multiple-choice question, and the way that question is set-up is very important, and almost never the same in any two surveys. In English many see themselves as both British and English, but there is a whole spectrum of ways in which people weigh these two related concepts. Many countries have such complications. Practical Problem: There are many types of data we could report which are relevant, but when we put apples and pears in a table we (WP) can obviously create a lot of misunderstandings unless it can be very clear to readers how to interpret the different types of measurements being used.--] (]) 08:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
'''''Understand that I am not accusing anyone here of being a racist or white supremacist, but I think you guys are not seeing the ] here.'''''


:All this makes me question the validity of the whole table here. All we can do is to cite such RS as we find. We should not be cherry-picking our RS for different entries in the table, arguing technicalities against one source but letting another at least as dubious pass. One Ring to Rule them All. &mdash; Cheers, ] (]) 09:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
''"The culture of Europe might better be described as a series of overlapping cultures."'' What the hell does that mean - asside from the ]? Is there any 'continental culture' that is not "overlapping"? It's *very* ] and unsourced.


::I agree, I know for a fact that the majority of countries for Eastern Europe do collect ethnicity data (albeit alot of it is out of date, like Ukraine or Macedonia) but for (this link if you scroll down a bit gives a list on those who collect ethnic and racial data). Alot seem to have footnotes provided if they don't from when I assume they were originally added.
There is also so much of the info that is incorrect and simply wrong. Case in point, ] did not start in Europe, nor does it singly manifest from there. ] from Asia and Africa; ] Christians from Africa, plus numerous other smaller sects all across Asia, grew up separately and had nothing to do with Europe.
::Belgium, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Italy (which looking at the sources I think is going off of foreign nationals? I know they don't collect ethnicity data) and Greece don't, not sure about Switzerland though. ] (]) 10:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


== Dropped stale unsourced material ==
''"Some tendencies that define modern Western societies are the existence of political pluralism"'' yea right, like the Nazi's, and ], to name a few. What was World War Two about?
Three years after tagging it, nothing was done to cite unsourced material, so I've dropped it per ] and ]. Anyone is welcome to restore this material, as long as it is accompanied by valid ] to ] sources. Please do not restore unsourced content. Thanks, ] (]) 02:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


:Do CN tags expire? I do not believe that is valid enough reason to delete such a plethora of information. ] (]) 14:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
'''It has no sources.''' What Misplaced Pages page will tolerate that?


== Linguistic Map missing many languages ==
Any one of these issues are enough to remove it from the page as described in ], ], and ].
The linguistic map is missing many languages such as Astur-leonese, Aragonese, Genovese, Lombard, Neapolitan, Galo, Elfdalian, Manx among others. The map is labeled as "major languages" but Asturleonese has a lot more speakers than Ladin, for example, and still it's not on the map. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:46, 27 December 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:{{Ping|Archives908|Academic10}} It's a bit sad to see that you were edit warring twice without ever taking the dispute to the talk page. As far as I can see, neither map is sufficiently sourced, see ] and ]. I removed both according to ]. ] (]) 06:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
I am going to be a gentleman and give you 48 hours to source all of this material or I will remove it. This section has been up there in this condition for over a year with no movement. I'm not trying to hurt feelings, but this has to move on. Get some sources on this or take it off. ] (]) 23:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
:Please don't leave any more comments like this. It is not how wikipedia is edited. The section can be tagged, but you cannot blank it, since now three editors have disagreed with this procedure. The material has been there since the time when the article was called "European people", when it was more or less the whole article. It could be better sourced but as Slrubenstein has said, it is factually correct and neutral. Dbachmann has given his reasons why this material - in some form or other - belongs in the article. ] (]) 23:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


::]- Let's get the facts straight. Several IP's began removing/replacing maps without explaining ''why''. I merely restored the article to the last stable version. You yourself did the same thing and had every opportunity to start a discussion here, but did not. Regardless, the IP's should have explained their edits, or after being reverted, should have brought their suggestions to talk. After the IP's got nowhere, along came ] who proceeded to replace the map (without any explanation) just as the IP's did. Academic10 then brings the discussion to my personal talk page, which is by far, not the appropriate place for a discussion about ''this'' article. Now that we got the timeline of events correct, let's discuss the map. The original simplified version of the map has been updated continually since 2017 and has been a standard on this article for many years. The rectified version, meanwhile, has not been updated since 2015. Academic10, I'm perplexed how you think a map which hasn't been updated in '''9 years''' is more accurate? Your argument that the map is "visually easier" is null since you can't even expand the image on this article. Rsk6400, thank you for finally starting the talk page discussion. However, your removal of the original simplified map lacks justification. I noticed you again restored the map before removing it entirely. I believe you should restore the status quo and then present your arguments here and let's all try and reach a consensus. Agreed? ] (]) 20:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
::I would agree with Dinkytown. And 3 people isn't nearly enough. Frankly, there is nothing factual about the bunch of opinions and original research and POV slush that is placed in that section. No offense to any of the writers, but really, if that's the whole article, than as my section here says before, the whole thing is invalid, as its nothing but OR and opinions. --] (]) 23:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
:::It's best to avoid a ] approach. I said this section '''was''' the whole article 2 1/2 years ago . Much later dab retitled the article and extensively rewrote most of it. Please go back and look in the history of the article and please don't misquote me. The main point is that the content of the article should be discussed collegially here, not by making threats. ] (]) 00:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
:::BTW this was the article at its weirdest - Dinkytown's userpage reminded me of the ill-fated gallery :) ] (]) 00:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


:::Archives908, you had every right to restore the status quo. But you could also have started this discussion here, especially since Academic10 is a new editor. I didn't see the discussion on your talk page, but you are right in stating that your talk page is the wrong place for it. The reason why I removed the map and don't think it should be restored is that the map itself is not sufficiently sourced. Only the sources for Belarusian, German, Rumansh, Slovenian and Ukrainian are given. But on WP, all information must be verifyable, and this includes the information contained in maps. ] (]) 20:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
::::If you want to make personal references about peoples' userpages - have a good time. It does not change the fact that the section is POV, unsourced, and incorrect. The simple matter of fact is that if you don't have sources - you don't have an argument. It's that simple. The Wiki rules state that if there is no sources, ]. A year has gone by and that section tag is still there - and still no sources.


::::Thank you, ]. I do agree with your concern, however, I believe the map to be sufficient (at least, at the most basic level) and useful in terms of providing a general visualization to readers. Perhaps the map ''itself'' can be worked on and improved? It seems that other editors have been trying to actively update it. Therefore, perhaps it would be wise if you restored the status quo and we can tag the image itself requesting additional citations. Thoughts? ] (]) 21:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
::::It doesn't matter what the article looked like 2+ years ago. Yes, there has been a lot of work good on the article since then - great, but this section detracts from the article now with disinformation, OR and opinion. The article is relevant, and should remain, and I believe that who ever wrote that section had the best intentions, but frankly that section wouldn't survive as a college under-grad research paper, and it shouldn't survive here.


:::::The fact that "Simplified" has been updated several times may not be a good sign, it could also mean POV pushing, something that frequently happens on Commons (note that I don't say that it really does mean that). If we look e.g. at ] and ], "Simplified" is certainly not up to date and shows a much larger German speaking area than there is in reality. The only solution would be drawing a completely new map from a good, secondary source. Verifiability is a core principle on WP, providing dubious information is not. That's why I think we can't restore an unsourced map, tagged or not. On the other hand - this article is about ethnic groups which in many cases are not identical with language groups (e.g. many ethnic Ukrainians use Russian as their first language) - so a language map is not necessary here, and we should solve the problem of an ethnographic map (newer than 1896) first. ] (]) 08:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
::::If you don't have the sources, then removed the section, and the wiki rules stated above support that action. If you have some sources, then lets see them. This is how we learn from all this. I don't mean to be brutal, but I've have seen petty arguments that go on for months until someone realized that one side didn't have any sources and the other side had over two dozen solid academic sources. A lot of wasted energy was involved in that argument, all because someone was emotionally attached to a section (I'm not saying that anyone is here). That is what I am trying to avoid - its nothing personal. I've been wrong before in debates, and I've learned its quicker and better to just admitted that you are wrong and move on. We are all fighting for a better article - not each other.


*'''Procedural note''' Talk pages are for discussing content, not "who did what". As for the map, it seems sufficiently good. It's not perfect by any means (I see several minor errors) but still better than most language maps of Europe. None of the languages mentioned by the OP is a major language by any stretch of imagination, some of them are not spoken by the majority population in even one village and hence would not be shown on a linguistic map. ] (]) 20:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
::::If there are sources to support that section, then put it up there and debate it. If not, then the section must be removed. That's how we learn from all this, its nothing personal. ] (]) 01:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


== Bosnia and Herzegovina ==
:::::I didn't write this material, so I don't know why you say "you". I am just saying that you should avoid making threats. Dbachmann already said he was going to rejig the section, so please be patient. There are no time limits on wikipedia. (BTW I liked the Sami picture, although not the old article on European people which had all the faults you describe.) ] (]) 01:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


Bosnian, Serbs and Croats are three construction nations I Bosnia and Herzegovina. Serbs and Croats are not "majorities". ] (]) 20:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::"You" made a reference to my user page. I never threated anyone. I just stated my intention to what I will do and the reasons why. There actually is a time limit: see ]. Everyone will agree that a year is way too long, if he or anyone else has the sources on hand, then 48 hours should be enough. The time should be short as the content is disputed. If more time is needed, then they should state so, otherwise it should be moved off and worked on there. If you are talking about ] photo? Yea, I like it too. There is only one question that will never be answered: Does he have two wives? ] (]) 02:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
]
:::::::Since the material has been in the article for 2 or more years and people have real life commitments outside this internet site, there is no rush. Dropping the deadline of 2 days would seem the reasonable thing to do (I know that it'll take quite a while for me to get a source that I've ordered for an art history article). This was the picture in the gallery BTW - a woman, marital status unknown :) ] (]) 03:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:39, 9 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ethnic groups in Europe article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconEurope High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Misplaced Pages.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEthnic groups High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Archiving icon
Archives

Native European

Almost all populations in Europe are native, yet the page says they are all extinct... what? Germans are extinct in Germany? Britons are extinct in Britain? This is a severe case of poor-quality lying. Who are you trying to fool, 3 year olds? Do you think an Irish people will read this and think they are extinct in Ireland or actually immmigrants from Mars? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.101.128 (talk) 20:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the articles about ethnic groups

Seemingly there is a significant number of commentators which support the general removal of infobox collages. I think there is a great opportunity to get a general agreement on this matter. It is clear that it has to be a broad consensus, which must involve as many editors as possible, otherwise there is a big risk for this decision to be challenged in the near future. I opened a Request for comment process, hoping that more people will adhere to this proposal. Please comment here. Hahun (talk) 07:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ethnic groups in Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—Talk to my owner:Online 20:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2016

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I need to edit, change and update "by country" paragraph for accuracy. There is a need for removal of some possibly inaccurate and unsourced edits. For example, Frisian-Dominant-speaking (0.01% is too small, unless there are places like islands where Dutch is hardly spoken) in "others" in the Netherlands, and replace it with information on Iranians in the Netherlands, who form among the top 10 ethnic groups in the country. Reference link https://www.internations.org/netherlands-expats/iranians The Netherlands census categorizes South Moluccans apart from Indonesians. http://www.safecom.org.au/dutch-moluccans.htm Adinneli (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

My apologies, let's try it again. Please change the mention of Frisian-speaking Dominant to South Moluccans in the Netherlands in "by country" section of the article. The article states 200,000 South Moluccans live in the Netherlands, which the country has 18 million residents, so they make up over 1% (1.5%?) of the population. Adinneli (talk) 04:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Indians link

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

please change ((Indians)) to ((Indian people|Indians)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4204:7760:60c1:8c8e:217c:cdac (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done - by another - Arjayay (talk) 16:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

germans without Immigrant background same as Ethnic germans?

Is the true percentage of Ethnic germans lower than 81% in the form? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nero011 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

American (United States) expats in Europe

Europe has between 4.5 to 5.5 million American expats, with the highest numbers in the UK, France, Germany, Italy and Switzerland, but they live everywhere in the continent. This is the highest number ever for US citizens and/or descendants in Europe. Many came to the continent to retire, as well those who do business and a few for political, economic or personal reasons finding Europe a better place than the US. 67.49.89.214 (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2016

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Modern ethnic Europeans are a recent and ongoing evolution. The original anatomically modern human migrants to Europe from Africa arrived 40,000 years ago; these prehistoric Europeans were predominantly dark skinned, short of stature, lactose intolerant, and looked dramatically different in comparison to modern Europeans. The genetic lineage of Europe mysteriously transformed about 4,500 years ago, with changes in diet, body size and skin pigmentation, when Central Asian and West Asian migrants arrived with taller height and light skin genes, respectively.

References

  1. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3028813/Europeans-dark-skinned-8-000-years-ago-Pale-complexions-brought-Europe-Near-East-study-claims.html
  2. http://www.livescience.com/28954-ancient-europeans-mysteriously-vanished.html

This entire section needs either removing or re-writing. Especially the first couple of lines which make some outrageous and very offensive as well as vague claims about European history with no evidence to back them up (citation needed, etc)
The article in the 4th line about Europeans being darked skinned 8000 years ago has also been debunked.

Please clean up your site and check sources as well as remove content that has no validity but aims to confuse the public who use your site.
thanks.

Jamesbrensonton (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your concerns. If you have a suggestion for the text, please re-open the request. Requests are typically of the format "Change X to Y". While the section may need copyediting, your request as currently phrased is very difficult to act on. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 20:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

DailyMail as a source?

The genetic lineage of Europe rapidly transformed about 4,500 years ago, with changes in diet, body size and skin pigmentation, when Central Asian and West Asian migrants arrived with taller height and light skin genes, respectively. There is no precise or universally accepted definition of the terms "ethnic group" or "nationality"..

What? The first part is absolutely false and has been debunked. So. Many. Times. It's a pseudoscientific myth. And the second sentence is a pointless statement and reeks of ideological subjectivism (especially in the light of the current political events in Europe). And who on Earth thought that DailyMail is a scientific source? :D What is this garbage?

Also:
"Modern ethnic Europeans are a recent and ongoing evolution"
Since your first original statement is false, the "recent" part is false too. And all ethnicities are in ongoing evolution, so that also is quite pointless.

I am alarmed that the DailyMail source is still up there, especially after multiple removals. And now the edits are forbidden for the common folk, that makes it perfect. Shame, wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamp987 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

That particular section had some citation needed tags on it, but since nothing was actually done about the issue (and a citation was not actually needed), I removed them. If you think the source is incorrect or poor, you're free to either fix it yourself or at the very least add the proper tag to it.
For what it's worth, yes, the sources for that part were very poor and dubious. However, the correct approach to this situation is not to complain about it on the talk page, or just tag it and move on; if you know the information is incorrect, remove it.
(also, when going through the page's history, I did not notice anything that looked like multiple prior removals of that information)
-- turdas 23:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Article structure/content improvements

At the time of writing the article contains (or contained) a massive amount of tables. I have removed the longer set of these tables, from the Linguistic classifications section, as the information in them should be—and already is—in the separate Languages of Europe article.

I don't really like the look of the other table either, because it takes up a lot of vertical space and interrupts the prose on the page. Maybe it should be moved to the bottom of the page, or moved to a new page entirely (eg. "List of ethnic groups in Europe"). Either way, I've left it alone because its contents are relevant to the article.

-- turdas 00:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

who selected languages in the "Overview map of the distribution of the major languages of Europe"

Why do we have 'South Estonian' and 'Rusyn' - both being varieties / kindred languages of Estonian and Ukrainian - while we do not have Low German for Germany and Kashubian for Poland and Occitan for France and Pomor for Russia?
(France does not even have Breton language!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KKonstantin (talk • contribs) 21:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thats also my question. Were are this languages? Phillipm0703 (talk) 11:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Move to Indigenous peoples of Europe

Requested move 18 January 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Clear consensus against a move here. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 03:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Ethnic groups in Europe → Indigenous peoples of Europe – Harmonization. The article title is an odd outlier. It is the only one on indigenous people per continent which does not address these peoples as such. Therefore it needs to be brought in line with that of the others in the Category:Indigenous peoples by region:

Note that all these overview articles are either directly or indirectly categorized under Category:Ethnic groups by continent, just as this one, so there is no reason for making an exception for Europe.

Actually, when you look at it, the whole Category:Indigenous peoples of Europe is inexplicably skewed in that it is topically narrowed down on a small subset of 'exotic' minorities, while leaving out the much larger peoples of the Poles, Swedes, Germans, Italians etc., whereas in the case of the other continents even the largest indigenous peoples are included. I am not aware of any credible, non-political anthropological research which denies the term indigenous to the ethnic peoples of Europe of all alone, creating an accepted scholarly set of double standards.

Finally, while it is true that a small subsection of this article refers to non-indigenous groups, these complements have not kept the other continental articles from being titled as they are (e.g. Africa). Kind regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Article title should be brought into line with those of every other article dealing with Indigenous peoples of a continent. siarach (talk) 09:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps the problem arises from the meaning of Indigenous peoples, which is based upon the UN definition as those groups that are currently ethnic minorities within nations that have majority populations from colonial/settler ethnic groups. This is the definition in international law. The everyday dictionary definition of "indigenous" as synonymous with "native born" (as opposed to immigrant) is not generally accepted or ditinct; since those that have been born in a county but continue to speak the language and observe the customs of their parents or ancestors are likely to identify themselves as having a "hyphenated" ethnicity; but another individual may abandon the hyphen in the first generation. The "indigenous peoples" of Europe would only be minorities such as the Basques? The peoples of Europe that do not identify as either colonized or colonizers do not fit neatly into these distinctions. Distinctions based upon historical migrations and conquests, where there may not have been majorities tied to any geographic location, become even more problematical. For example, are Celts defined by language, heredity, history, or culture? Indigenous in one country but not in another? This rename would impose the term "indigenous" on people who do not identify themselves as such.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
It does make sense to unify titles that discuss analogous topics, but if there is a real difference in how the topic is discussed by experts, then it would be better to follow the actual terminology in use, even at the expense of uniformity. If the UN definition is in widespread use among anthropologists, historians, linguists, and other experts on ethnicity, then that should be reflected in the article title. It is better to have a title that stands out from similar titles than it is to have a title that is inaccurate. Consider how the sources treat the term "indigenous peoples" before deciding whether to make a change. In just a cursory examination, none of the works in the bibliography have "indigenous" in their title, whereas most of them have "ethnicity" or "ethnic groups". The article title should follow the prevailing terminology used by reliable sources, before any other consideration. After looking through the articles Indigenous peoples and List of indigenous peoples, it seems clear that there is a distinction between the case of Europe and the case of the places described in the other articles. "Indigenous" in this sense is used to distinguish one ethnic group from different ethnic groups that settled, invaded, or colonized an area later. By that meaning, there is no way one could consider the English or Russians an indigenous people, since there are no later settlers to contrast them with (though Basques, Sami eg. are considered indigenous to differentiate them from the current ethnic majorities of the regions they inhabit). In that sense "Indigenous peoples of Europe" would be a different article than this one, including only those ethnic groups named in List of indigenous peoples#Europe, and not those that make up the majority of the population of Europe. This distinction seems pretty consistent throughout the site, so unless you find some sources describing all of the ethnic groups of Europe as "indigenous peoples", then nothing should change. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
But the same objections can be applied to all the other continents. Why is it that ought only be valid for Europe? There are also those in all the other continents who are historical immigrants, many Europeans, but also those from other continents. So shouldn't all the other articles be renamed then as well? It makes no sense to have different headings for the entire world except for Europe even though the situation all over the world is the same. The only possible difference there is, is that of political motive. So either rename the other articles to "ethnic groups of", or give the people of Europe the indigenous status they are due.SonOfTheLion (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
If there are really objective reasons for treating Europe different from all other continents, these scholarly sources should be laid out here for discussion, but I find it hard to believe that such a Lex Europa should exist in anthropology. On what grounds? My sense is that the List of indigenous peoples#Europe is very much at odds with the general notion of what constitute indigenous peoples and in any case Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not saying that the other articles should be treated as definitive. However, no sources supporting this move have been presented. An editor's reasoning, valid or not, is not enough justification to make a move when the existing information argues against it. The UN website about indigenous peoples (which seems like a good place to start) contains this: "Indigenous peoples are inheritors and practitioners of unique cultures and ways of relating to people and the environment. They have retained social, cultural, economic and political characteristics that are distinct from those of the dominant societies in which they live." Furthermore, the UN Guidelines on Indigenous Peoples' Issues lists several definitions, all of which emphasize a distinct culture among a dominant society that came later. If that definition of "indigenous people" is the prevailing one, then this article is not about the "indigenous peoples of Europe", and naming it such would be misleading and inaccurate. If there is a definition more generally accepted or more appropriate here than the UN one, then there should be some sources explaining it. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While the description "indigenous peoples of Europe" is accurate, the term indigenous peoples is typically used (as reflected in the UN definition) for marginalized or oppressed peoples whose distinct way of life (not only language) is more noble or worthy than that of the oppressors or marginalizers. That is not the case with the peoples in this article. Instead, the term most often refers to peoples like the Lapps or Nenets. Note the usage in Indigenous peoples of Africa where the term normally only refers to groups like the Pygmies or Bushmen. It is the List of indigenous peoples that has problems and should be culled. —  AjaxSmack  20:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose even a glance at the article shows it's about ethnic groups, not indigenous peoples. Hungarians are on the map in the lead, they're not indigenous, they're from Asia. For anyone who demands an initialism for justification, there's WP:DESCRIPDIS. Ribbet32 (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as argued above. This article is not primarily about "indigenous peoples of Europe" as the term is defined. The title "ethnic groups in Europe" accurately describes the contents of this article. It contains useful information that is broader in scope than "indigenous peoples of Europe", and shouldn't be cut, changed, or renamed to fit a topic that would be better served by its own article. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 05:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above, though we could have an article on actually indigenous peoples of Europe. It would need a whole section on different ways to define that. Many would include the Hungarians at this point, while others would not even include the Indo-European groups and only include the Basques, Lappland Finns (Saami) and other groups (mostly extinct/absorbed, like the Picts) that pre-date the Indo-Europeans. A problem here is that "indigenous" in the socio-political sense most of us are familiar with means "present in an area before European colonists arrived", so that most common definition is automatically inapplicable to Europe itself. While anthropologists and such may have alternative definitions, they are not the ones users will be familiar with.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼  05:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - clearly not about indigenous peoples. BobLaRouche (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Odd Group Out

Loving the racism above. Everyone can be indigenous to a place, except Europeans, who just exist because white skin and oppression or something. Never mind that Europeans have been taken as slaves by non-European people in even recent human history. But, if disgusting racism makes you feel better about yourselves, have at it.173.179.145.202 (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

That is just baseless lies. 88.106.238.93 (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Sorry I am late, but the article you linked to refers specifically to the United States. From a broader perspective, the claim that: "Europeans have been taken as slaves by non-European people in even recent human history." is entirely correct. See: here Rapid Disassembly (talk) 19:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Breton language is missing from the map

If Basque is there, so should be the Breton language.

Here are examples:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierebean (talk • contribs) 11:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

White people are indigenous to Europe.

Why is this one the outlier, Misplaced Pages? Are you trying to say that white ethnic groups aren't indigenous to any part of the planet? Did they just coalesce magically from the ether? Forget about your little "UN definition" loophole, you know damn well that "indigenous" means "came from here originally". Brits are indigenous to Europe. Irish are indigenous to Europe. Germans are indigenous to Europe. Italians are indigenous to Europe. Spaniards are indigenous to Europe. Poles are indigenous to Europe. WHITE PEOPLE ARE INDIGENOUS TO EUROPE. Your rewritings of history will never change actual facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C44:5400:8A9:F4C6:26E7:32A4:B487 (talk) 06:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Our ancestors were blacks, the 10,000 BC came from Africa. Even a racist IP can not change that. Phillipm0703 (talk) 11:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
They were not blacks like the Sub-Saharans that are referred to as that. Europeans, or "white people" and Sub-Saharans, or 'black people', have common ancestry from thousands of years ago, they have gone down different evolutionary paths, one did not give birth to another, a population from a much earlier time gave birth to both of them, and very gradually as-well (considering inter-mixture with archaic humans, multiple migration waves and the time it takes for selection pressures to make extreme effects). If we ignore that, and go by the logic you have applied, we could go even further back, to when Homo Sapiens arose out of East Africa, are not then the Ethiopians and Somalians indigenous to the lands of the Nigerians and Congolese? Are the nations of East Africa then simply indigenous to the whole world? From Europe, to Australia, to Nunavut, Araucania and even Tibet? Where-over the nations that formed there and have long histories, mythologies and ancestry there live? Norigoth (talk) 20:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

There were no whites in Europe until they colonised the entire continent and wiped out the indigenous population. 88.106.238.93 (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Naturally. WP should really stop pushing this right-wing propaganda that light skin developed through "an evolutionary adaptation to reduced sun exposure at higher latitudes" and tell people the truth. That white people are actually invaders from space who systemically massacred the Paleolithic population of Europe and then settled it for themselves. Dieknon (talk) 07:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Yiddish incorrectly classified as Semitic?

I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that Yiddish, albeit written with the Hebrew alphabet, is a form of German. Settimio Sarpi (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)Settimeo Sarpi

Not exactly. From what I can see, and what little I know of Yiddish, it's sort of an amalgam of German and Hebrew--Vercalos (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Yiddish is Germanic, and Indo-European. It has words of semitic origin, but calling it a semitic language is not consistent with it's consensus based classification. I have corrected the information on the page.Paolorausch (talk) 06:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Paolorausch, Yes, I see you removed it from the list of Semitic languages in section Linguistic classifications in this edit, I've gone ahead and added to the list of Germanic languages higher in that section; the parent article Languages of Europe claims 600k speakers. Mathglot (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Turks a native european etnicity?

Turks must not be concidered neither european nor a native european ethnicity, the genetic admixture of the population the Turkish Republic is heavly related with central asian, iranic, and levantine ethnic groups, making it heavly mixed population and represents a problem to affirm that they are europeans, this is consistent with the statistics of the genetic strains of the Turkish population that show a majority of genetic halogroups not or barely related or present in native european populations, this statistic shows this:

1: about the 15% of turkish population belongs to the R1b group, with the clear distinction that there are two lines, the Western European and the Western Asiatic, wich in the practice those individuals can be easly distinguished into distinct ethnic groups, this can be easly confirmed with the geographical location of Anatolia in relation as the Western Asiatic line, this mean ethnic groups not native from europe,

2: around the 24% belongs to the J2 group that is barely present in eastern-southern europe and have its origins in middle east, Levant, iranian plateau and central asia, wich itself is divided into to two sub-groups both of them (again) in massive connection with native/indigenous middle eastern ethnic groups wich clearly are non-europeans,

3: the 10% presents G group, that is found massively within the Caucasus region, particularly the south of the Caucasus, with their origins in western Asia, not even from european regions of the Caucasus.

4: the rest are just pure non-european, yet diverse Asiatic, and African genetic groups and sub-groups,

Sure there are turkish citizens that have in some degree pre-turquic Anatolian, Greek, Georgian, Circassian and Slavic ancestors, but they are a minority, this issue clearly cannot make the turkish populaton to be concidered as ethnic europeans, this issue represents a mistake, concider the turkish population as ethnic native europeans on the grounds of the existence of an ethnic minority, for an example it's like concider as europeans the whole population of Mexico (130 million) just because 15-20% of them are ethnic europeans, or concider the whole population of Brazil (208 million) as europeans because 47% of them (less than the half) have partial or full european ethnic backgrounds,

another present issue, is that according to laws of that nation, all of them are concidered as part of a so-called "turkish ethnicity" this law forcibly englobes and mix on purpose, Turquic, european, iranian, and levantine ethnic groups as a single "ethnic group" misbased on the notion of a single homogeneous unified culture, based on history, customs, language and belief system, this, heavly supported by politics related to the turkish nationalism and the aspiration to become a member of the EU, when in reality all this represents a problem because none of this elements can be concidered ethnically and culturally linked to the elements of european nation-states,

I suggest that we should define clearly that, Turkish is a nationality and not a real ethnic group in the same way that we understand ethnic groups like Slavic, Italic, Germanic or Iberian, If there is a truly a case of a Turkish ethnic group, should only include real turquic people, wich are neither indigenous nor native europeans, and not include the pre-turkish/ottoman Anatolians, Hellenics, Georgians, Circassians and other indigenous European groups absorbed by the Turkish invasions in Anatolia and Eastern Europe into the ottoman state.

In a few words, i suggest that we must make a clear distinction between european ethnic groups, and non-european ethnic groups that are living inside the current Turkish republic as turkish citizens and not concider Turkish as an etnicity nor Turks as an european population, because they are clearly not one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.138.16.130 (talk) 04:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Sir, the article is Ethnic Groups IN Europe. Turks are an ethnic group in Europe.Paolorausch (talk) 06:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Hungarians

The number of Hungarians is underestimated here with 10 million. Even Misplaced Pages's very own article puts their number higher than that. If you add up their numbers in Europe, you get to at least 12.5 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.63.149 (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

You are very right, if you consider the lowest estimates, there are at least 12.5 million Hungarians in Europe, but this number can reach even more than 13 million, because many ethnic Hungarians chose not to specify their ethnicity in surrounding countries, fearing the consequences, and we don't have exact numbers of Hungarians working abroad, with emmigration reaching outstanding levels in the past few decades. Zsovar24 (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Related RfD discussion

Please see:

--K.e.coffman (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Removal of Jewish ethnic groups

2A02:ED0:52DE:CC00:680E:86FA:7268:F300 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) recently proposed the removal of Jewish ethnic groups from the list. The rationale in their edit summary was:

Askenazi jewish and other europeqn jewish cant indifey as western asians because they are historial resedints of europe and they are dont holding any western asiqn cultural things also 99 of them %99 holding europeqn genetics and their cultural day life are european more than west asian and also you cant ignore the real western asians who carrying haplogroup j2 and j1 and e1b1b1 jewish holding mostly european genetics they are white and they are blonde and they look like europeqns more than arab

I have reverted these pending changes because the edit appears to be controversial. Please feel free to discuss the removal of this content here. — Newslinger talk 14:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Swedes

The article puts the number of Swedes between 10-15 million in Europe, while if you add up the number of ethnic Swedes living in European countries, according to Misplaced Pages's own article "Swedes", that number doesn't even reach 9 million (c. 8.6 million). Moreover, if you consider the fact, that around 3.2 million inhabitants of Sweden were of a foreign background in 2017, that number goes down to c. 7.6 million. I think this difference of more than 2 million is big enough to get Swedes down from that list. Zsovar24 (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Lots of OR and unsourced material

There is a huge amount of unsourced material in this article. Just because it's an article written as a parent in summary style, or has portions copied from other Misplaced Pages articles, doesn't absolve this article from the requirements of Misplaced Pages's verifiablity policy. I've tagged a few sections with {{unsourced section}} or {{refimprove section}}; if references are not forthcoming within a reasonable time, any editor should feel free to start removing unsourced content from the article per WP:V. The burden of proof is on the editor adding the information, not on the one removing it. Mathglot (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

British to English

I've changed the ethnolinguistic group from British to English, as ethnolinguistic seems to imply grouping based solely, or predominantly, on the language, and the various other entries in the table seem to be based entirely on native language speakers (such as Germans, French etc. etc.) within Europe, regardless of politics or self identity.

The language isn't British so referring to this grouping as British, an explicitly political term with little ethnic bearing, seems even more inaccurate than referring to them as English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 10:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Should also include the 4 million or so native English speakers of the Republic of Ireland, if it is to be consistent with the other entries in the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 10:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Original research removed

I have removed the so-called table of ethnic groups as a rather severe violation of Wiki-policies about original research. The table apparently equated language with ethnicity, claiming (for example) Austrians as Germans, the Flemish as Dutch, the Walloons as French etc. That's nonsense (and rather insulting to many people as well). Moreover, both the groups, the assigned countries and the numbers were put together by Wiki-users. Again, OR applies. Jeppiz (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Native Americans in Europe

In the article, it mentions there's a small number of Native Americans, but what about the estimated 50,000 in Germany? Many are members of the US Armed Forces, and the histories of Spain and the UK had Native Americans after western contact by Europeans in the 1500s-1800s. Germans seem to have strong affection for Native Americans, their histories and cultures, including Adolf Hitler said some historians. 2605:E000:100D:C571:4C1D:EB7D:B365:D7B4 (talk) 07:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

European ethnic groups by sovereign state - Switzerland

The ethnic majority of Switzerland are the Swiss people people, not Germans (the people of Germany). Actually, Germans are a large minority in Switzerland. Swiss people speak their own variants of German, French and Italian, furthermore Romansh. Swiss German is spoken by about two thirds of the Swiss people, predominantly in the North and the East of the country and consists of a group of allemannic dialects. It is used especially in everyday communication and is diffcult to understand for untrained speakers of German Standard German (the commonly used variant in Germany), in formal contexts or written form, Swiss German speakers use Swiss Standard German, which resembles more closely German Standard German.

Swiss people pride themselves on being a linguistic diverse, but unified nation, so calling a speaker of Swiss German an (ethnic) German, might be understood in such a way that is insinuating völkisch concepts, meaning the German-speaking parts of Switzerland should belong to Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:1A4:9840:71DA:E329:8413:D1FA (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Relies heavily on one source that I'm not sure anyone has read

Much of this article relies on one source: "German monograph Minderheitenrechte in Europa co-edited by Pan and Pfeil (2002)." The same phrase used in this article "According to the German monograph Minderheitenrechte in Europa co-edited by Pan and Pfeil (2002)..." is repeated verbatim across dozens of websites, which makes me doubt that anyone is actually reading this German book, and instead just copying and pasting the phrase and source from other sites. I can't find it in any university libraries. There is an English version, which again makes me wonder why all of these websites are citing the German version in the sentence that they're all repeating. I was able to find the introduction from the English version here (http://medien.bwv-verlag.de/9783830538660_p.pdf). Furthermore, from what I can actually find about the book, it's being misrepresented in this article here: "there are 87 distinct indigenous peoples of Europe." The book is about national minorities. It uses the phrase "traditional ethnic groups," NOT indigenous. Maybe this is a mistranslation from the German edition, but it needs to be removed unless someone can produce actual text from the book to back this up.

Also, this article seems very confused as to what nationality, ethnicity, and indigenous mean, and is relying on a misrepresentation of this source to do so. The references to indigeneity should be removed or limited to the Sami and few others genuinely classified as such. Pan and Pfeil define ethnicity in the introduction of their book as "Ethnicity should be understood here as the ethnic identity or sense of belonging of a person, that is, the identification with the language or culture of a people," and yet much of this article treats it as something genetic--in arguing that Ashkenazi Jewish people, for example, are "non European" by citing several articles on their genetic ancestry (one of the articles cited is actually about their European maternal DNA) and ignored a shared European language, culture, and identity (ie ethnicity). Likewise, Turkish and Hungarian ethnicities are listed as non European despite having evolved into unique place-based shared cultures in Europe. Ethnic identities change, some disappear (not the people themselves!), and new ones emerge (ethnogensis). This article gets lost in trying to decide which European ethnic groups are "native" to Europe (and thus really European) and which are not, and that discussion doesn't belong in an article about ethnicities. Ceneri (talk) 03:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Ceneri, I came here to discuss this. I'm curious to know what page of the source this claim is found on. I was able to find the actual link from the publisher here: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-211-35310-3. And, the file is out there...
The original version of this sentence originates from an edit by User:Dbachmann at 15:24, 16 December 2008. In its original form:

Pan and Pfeil (2002) count 87 distinct "peoples of Europe", of which 33 form the majority population in at least one sovereign state, while the remaining 54 constitute ethnic minorities. The total number of national minority populations in Europe is estimated at 105 million people, or 14% of 770 million Europeans.

This was only changed in June 2020 by User:Dietic, who is now blocked: link]. There is no explanation for the change; as such, I am going to revert this to the original text.
Anyway, according to Kurgan hypothesis, the Urheimat of IE language and culture is the Pontic–Caspian steppe c.a. 4,000 BCE. To me, this would imply that IE peoples are not indigenous to Central and Western Europe, rather the edge of Eastern Europe and Western Asia. And, many IE groups migrated to the rest of Europe well after
We know that people did inhabit Europe prior to IE migration further into the continent (the Basque language may be evidence of this). I think the question of contemporary European indigineity relies on how much influence Old European culture, genetics, language, etc. influenced those groups that immigrated. However, this is a question for academics and I have no knowledge of what the consensus on this currently is.
Personally, considering the comments above regarding the "white race" and similar content I removed from the actual Indigenous Peoples#Europe article, it sounds like this is part of an agenda.

This article gets lost in trying to decide which European ethnic groups are "native" to Europe (and thus really European) and which are not

I think your comment above dovetails well into what I've said above: the reason this article does not make sense is because modern European ethnic groups are _not_ native to most of Europe...hence the confusion. If you want to hit your head against the wall a couple more times, check out List of indigenous peoples#Europe, which is a complete mess.
This article and related topics need a complete rework.
--KaerbaqianRen 22:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

IP introducing factual error

Twice already, IPs have changed the claim by Richard Lewis that Uralic originated in the Urali Mountains to claim Lewis says they originated in East Siberia. This is dishonest editing, Lewis never writes that in his book and so we cannot claim that he does. We'll have to require page protection if IPs keep misrepresenting what sources actually say. Jeppiz (talk) 02:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry, it was indeed WP:Synth. I have now included the new study below, without changing the Lewis citation. But I do not understand why you removed the whole edit. A simple fix would have been easier.213.162.81.102 (talk) 08:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
The IP is a sock of WorldCreaterFighter, a well known LTA editing genetic topic pushing a East Asian agenda.195.208.178.74 (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
The content included by the sock IP is furthermore WP:OR. The first study about Uralic languages does not speak about East Asians or East Asian geneflow, but mentions the arrival of an Siberian component to the Baltic region, possibly linked to the Uralic expansion. This component refers to the "West Siberian hunter gatherers", not East Asians. As we can see above, the IP sock also tried to manipulate other content but was stopped by a careful user Jeppiz (talk · contribs). Secondly, the content claimed to be from Reich is WP:OR and WP:Synth. Reich did not said such things, and the modeled components are sublineages of the "West-Eurasian genetic cluster", the human lineage which split from Ancestral East Asians 45,000 years ago soon after the Out of Africa migration. The content is pure WP:POV of the Austrian IP sock of https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/WorldCreaterFighter, see also this discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Austronesier/sandbox#Woolen_footwear.195.208.178.74 (talk) 09:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I must apologize, but it seems I made a mistake, the content is actually fine and verifiable. I will revert my removal.195.208.178.74 (talk) 01:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The second part is still WP:OR after checking again, thus removed. I have worded the first part more neutral. One study not "studies" as example.195.208.178.74 (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Can you clarify as to why this is WP:OR? TheGEICOgecko (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
TheGEICOgecko (talk · contribs), the Reich paper distinguish these components, but they are all "West-Eurasian" lineages, not as distinct as modern Europeans and Chinese. As such it is WP:OR. At least the editorial from 2018 newspaper (also fails WP:RS in this topic.195.208.178.74 (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
The editorial does indeed fail WP:RS, so it should not be considered. Is there a reason from the paper itself for WP:OR to apply, or perhaps from a different reliable source? TheGEICOgecko (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
The paper itself is fine. Thank you.195.208.178.74 (talk) 12:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

European ethnic groups by sovereign state

I just deleted the whole list for the following reasons: Much of it was unsourced - I put the relevant maintenance template there one month ago, but no sources were added. Also: Even some of the seemingly sourced lines were WP:OR. E.g. the line referring to Germany made the ridiculous assumption that Sorbs and Schleswig-Holstein Danes are ethnic Germans while Germans with one immigrant grandparent are not. The assumption that Basques are ethnic French is similarly ridiculous. The assumption that "White British" form a distinct ethnic group in the UK is equally unsourced. And so on. Feel free to restore a well-sourced list. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the lack of credible sources is concerning. However, there are plenty of WP:RS within the mix. I believe it worthwhile to update/clean up the section, rather than just disregarding it altogether. Examining the sources case by case (with the intent of removing any WP:OR) may be the more tedious approach, but probably more reasonable compared to a simple blanket delete. I have added an update section template to the paragraph with the hopes that it (along with this discussion) will garner the attention of editors willing to assist. Cheers, Archives908 (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Russia, and Sweden have references. That's 14 out of 44. Of these, the source given for Germany doesn't support the claims, and that for the Netherlands supports only minor claims (I didn't check the other 12). I don't see how that's "plenty of WP:RS". Updating is not the problem. The problem is OR, and my template hasn't attracted any editors for a month now. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
And your point? Some CN tags have been around for over a decade. Just because sources haven't been added in 30 days, it doesn't mean that they won't, nor does it justify a blanket deletion wherein some sources are present. If sourcing is a concern to you, you have also had a month to help fix it. Alas, Misplaced Pages is a voluntary project and Rome wasn't built in a day. I can go through the remaining 12 when I have extra time. In terms of adding new ones, hopefully this talk page discussion (which was only just posted today) will draw attention. Archives908 (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
WP:V is a core content policy. The material in articles about ethnic groups is often abused to support nationalistic or racist views, so we have to be very careful here. Another problem is that we have very different types of society in Europe. While in some cases (e.g. Latvia), there are mutually exclusive ethnic groups, other cases (e.g. Germany) have less distinctions and the groups are more fluid. I'm going to look at each country individually and remove everything that is badly sourced and also the unsourced lines if they don't seem plausible. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Germany and the UK

Where is Germany in the table 197.186.1.56 (talk) 12:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Also the UK is missing; besides England, this also cuts out Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
If nobody objects, I will add rows for these countries so that others can fill them in from RS. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
While the model of dividing the population into different ethnic groups surely is a good model for some states, I'm not so sure about other ones. In the case of Germans there seem to be no good sources that "Germans" primarily denotes an ethnic group. In the case of Britons, which one is the ethnic group ? Britons, or English people ? Rsk6400 (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Firstly, this is a list of sovereign states in Europe. Every such state should be represented and the status of its ethnic grouping (or otherwise) summarised. So these sovereign states need to be reinstated here. Secondly, your questions are largely answered in the demographics articles I added links to but you deleted instead of following through. For example the Demography of the United Kingdom gives a detailed Ethnic demographic breakdown. So all that is needed is to lift the relevant facts from there and fill in the rest of the row here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:23, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
As I stated in the discussion preceding this one, verifiability is one of WP's core principles. Completeness of lists is not. Regarding Germany (or France): Ethnicity is not part of the census (difficult to imagine for Americans, but true), which has to do with the way our societies see themselves. Regarding UK: Is White British really the majority identity ? Or should it be English (or White English) ? Any reliable sources for that decision ? Rsk6400 (talk) 07:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Are you having trouble following up the references cited in the section on the UK's Ethnic demographic breakdown, which I linked to especially for you to follow up? If you do so, you will see that the UK does actually incorporate questions on ethnicity in its census forms and publish the results. Why are you asking me to repeat it here? If I were to restore my edits and copy-paste those references into them, would that keep you happy? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
No. Rsk6400 (talk) 11:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Can you please explain why those sources are not suitable? Blanket denial is not discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
No, that's the wrong way. According to WP:ONUS it is you who should explain why certain sources answer my question which one is the ethnic group ?. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Is White British really the majority identity ?" Yes
"Or should it be English (or White English) ?" No (as they are amalgamated into one group being White British)
"Any reliable sources for that decision" the 2011 census figures which are perfectly acceptable source for this sub-section as it relates to demographics. Tweedle (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, Tweedle, for the helpful contribution. But still I doubt that we can decide the question based on a primary source. A quick search on Google books found this quote, distinguishing between the 52 million English, the Lowland Scots and other groups. That the census amalgamated English and Scots into one group doesn't say that an ethnographic academic source would describe them as one group. Those Scots who voted for independence in the last referendum don't seem to want to be in the same ethnic group with the English. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Sure, but to avoid a problem like this we can simply state that it amalgamates them so it is clear to people when reading. All of the current entries on the table list are based on primary source census figures and due to the fact there are no coherent figures on how many 'White: English' people there are its best to use White British as an effective proxy. Tweedle (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
If you want to be specific anyhow, you can state that because the Scottish census differs slightly in its ethnic question, that there exists 4,446,000 enumrated (in 2011) 'White: Scottish' people (but again this is amalgamated into the larger White British figure) Tweedle (talk) 12:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
In my understanding, the no-OR policy of WP doesn't allow us to decide what "to use ... as an effective proxy". With regard to other countries: As far as I see, most breakdowns are according to indigenous populations (e.g. Belgium: Flemish and Walloon), and that would correspond to English people / Scots etc. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
No but when a country collects ethnicity data using its national census then I think it should be rightfully included. Your never going to get a perfect metric or answer which fully gets the best picture of ethnicity within the country but when one exists it should be included and sourced.
Belgium does not collect ethnicity data (and is not sourced to anything), neither does Finland, Iceland, Norway, Denmark, and Sweden, all of which collect 'Origin' data which is a metric based on a mix of your country of birth and nationality status, so is a poor example to use (and should probably be removed). Tweedle (talk) 09:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

FWIW I have been watching this discussion and I am in agreement with Rsk6400 about the concerns which are relevant to an article like this. Ethnicity is not a simple or uncontroversial concept. People identify in many different ways at once. Ethnicity is one of them, but even just looking at ethnicity people can identify as being in multiple ethnic groups or even none. When WP editors substitute things like language or nationality they are using a proxy. It is true that some surveys and censuses ask people to identify themselves. That's about the best we can do, but of course to make this possible people are given a multiple-choice question, and the way that question is set-up is very important, and almost never the same in any two surveys. In English many see themselves as both British and English, but there is a whole spectrum of ways in which people weigh these two related concepts. Many countries have such complications. Practical Problem: There are many types of data we could report which are relevant, but when we put apples and pears in a table we (WP) can obviously create a lot of misunderstandings unless it can be very clear to readers how to interpret the different types of measurements being used.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

All this makes me question the validity of the whole table here. All we can do is to cite such RS as we find. We should not be cherry-picking our RS for different entries in the table, arguing technicalities against one source but letting another at least as dubious pass. One Ring to Rule them All. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree, I know for a fact that the majority of countries for Eastern Europe do collect ethnicity data (albeit alot of it is out of date, like Ukraine or Macedonia) but for Western and Central Europe this is not the case (this link if you scroll down a bit gives a list on those who collect ethnic and racial data). Alot seem to have footnotes provided if they don't from when I assume they were originally added.
Belgium, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Italy (which looking at the sources I think is going off of foreign nationals? I know they don't collect ethnicity data) and Greece don't, not sure about Switzerland though. Tweedle (talk) 10:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Dropped stale unsourced material

Three years after tagging it, nothing was done to cite unsourced material, so I've dropped it per WP:Verifiability and WP:BURDEN. Anyone is welcome to restore this material, as long as it is accompanied by valid citations to reliable sources. Please do not restore unsourced content. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Do CN tags expire? I do not believe that is valid enough reason to delete such a plethora of information. Archives908 (talk) 14:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Linguistic Map missing many languages

The linguistic map is missing many languages such as Astur-leonese, Aragonese, Genovese, Lombard, Neapolitan, Galo, Elfdalian, Manx among others. The map is labeled as "major languages" but Asturleonese has a lot more speakers than Ladin, for example, and still it's not on the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fueyo222 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@Archives908 and Academic10: It's a bit sad to see that you were edit warring twice without ever taking the dispute to the talk page. As far as I can see, neither map is sufficiently sourced, see File:Simplified Languages of Europe map.svg and File:Rectified Languages of Europe map.png. I removed both according to WP:V. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Rsk6400- Let's get the facts straight. Several IP's began removing/replacing maps without explaining why. I merely restored the article to the last stable version. You yourself did the same thing and had every opportunity to start a discussion here, but did not. Regardless, the IP's should have explained their edits, or after being reverted, should have brought their suggestions to talk. After the IP's got nowhere, along came Academic10 who proceeded to replace the map (without any explanation) just as the IP's did. Academic10 then brings the discussion to my personal talk page, which is by far, not the appropriate place for a discussion about this article. Now that we got the timeline of events correct, let's discuss the map. The original simplified version of the map has been updated continually since 2017 and has been a standard on this article for many years. The rectified version, meanwhile, has not been updated since 2015. Academic10, I'm perplexed how you think a map which hasn't been updated in 9 years is more accurate? Your argument that the map is "visually easier" is null since you can't even expand the image on this article. Rsk6400, thank you for finally starting the talk page discussion. However, your removal of the original simplified map lacks justification. I noticed you again restored the map before removing it entirely. I believe you should restore the status quo and then present your arguments here and let's all try and reach a consensus. Agreed? Archives908 (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Archives908, you had every right to restore the status quo. But you could also have started this discussion here, especially since Academic10 is a new editor. I didn't see the discussion on your talk page, but you are right in stating that your talk page is the wrong place for it. The reason why I removed the map and don't think it should be restored is that the map itself is not sufficiently sourced. Only the sources for Belarusian, German, Rumansh, Slovenian and Ukrainian are given. But on WP, all information must be verifyable, and this includes the information contained in maps. Rsk6400 (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, Rsk6400. I do agree with your concern, however, I believe the map to be sufficient (at least, at the most basic level) and useful in terms of providing a general visualization to readers. Perhaps the map itself can be worked on and improved? It seems that other editors have been trying to actively update it. Therefore, perhaps it would be wise if you restored the status quo and we can tag the image itself requesting additional citations. Thoughts? Archives908 (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
The fact that "Simplified" has been updated several times may not be a good sign, it could also mean POV pushing, something that frequently happens on Commons (note that I don't say that it really does mean that). If we look e.g. at Alsace and Lorraine, "Simplified" is certainly not up to date and shows a much larger German speaking area than there is in reality. The only solution would be drawing a completely new map from a good, secondary source. Verifiability is a core principle on WP, providing dubious information is not. That's why I think we can't restore an unsourced map, tagged or not. On the other hand - this article is about ethnic groups which in many cases are not identical with language groups (e.g. many ethnic Ukrainians use Russian as their first language) - so a language map is not necessary here, and we should solve the problem of an ethnographic map (newer than 1896) first. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Procedural note Talk pages are for discussing content, not "who did what". As for the map, it seems sufficiently good. It's not perfect by any means (I see several minor errors) but still better than most language maps of Europe. None of the languages mentioned by the OP is a major language by any stretch of imagination, some of them are not spoken by the majority population in even one village and hence would not be shown on a linguistic map. Jeppiz (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Bosnian, Serbs and Croats are three construction nations I Bosnia and Herzegovina. Serbs and Croats are not "majorities". Z71sam (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: