Talk:European ethnic groups/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 →

Contents

What is this article about?

  • According to JRWalco: "This article never claimed to be about Europeans as an ethnic group. It is about A COLLECTION of groups that are European."
  • According to KarenAER (1): "But you still seem to be unable to comprehend the difference between "Europe's ethnic groups" (which you fabricated that I had agreed that they would constitude this article's scope) and "Europeans as an ethnic group(s)" (my quoted argument.)"
  • According to KarenAER (2): "Caucasian: "1 relating to a broad division of humankind covering peoples from Europe, western Asia, and parts of India and North Africa. 2 white-skinned; of European origin. 3 relating to the region of the Caucasus in SE Europe." [4]

So this article is about one particular definition, namely the second one. Other articles, meanwhile, is about other definitions too. Why is it so hard to understand? " Ramdrake and I have been engaged in various disagreements with both JRWalco and KarenAER. I think we are going nowhere and one reason I think is that JRWalco and KarenAER seem to have different ideas about what this article is about. I think if we are to make any progress we need to first sort out any disagreement between JRWalco and KarenAER. The JRWalco and KarenAER (1) quotes above seem to me to be diametrically opposed. I suggest that Ramdrake and I and others step back for a while and see if JRWalco and karenAER can come to an agreement. Is this article about a collection of Europe's different ethnic groups, or is it about Europeans as an ethnic group? JRWalco and KarenAer, please discuss. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Some things are said too quickly and inappropriately simply as a means of retorting to quickly appearing arguments. Articles already exist on the demography of present-day Europe. This is my position as to what I think this article should be:
This article should address the uncontroversial fact that there are ethnic groups that are native/indigenous to Europe.
Wherever I use the expression "European people" I mean people that are from European ethnic groups and not "A European ethnic group" (although Europeans may someday become an ethnic group they can't presently be called that based on the definition of what an ethnic group is).
The groups in question are ones that appeared, formed, existed, and continue to exist in Europe. This is exactly the same as any other concept of a native people and should reflect the same kind of a time range so be reasonable. In other words I know that all humans are from Africa and that there are now communities from other countries in Europe so this article should not include them because they fail to qualify under the basic understanding of the words native/indigenous.
This article should survey broad ideas relating to the ethnic groups in question. In other words -European culture a concept that should also be uncontroversial. As far as skin, eye, hair go these are obviously things that are often associated with Europeans, and these have sparked concepts and ideas that shaped the current situation in Europe. Genetics is to me also pretty obvious seeing as that has become an uncontroversial means of classifying human ancestral groups.
As has been discussed in one of the above discussions this article should not be based on self-identification. In other words, it should reflect the most common world opinion of who these native Europeans are. I live in New York, a highly multicultural city, and when I say "European people" it is understood that I am not referring to Nigerians (no offense to Nigerians). If a group considers itself European but is not by others then this should be mentioned.
I believe what I've stated is reasonable and relevant to this concept. JRWalko 23:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Before anyone else comments, I would like to know whether KarenAER agrees with all of this, some of this, none of this, or agrees with it but believes that key points are missing. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with JRWalko completely. This article should ne be about ethnic groups that are native/indigenous to Europe. So this article should be about Native Europeans such as Native Americans. As I said:
This article is about ethnicity. And if you aren't ignorant about ethnicity, you'd know that one of the definitions of ethnicity is based on descent. This article is about that kind of definition of ethnicity. This is the standard with X people articles in Wiki. Observe the English people. Now if that article was about English ethnicity, why would 25 million Americans be listed on the info box at the top right? Clearly X people articles in Wiki is about ethnic X. Thats why Xers are disamb pages. So is European. Observe more X People pages. KarenAER 00:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, we can all agree that this article is about ethnicity in some relation to Europe. I think we disagree about the nature of ethnicity and its relation to Europe. The two of you have stated your positions. I would like to state mine, and I would like all three of us to wait and give others an opportunity to state theirs - at that point perhaps we can more clearly identify points of contention and decide how to proceed. KarenAER states that one of the definitions of ethnicity is based on descent. I know that this is one of the definitions; it is Weber's definition, although he adds continuity in custom, language, religion, and values as well. It certainly has a place in the article. I think there is aother view or set of views that belongs in the article. Ronald Cohen, in a review of anthropological and sociological studies of ethnic groups since Weber, observed that while many ethnic groupos claimed common descent and cultural coninuity subjectively, objectively there was often empirical evidence that countered such claims [1]. Harold Isaacs has identified other diacritics of ethnicity, among them physical appearance, name, language, history, and religion [2]. Thus, Joan Vincent observed that ethnic boundaries often have a mercurial character [3]. Ronald Cohen concluded that ethnicity is "a series of nesting dichotomizations of inclusiveness and exclusiveness" [4]. He confirms Joan Vincent's observation that (in Cohen's paraphrase) "Ethnicity ... can be narrowed or broadened in boundary terms in relation to the specific needs of political mobilization [5]. This is why descent is sometimes a marker of ethnicity, and other times it is not. Which diacritic of ethnicity is salient depends on whether people are scaling ethnic bondaries up or down, and whether they are scaling them up or down depends generally on the political situation. This means that an article of ethnicity in Europe has to include case-studies of ethnic groups defined by different diacritics, historical studies of ethnic identities being scaled up or down, and a discussion of the political contexts. In fact there are a great many books and articles we can draw on for such case studies, which will result in a well-referenced encyclopedia article. I have already mentioned two, one by Cole and Wolf, one by Karakasidou, but I am sure we can find others. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm still confused about this ethnic identity of Europeans, as KarenAER puts it, it is about Native Europeans, like Native Americans. And if there is such a thing, then the title of this article needs to reflect that ethnicity, and should be changed, as there are many countries in Europe. Many of which have their own articles already. Greeks, Irish, German, Spanish people, Italian people, French people, I can list many more, even Vikings exist on Wikipedia. Please explain more, who are the "Native Europeans"? Thanks. - Jeeny Talk 03:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
For starters, I need to see some RS treat people in Europe as a lumped ethnic group as this article does, as that is needed in order to provide definition and scope to this article. Right now we have an unsourced definition, some OR, and the physical appearance and genetics section of contested relevance to an article about an 'ethnicity'. What we need are RS that treat this as a topic, and treat Europeans as an actual ethnic group, rather than simply discussing people who live in Europe. If this cannot be established, then this article probably should be deleted, as per WP:OR we aren't supposed to define new topics or create "novel narratives." The Behnam 04:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


I'd like to comment on Karen's statement above. She seems to be contradicting herself and JRWalco. Firstly JRWalco states "Wherever I use the expression "European people" I mean people that are from European ethnic groups and not "A European ethnic group"". This seems perfectly reasonable to me, presumably he means groups such as Sami people, Hungarian people and Basque people, none of which can be claimed as groups related to each other, but all of which are undoubtedly European ethnic groups. Karen then states that she completely agrees with JRWalko, but goes no to say "This article is about ethnicity.....This is the standard with X people articles in Wiki. Observe the English people." But the English people article is about the English ethnic group and nation, this group is indisputably an ethnic group and nation. On the other hand Karen has already accepted that European people do not form an ethnic group.[1] From my reading of this JRWalco is saying that this article should be about the ethnic groups of Europe and how they share some cultural and social markers, but Karen seems to be saying that European people is an equivalent concept to English people in contradiction to herself and to JRWalco.
I'd like to additionally address JRWalko's claim about genetics. There is absolutely no reason why we cannot have some genetics in this article, but it will confirm that ethnic groups are social constructs, there is no evidence of distinct genetic discontinuity between the ethnic groups of Europe. There certainly have been reports of genetic structure in the European population, but these do not identify most ethnic groups as being genetically distinct. For example it is apparent from the work of Bauchet et al. (see this article) that Finns belong to a distinct genetic "cluster" (that probably Karelians and Estonians belong to), but that people from Ireland to Poland also belong to a single cluster, but it is clearly absurd to claim that the Irish ethnic group is in any way related to the polish ethnic group. This work also shows that Ashkenazi Jews belong to the same cluster as Greeks and Armenians and people from the south of Italy. The only ethnic groups that could possibly be considered genetically "distinct" are Finns, Basque people and Spanish people. Maybe this is a function of sampling (the research group didn't sample many ethnic groups and tended to sample by state rather that geography), who knows, but Europeans do have some genetic substructure, and this structure does not generally mirror ethnic identity. All the best. Alun 05:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

A google of "European people" shows links mainly to the European people's Party (a block of parties in the European Parliament) and to Wikipedia.[2]. Also there is a map of native ethnic minorities of Europe that may be of some use here Cheers, Alun 05:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Another quick comment. Karen claims that one way to look at ethnic groups is that they have a common descent. slr states that often ethnic groups have a heterogeneous origin. I think this is why the definition at the top of the ethnic group article states "An ethnic group or ethnicity is a population of human beings whose members identify with each other, either on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry[1], or recognition by others as a distinct group[2], or by common cultural, linguistic, religious, or territorial traits." The presumption of a common ancestry or descent is not necessarily a de facto common ancestry or descent. This is evident in the case of English people, who clearly have heterogeneous origins, from Angles, Jutes, Saxons, Ancient Britons (which comprised of several ethnic groups) etc. And yet the origin myth is that the English are the descendants of "Anglo-Saxons" who "invaded" in the 5th-6th century. Stating that ethnic groups presume that their descent is common, is not the same as saying that an ethnic group is a group with an actual common descent. Alun 08:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
My first suggestion (confirmed from reading the preceding comments, but which I had in mind way before that) is that this articles should in fact be named European peoples; plural. While there is truly an emerging pan-European identity and somewhere down the road the Europeans might be considered a single ethnic group, this emerging identity hasn't consolidated yet, so what we have as a verifiable, encyclopaedic topic is a collection of ethnic groups, with dissimilar cultures and moderately different aspects, whose two common characteristics are 1)that they have shared the same continent (albeit for variable amounts of time) and 2)are part of the same large "racial grouping", whites (albeit according to many POVs they are far from alone in this racial grouping). I wouldn't object to an article describing the various European cultures and ethnic groups, but would certainly find it OR to read about an article which describes the Europeans as a single ethnic entity. I would also object to the Europeans being described as a single racial entity, for the reason that they are arguably not the only ones sharing this particular racial identity, according to many definitions. I also think that wanting to exclude from the definition groups such as the Ashkenazi, and Eastern European Muslims based on the fact that one has been in Europe "a mere 2000 years" and that the others do not share the dominant religion grouping of Europe (Christianity - those thinking of Christianity as a single, unified religion may lack familiarity with the tenets of the various denominations of which it is composed) is inappropriate and looks like arbitrary exclusion on the face of it. But as a historical and geographical grouping, "European peoples" would be an appropriate encyclopaedic subject.--Ramdrake 10:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is pretty much a consensus that this article should be retitled "European peoples" and be about European ethnic groups, emphasis on the plural - only KarenAER persists with the claim that there is a single European ethnicity and she has yet (after many days of debate) to provide any reliable scholarly source. I think there are two bones of contention between me and perhaps others, and JRWalko: (1) his view of genetics and its bearing on ethnic identity, which many people would consider controversial, and (2) what words like "indigenous" or "native" mean. If JRWalko can agree that this article will (1) make scientific claims only when they are backed up by reliable scientific sources, and (2) that the article rerepresent all major views, including scholarly views, concerning claims to indigeneity, as well as any debate over whether indigeneity must be a component of European ethnicity, as long as they are appropriately sourced, I think we can move on. What do others thing? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I havent made any such claim. If you can not comprehend my arguments, ask for clarification. Otherwise, stop misrepresenting my views as you've done before (ex: [3] ) KarenAER 21:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Karen, if you think I do not comprehend your argument, then clarify it. Why do you not clarify it right now if you think I am misrepresenting it? Slrubenstein | Talk 10:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect Karen you clearly sate above that "This article is about ethnicity.....This is the standard with X people articles in Wiki. Observe the English people." But how can European people be compared with English people in any rational way, without concluding that you are making a claim for "European people" being an ethnic group. You don't make any attempt to clarify what you mean in your response to slr. He is only making the point that I make above, which you have also refused to address. Simply claiming that people are not understanding you does not help. If you feel that your position has been misunderstood then I can't understand why you have made no attempt to explain it. You simply demand that someone ask for clarification, but surely if you feel that your position has been misrepresented then you should take this opportunity to explain what you mean. It really is unclear what your point of view is. You really do seem tot be contradicting yourself here. All the best. Alun 02:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I would agree with presenting differing views on who is or isn't to be considered a "European people", as long as each view is backed with a verifiable, reliable source (much preferably scholarly, but popular views can also be presented, as long as they are cited and their attribution is clear).--Ramdrake 11:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

My view is that genetics don't determine ethnicity but nevertheless ethnicities are characterized by their genetics. I think it's obvious that there is an overwhelmingly strong correlation between ancestry and culture and language. Keep in mind everything we talk about is meant to be true "on average" or be statistically significant in at least 90% of cases as these are the most common rules of statistics. So being an R1b doesn't make you Irish but the Irish tend to be R1b. So when you have stats that show ethnic comparisons they are relevant because one (the reader) can draw conclusions about the relationship of ethnic groups. To be native to Europe depends on the time frame you're talking about. For an ethnic group however this would (as I expressed above) entail being created and persisting to occupy the continent of Europe. In other words where is that groups "homeland"? As far as the other two point go I'd go to look at it case by case. Some things are not scientific claims, they are scientific facts. I shouldn't have to provide a source for a fact like: Britons are a European ethnic group. That is obvious and I'd have to visit a library's Kindergarten section just to find a book that would state something that obvious. We should discuss things case by case. I support some and I oppose others. The last of Slrubenstein's statements (major views, etc); it should express all MAJOR views and it needs to stated who thinks what (I mean mostly nations: Do Britons consider Scots European? etc). As to the indigeneity as a component of being European I would say also case by case. Greek Cypriots come to mind. Historically religion also determined this which was the reason why Turks were not considered European despite having territories there while the Armenians were despite not having any European territory. These would have to be marked somehow since it's not our place to determine these things. JRWalko 22:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Above, JRWalko wrote, "think it's obvious that there is an overwhelmingly strong correlation between ancestry and culture and language." This is simply not true in any general or absolute sense. There may be places and times where this seems to be the case, but when you look at all the data it isn't so, indeed, that these three variables are not reducible one to the other and are independent is one of the principle discoveries of modern anthropology. Source? It was so well-established before WWII that you would have to go back to that time. Franz Boas's Race, Language and Culture is the major statement - really collection of statements, as it is an edited volume of studies on just this question - on the topic. Kroeber's Anthropology too. Now, this does not mean that people cannot claim a correlation between ancestry culture and language, but in virtually every case anthropologists have debunked those claims. that does not mean that the claim has to be excluded from Wikipedia, but it canot be presented as a scientific claim, it has to be presented as an ideological or political (or whatever) claim. As suggested in Cohen and Vincent's definition of ethnicity, people will make this kind of claim under certain political conditions; under other conditions they will not. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
This point is very well made by SLR, indeed I have only read a little about anthropology myself (and that about Molecular anthropology), but it is clear to me that anthropologists disposed with this fallacy a very long time ago. Thanks for making this point so clearly SLR. Alun 11:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I mean a statistical correlation. In other words if you sample the world population (I'm making these numbers up now) say you get 3% who list German as their native language. I think that you will find that overwhelmingly those 3% also list themselves as belonging to the German culture and being of German descent. You're welcome to prove me wrong on this one but I don't think you'd find these variables to be independent of each other in any significant way. You just won't find 3% of people who speak German, then a separate 3% who have German ancestry, and then a separate 3% who identify with the German culture. I think this is essentialy true of most ethnic groups, certainly overwhelmingly in Europe. This would only not be true in the case of languages of European colonies but I think a thing it's apparent that the common language of the native people of a French colony and French people (as in the native inhabitants of France) does not in any way mean they're the same ethnic group. JRWalko 00:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
You are mixing different things up. It is obviously true that most citizens of the state, Germany, speak German. But not all German citizens have the same ancestry. Moreover, their national identity is as I am sure you know a relatively recent invention, that dates back no earlier than Napolean and really not earlier than Bismark - prior to that time, most germans did not belong to the same cultural or ethnic group. Now, as you know, most germans speak dialects of German and many speakefrs of dialects of german share very little ancestry with Germans, I am referring primarily to Ashkenazik Jews whose language, Yiddish, as a dialect of German. I admit that there are probably some small Islands in the South Pacific where all members of the same society speak the same language and are all closely related. But once you move to contintents, the statistical correlation starts to fall apart.Your example of France is a good one - England serves well too: most speakers of French and English have different cultures and different ancestry. To go back to the South Pacific island exception: I have no doubt that you can find exceptions to the anthropological fact that language, culture, and race are independent variables with independent histories (esp. that explain their distribution) - but they are exceptions. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I'm really enjoying this discussion since critical thinking should always be encouraged. We're having a discussion about semantics and those discussions tend to be problematic because of dual meanings. I'm having trouble resolving the meaning of the terms "ethnic whatever" and "a person of whatever ethnicity". I'd appreciate a clarification if there is one so I can use the proper term that I mean. Secondly I know that the German identity formed recently but I don't fully grasp how Germans don't necessarily have a common ancestry? Wouldn't you say that most Germans believe their descent to be from Germanic people? I'm not aware of a German idea along the lines of "Americans" where ancestry is assumed to be undefined. With respect to Jews I would really like to not have a discussion about this now because this is impossible to determine due to inclusiveness and so on. I think their case is unique as far as this discussion goes. JRWalko 03:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I am glad you are enjoying it - I know both of us want to see this article improved. First, about ethnicity: social scientists do not have one definition of it, because there is on uniformity or constancy by which people identify themselves in ways that can be called "ethnic." I tried to explain it above: what people mean by their ethnic group - what defines its boundaries, what are its criteria for inclusion/exclusion - is sometimes paradoxical in that people generally claim a great deal of continuity in whatever constitutes their ethnicity, yet historians and anthropologists time and time again discover objectively discontinuity and change. Clearly this means that there is some value to the belief in stability or continuity for most people, even when they and their world are changing. Most social scientists would agree that at different times and places people claim different things as the basis for their ethnic identity: similar appearance, common ancestry, language, religion. This does not mean that an ethnic group has all these things in common, it means members of an ethnic group generally believe they all have one of these things in common. Given your own interests I highly recommend Cole and Wolf's The Hidden frontier - obviously you care about this and find it interesting, I am sure that even if you do not agree with all the book's conclusions you will be glad you read it. It is a classic case-study concerning ethnic boundaries and identity in Europe. Now as far as Germans go, perhaps most Germans believe they are all closely related - I do not know, but let's say they do. Just because they believe it does not mean it is true. As our knowledge of genetics has increased we have learned that most claims about relatedness among human groups are at best arbitrary. I will give you a very simple example. Within all cells (with the exception of blood cells0 there are two kinds of DNA: DNA in the nucleus, and DNA in little things called mitochondria, in the cytoplasm. Scientists believe that long before we became humans, mitochondria may have been symbiotic parasites (there once having been independent would explain their having their own DNA). In any event now they are part of us and play a crucial role in metabolism and we really couldn't live without them. It is the nuclear DNA that affects of physiology; mitochondrial DNA does not express itself. This is crucial because it means natural selection acts on nuclear DNA but not Mt.DNA. This means that our nuclear DNA changes at a faster rate than our MtDNA. Moreover, we get our MtDNA from our mothers. Consequence: in every generation, a child's nuclear DNA is different from his parents. Over many generations however the MtDNA in a female line can be relatively unchanged. This means that individuals with the same or very similar MtDNA have a common female ancestor, and that ancestor could have lived thousands or even hundreds of thousands of years ago. Perhaps you have read about "Mitochondrial Eve" - some scientists use this data to claim that all humans are decended from one ancestor x number of years ago (I forget how many but it is a lot). By looking at variations in MtDNA caused by random mutations (MtDNA does change over generations - just far more slowly than nuclear DNA), scientists have grouped people into groups that are descended from specific anonymous females who lived sometime after "Eve." You can send a sample of your DNA to some lab, they will analyze it, and assign you to one of these groups. Now, this is about as strong evidence as we can get for grouping people togethe who have a common ancestor. NOW for the flip side: imagine yourself as patriarch. You have children,they have children, they have children - 20,000 years from now the number of people descended from you will be enourmous, God willing. But now look at it from the other direction: of course you have a great great great great great great great great great grandfather, and LOTS of other people are descended from him. But do you know how many great great great great great great great great great grandparents you have? Check my math but I think it is over 2,000! See my point? MtDNA isolates one common ancestor for LOTS of people. But this woman is only one of thousands, tens of thousands, of other ancestors any person has from the same generation as their MtDNA ancestor! Certain facts of nature and advances in technology allows you us to say "all these people have one ancestor in common." But so far the same facts of nature and technology make it utterly impossible to know about all the other ancestors. And while millions of people today may have one woman ancestor in common from 100,000 or 50,000 years ago, there is simply no reason to think that all their other ancestors are in common. indeed, it is much more likely that they have many many many ancestors not in common. Conversely, let's say you and I pahy for the lab analysis and discover that we can be traced to two distinct MtDNA ancestors. Okay, so that one ancestor of ours is actually two different people, we do not share her. But does this mean you and I are not related? No. Because we have thousands of other ancesotrs and there is no reason why we can't have some other ancestor in common. Genetics just does not enable us to trace it. However, the heterogeneity of genes in any human being has led scientists to calculate that there is more genetic variation within so-called races (and certainly, ethnic groups) than between races. How can this be? Obviously a white person with blue eyes and straight blond hair has different genes from a black man with black eyes and black curly hair. But these biological markers for race (or ethnicity) are the expressions of only a handful of the genes in our DNA. Blood type too is genetic, but we do not group people by race or ethnicity according to blood type. A black and white man may have the same blood type, and two white men may have different blood types - when it comes to the gene for blood types, people of different races can be more alike than people of the same race. And blood type is but one other genetically determined trait, there are many others. When people claim that their racial identity is based on physical (i.e. genetic) similarities with members of the same race, they are selecting only a small set of genes by which to make this claim, and are ignoring all the other genes. I am trying to show you why from the point of view of inherited genes the question of how closely related people are, or how different they are, is far more complex than most people's notions of descent and ancestry. So how closely related are Germans? Honestly, we would need to look at actual research, I haven't. But I know that since Roman times central Europe has been a landscape for the massive movements of diverse peoples, who sometimes avoided one another and other times intermarried. There is absolutely no reason why people living in Bavaria and people living in Spain or Italy cannot have a common ancestor a thoursand or two thousand years ago - or indeed many ancestors in common. From what we know of genetics, it is pretty likely. I am sure too that there is one person that most Germans are decended from. But if Germans choose to consider that person "their ancestor" and ignore the ancestor they have in common with people in France or in Poland, they are making a cultural and political choice and fronm the point of view of genetic science it might as well be arbitrary. I hope this helps somewhat. Slrubenstein | Talk 04:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Everyone has 2,048 great great great great great great great great great grandparents... That's 12 generations conting you (it takes to the middle of the 17th century if you were born around 1970/80). If you double the number of generations (to 24, early 14th century), you have 8,388,608 ancestors just in that generation. If you double that to 48 generations (around the 7th century), you have 140,737,488,355,328 ancestors in that generation alone - much more than the world population today... Remeber the number doubles at each generation! The Ogre 15:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure most editors knew what I'm about to say, but that's also more than the number of people who've lived on this planet since the beginning of mankind. This just goes to prove that some of your ancestors had to have been related, (i.e. the same people may appear more than once in your genealogical tree).--Ramdrake 15:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to point out only the fact that geneticists can make a strong case that people who inhabit a region share one distant ancester does not in any way mean they are more closely related to one another than they are to neighboring groups. That is all.... Slrubenstein | Talk 16:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm very familiar with methods of DNA analysis but thank you for the explanation for the benefit of others reading this discussion. To me ethnicity must carry a type of belief of common descent. Here I mean ethnicity not in terms of say "speakers of Polish are Poles" but rather in this sense of the word - (from MW dictionary) "of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background". It's clear that though the Irish and the Poles are both Catholic they are not the same ethnic group. Though the Britons and the Jamaicans both speak English they are not the same ethnic group. Though someone may be a German citizen they may not be a German (though there is such a definition I absolutely disagree with the idea that legal citizenship has anything to do with ethnicity). On the other hand, with regards to ancestry, I think any time someone is of mainly French ancestry they would be French. I think ancestry is a prerequisite for any subsequent claim on ethnicity. In other words though an African may be a German because he speaks German, embraces German culture and so on, he could not be an ethnic German because A) His ancestry is too far diverged from that of all the other Germans (yes I know about admixture and all that) and B) His "culture" can't seriously be considered the same because his ancestors did not share the significant cultural experiences of German (and pre-"German state") people. This case is evident if you look at Tatars who have inhabited Poland for hundreds of years and despite sometimes self-identifying as Poles the majority of Poles would not recognize them as such. To get back to what is relevant to this article I don't believe one can be an ethnic German without being of near German ancestry. Though the peoples have mixed they have not mixed THAT much. What could possibly be the ancestral diversity of a nation like the Germans? So you'll have many people from France, many from Poland, many from Denmark, and outside of that you're really going to start to get to into some really insignificant numbers. I doubt that people who would be considered Spaniards in 1000AD account for some greatly significant percentage of modern day Germans for example despite the historical relations of the two countries and migration. Still I'd find that a lot more reasonable than a claim that Iranians make up a significant percentage because let's face it for a Muslim to move to Europe in historical times would've been highly problematic. I had a Czech ancestor but that doesn't exactly make me Czech when 95% of my other ancestors were not that and I've never even been to Czech Republic. So my view boils down to the belief that an ethnic group will have significant common ancestry (at least to a reasonable degree). Not all Italians are Etruscans but I'm pretty sure a good deal of them have their ancestry come from the Italian peninsula. JRWalko 14:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It may be your personal opinion that common descent is a requirement for ethnicity, but that is not the consensus among social scientists because they have documented cases where this is not true. It is true that often times a belief in common descent is an important diachritic of ethnicity, but again, anthropologists and historians have found so many cases that they cannot even be described as exceptions. NOR if forbidden, and NPOV further forbids us from inserting our own views into articles. Reliable verifiable sources make it clear that a belief in common descent is one of several possible diachritics of ethnicity. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction

The section "Identity and Culture" seems to contradict itself. "European is particularly common as an ethnic descriptor for those populations. A good example of this is the European American, to identify a person from the United States with European ancestry..... In the United States, it is rare to call people of European ancestry "European." Such people are sometimes called "white," but more generally are labelled by the nation their ancestors are from (e.g., English Americans)." So what is common? On the one hand we get a statement that European is particularly common, with the US given as an example, then a few sentences later we are told that is is rare to describe a person as European in the USA. This should be clarified. Alun 05:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It needs clarification. It's meant to mean that people don't state that they are European because they have a more specific term for their group (ex. Dutch) but when someone says "Europeans don't agree with US foreign policy" they mean the Brits, French and so on. Keep in mind in many countries the terms white and European are synonymous (Australia, Canada, Norway,...) while in others they are not. JRWalko 00:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
So what you're saying is that European=whites is a minority view, correct? Australia, Canada and Norway are just a few counties in the whole wide world. - Jeeny Talk 04:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
A list of the countries within Europe (I haven't encluded all, but most):
  • Eastern Europe
    • Belarus
    • Bulgaria
    • Czech Republic
    • Hungary
    • Moldova
    • Poland
    • Romania
    • Russia
    • Slovakia
    • (Turkey)????
    • Ukraine
  • Northern Europe
    • Findland
    • Denmark
    • Estonia
    • Findland
    • Iceland
    • Ireland
    • Isle of Man
    • Latvia
    • Lithuania
    • Norway
    • Sweden
    • UK
  • Southern Europe
    • Albania
    • Andorra
    • Bosnia
    • Croatia
    • Gibraltar
    • Greece
    • Italy
      • Italian people
    • Macedonia
    • Malta
    • Portugal
    • Serbia
    • Slovenia
    • Spain
      • Spanish people
    • Vatican City
  • Western Europe
    • Austria
    • Belgium
    • France
    • Germany
    • Liechtenstein
    • Luxembourg
    • Monaco
    • Netherlands
    • Switzerland

Those part of EU, but not in geography are: Azores, the Canary Islands, French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Madeira, Martinique and Réunion. - Jeeny Talk 04:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

JRWalko sya, "when someone says "Europeans don't agree with US foreign policy" they mean the Brits, French and so on." In this example, Europeans are responding to the policy of a state (The US, whose foreign policy is determined by representatives of people of many races and ethnic groups) and "Europeans" refers to the representatives or citizents of European states, and race and ethnicity have nothing to do with it. We have gone over this before and we are still geting nowhere. KarenRAE clearly thinks "European" in this article has something to do with ethnicity, and KarenRAE says she agrees entirely with JRWalko, and I thought we all agreed that this article would have something to do with ethnicity ... but suddenly we are back to states, polities and their citizens. I wonder - and I say this with respect and in good faith and not to be insulting - if JRWalko isn't confused. Clearly, he is focused on "European" being more inclusive than French, Slovenian, Russian, etc. I think we al understand that the word "European" is more inclusive than something else (and less inclusive than "human being" or "world"). The quetion is, more inclusive than what? Specific territorial states, or specific ethnic groups. I argue strongly that it cannot be both. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that we should present several reasonable interpretations of who are European people, and some history. Where in history do we draw the line on migrations? For example, I think that the Moorish incursions into Iberia are pertinent as a latter day migration of a non-European ethnic group which influenced the ethnicity of the region, as are the Roman and Carthaginian influences there. The Britons who were early inhabitants of the British Isles now share the region with ethnic Germans (Saxons) and French/Scandinavians (Normans). These migrations are pertinent. How about more recent migrations? How about Gypsies, Jews, Turks, Mongols, etc. Is migration on foot and more pertinent than migration by Air Bus? --Kevin Murray 15:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Kevin brings up some very important points. I add only one thing: the Saxons who moved to the british Isles did not consider themselves ethnic Germans, or at least we have no evidence that they did. This is not a semantic point, I think it is very serious: we cannot project contemporary ethnic categories back in tiem without evidence that those categories existed back in time; to do so would be anachronistic, which is always bad history. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Also as an answer to the other discussion we're having on ancestry: Every kind of a group in the world is established in some form in Europe, whether it be a place of worship or a neighborhood. Some have been there for hundreds of years. I have always argued my point along the lines of my perceived relationship between nationality/ethnicity/ancestry/culture. As I mentioned previously I would most welcome a case by case discussion. I am not a fan of political correctness and thus I do not mask my views for fear of being called a racists or the like (which I do not consider myself). I would never consider Mongols to be European. That's completely ridiculous to me. I also don't see citizenship as a determinant of the concept that we're talking about. I thought that the disambiguation page was meant to handle the difference between "inhabitants of Europe" and "people of European ethnicities" and that this article was meant to discuss "what are European ethnicities?". As I've also said before I am not aware of European nations being similar to the "American nation" which is radically different. JRWalko 17:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Gallery

The gallery is cheap. Instead of putting people like Newton, Thomas Edison, Bach, Leonardo da Vinci, Alfred Nobel, Copernicus, we get unknown singers and stupid politicians? That's so silly. And the pics will be in the ethnicity box Template:European_people, just like other X people articles. KarenAER 21:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

  • This gallery was hijacked by MW, but several of us worked today to restore balance. The purpose of using notable but not famous people is (a) the images are available already at Wp, (b) the heritage is verifiable in the WP articles, and (c) we avoid celebrities overwhelming the purpose of the gallery. I would like to see fewer politicians but there are a limited number of suitable images at WP. --Kevin Murray 21:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


Do you not get it? The pics will be in the ethnicity box just like every other X people article. And there are tonnes of historical figures at WP Commons. And heritage of historical figures are verifiable. That invalidates a and b. And are Newton, Thomas Edison, Bach, Leonardo da Vinci, Alfred Nobel, Copernicus celebrities???!!??!?questionmark??? KarenAER 21:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I tried a few of these and was reverted based on B&W pictures, not current, etc. But if you can gain consensus for inclusion of these types with good meaningful pictures, I won't fight it. But get some backing before you tear up what others have cooperated on. --Kevin Murray 21:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The current gallery was a result of the work and cooperation today among, Murray, Ogre and Wobble, and represents the further cooperation with others last week to bring balance including reducing the amount of politicians and major celebrities, providing verifiable ancestories, etc. Please try to work together on this. Each photo has been pretty thoroughly discussed and the result represents a balance of nationalities and ethnicities -- men and women, old and young, blondes and darker. These are not arbitrary picks based on popularity. --Kevin Murray 21:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
This gallery is quite frankly stupid. I made my arguments. And there is no blonds in the gallery if you dont count the sweaty head of Kournikova. Most of them look ugly anyway and have no significance. They will be forgotten after a couple decades unlike the ones like Copernicus. And many Europeans dont accept Turks as European. So his existance in the gallery is not NPOV.
I'm proposing 8 people in the gallery. All these images are from Wiki Commons:
  • [4] (scientist) M (Italian)
  • [5] (musician) M (German)
  • [6] (royalty) F (English)
  • [7] (warrior) F (French)
  • [8] (philosopher) M (Dane)
  • [9] (scientist) M Pole
  • [10] (poet) Russian M
  • [11] actress F American KarenAER 22:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't you think this would convey an inappropriate message such as Europeans are nothing but historically famous people? I think this should be more oriented toward the relatively lesser-known people, and those for which we have an actual photograph rather than just an embellished painting.--Ramdrake 22:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
This is the standart with X people pages. Look at some examples English people, Han Chinese, Italian people, French people. Most people, fortunately, lacks your racism paranoia...KarenAER 23:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
That's like saying we should remove Einstein from Jews because it might seem like Jews are smart people. Or Maria Curie from Poles because that might mean all Poles are chemist/physicists. I don't think anyone would draw those conclusions. Nevertheless I remain neutral on gallery concepts. JRWalko 23:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, I don't oppose the inclusion of historically famous people, just their possible overrepresentation. Compare with the gallery in Black people, for example.--Ramdrake 23:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Then go and fix Black people. I dont care. KarenAER 23:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • While I commend Karen for her cooperation, I'm a bit reluctant on many of the examples, but not in whole rejecting her concept. --Kevin Murray 22:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
It is my understanding based on convention that European people are citizens of Europe. Just as American people are citizens of America. So I inserted some photos of European citizens. The original Americans are now referred to as "Native Americans". For example George Bush is an American, but he is not a Native American. In any gallery about Americans, he would be acceptable. It is these same standards that I applied to this gallery. A suggestion then is to name this article "Native Europeans". Muntuwandi 23:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
MW, I really love so much of what you bring to the table, but sometimes you are so full of shit! Really, why do you debase the finer parts of your contribution with this crusade. --Kevin Murray 23:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Your understanding is, as usual, wrong. Again: English people, Han Chinese, Italian people, French people. X people pages does not list citizenship numbers in ethnicity boxes. They list ethnicity by descent numbers. Citizenship information is at the article Demography of Europe KarenAER 23:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
The article on Naomi Campbell describes her as an English person. Muntuwandi 23:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
That's because she's good looking and we're all racist bigots here. JRWalko 23:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't get. Muntuwandi 23:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
She may be an English citizen, but she is not of an ethnicity indigenous to the British Isles, or Europe. --Kevin Murray 23:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
This is my point in general when referring to people using political entities such as Europe or America, citizenry is all that is required. To differentiate between citizens and aboriginals, terms like native, indigenous or aboriginal are applied. Like Australians and Indigenous Australians. However this terminology is normally used for populations that have been displaced and are in a minority. But when people say Australians, they mean citizens of Australia regardless of whether their background is European or indigenous. Muntuwandi 23:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
MW, you are just pissing all-over your own boots. This article is not about citizenship. You just keep cutting your own credibility. --Kevin Murray 23:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Therein lies the problem, the title of the article does not suggest that this article is not referring to citizenship. Once I heard a black guy telling a white south African(Afrikaner), that because he was white, he was not African. To my surprise the White South African turned red, fuming absolutely mad at the suggestion that he was not African. I think it is impolite to suggest that citizens of European countries are not European people. Muntuwandi 23:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I really dont believe this story since whites are fleeing South Africa [12] And can you not read the writing in italic at top? KarenAER 23:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes the english speaking south africans are fleeing south africa, not the Afrikaners. They consider themselves the only true "white african tribe".

While some joined a "white flight" from the country, many Afrikaners argue that they are a true white African tribe and far more committed to Africa than English speakers who are seen as hankering after life in Europe.
I feel really sorry for English-speaking South Africans. They are the one group in this country that has absolutely no identity. They get pop music from England and plays from Broadway; they've never formed a strong African identity.We for you South Afirca

Muntuwandi 00:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

@Karen. Mark Shuttleworth has described himself as the "first African in space" has he not?[13] Alun 03:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

@ Kevin, Karen and Muntuwandi: Just a point here, no one is an English citizen. England is not a state and there is no such thing as an English passport. The English are an ethnic group and nation, they do not have a government or a parliament, or such a thing as English citizenship. English people are British citizens, that is they are citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, just like Welsh and Scots and Northern Irish people. It states clearly on my passport that I am a citizen of the UK. Being English is about ethnic identity, and of course Naomi Campbell, Nasser Hussain, Monty Panesar, Phil DeFreitas, Sol Campbell, Paul Boateng, Oona King, Lenny Henry, Michelle Gayle (see Hattie Tavernier) etc. are all English. Colin Jackson is Welsh and Phil Lynott is Irish. Ethnicity is about identity, if a person belongs to an ethnic group it is because they identify with that group, and the other members of that group identify with them, skin colour is irrelevant. I refer you to above, Mark Shuttleworth is often described as the first African in space, but he would not normally be considered Black. Alun 02:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Above, KarenAER writes, "And many Europeans dont accept Turks as European. So his existance in the gallery is not NPOV." This shows her miscomprehension of NPOV. NPOV does not mean "we only represent the majority view." Indeed, that is by definition a violation of NPOV. NPOV in this case means we must represent multiple points of view. People have differing notions of "European" so 'any gallery of Europeans cannot claim to be of Euriopeans, but rather images of different people that sifferent people claim are Europeans. That is the only way to comply with NPOV here. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Pfft. Dont lecture on things you have no idea about. First of all articles may not contain tiny-minority views at all. See: WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. Secondly, if you are going to put non-Europeans in the gallery, you have to specify not everyone might consider them European. OR you may put them in a seperate gallery. Hence the reader will understand the controversy. That's NPOV. Not what your doing. KarenAER 16:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Pfft yourself; i never lecture on things I know nothing about. And mind your manners - you are not with your friends at the food-court in your local mall, you are with adults. In my comment above I did not say we should add non-Europeans to the gallery, I said we need to acknowledge multiple points of view concerning what is a "European." If there are reliable sources that document a European identity among Turks, then that is a valid POV. You wrote that "many Europeans do not accept Turks as European." Well, if you provide a verifiable source we can include that in the article too. But you cannot exclude all points of view different from that: to do so would be to violate NPOV. Maybe instead of wasting time practicing the newest verwion of adolescent sarcasm, you should read our NPOV and V policies more carefully and try, at least try, to grasp the spirit of the policies as well as the letters. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I know this is not a food court. But, you, should know that this is not a suburban barbeque with your friends where you can keep on lecturing/patronizing and rambling. So mind your manners as well. And your style. You are making the page hard to read and for others to understand the linearity (do you know what this means?) of the responses by constantly not spacing your posts one space further to the right than the entry you are responding to.
As for your cliche NPOV violation accusations, can you not read? I didnt say Turkey should be excluded. I said: "if you are going to put non-Europeans in the gallery, you have to specify not everyone might consider them European. OR you may put them in a seperate gallery" Now read that again and again until you understand or ask for clarification since I have no idea where you are coming from when you said "But you cannot exclude all points of view different from that..." That wasnt my suggestion. I only suggested excluding them IF their Europeanness were a small minority POV. This is in line with NPOV. If you dont know that, read NPOV.
As for Turkey, it is listed in West Asia, not Europe, according to UN Geoscheme, which is the standart in Wiki. See: United Nations geoscheme and educate yourself on basic geography.
But if you insist on another source:
"Not counting the tens of thousands of illegal immigrants whose very clandestinity places them outside the statistics, there are currently more than three million immigrants, descendants of immigrants, and naturalised citizens and political refugees from Turkey in Western Europe. This is the largest non-European immigrant group in the Union." [14].
So, I'm going to remove the Turk until someone finds a source about them being European. If such a source is found, then we will have to agree on something. Either putting him in a seperate gallery or somehow notifying readers that his Europeanness is controversial. Get it? KarenAER 20:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Do not remove the Turk, and the maps of light hair do not fit the article. They are not sourced properly for THIS article. No stop it. - Jeeny Talk 20:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Your personal opinions are irrelevant. Find sources for your positions (ie: A RS that says Turks are Europeans). The map is properly sourced. I'll report you for vandalism if you keep removing them. KarenAER 20:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I would think that 1)the fact that part of the territory is located in Europe and 2)it is a member of the European Union should be big arguments.--Ramdrake 20:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
MWAHAHA. Educate yourself please. Turkey is not a member of the European Union. And should we say Spain is an African country because she has territory there? Only 3% of Turkey is in Europe. KarenAER 20:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, if you want the fine print, Turkey is an associate member since 1963, and has applied for full membership. The fact that the 3% you speak of includes among other things the country's capital should also be mentioned. Istanbul (Constantinople) is at the vey least secularly European.--Ramdrake 20:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Again, educate yourself. You are clearly ignorant about this but I'm surprised you are incapable of a simple google search too. Istanbul is not Turkey's capital. Turkey's capital is Ankara, which is in Asia. And Turkey's EU membership is opposed by large segments of European public, reaching 81% of the population in Austria. KarenAER 21:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Missed on this one as you're right, the capital is Ankara. However, Istanbul is Turkey's largest city, its cultural and financial metropolis. As far as Turkey's membership being opposed, that's a fact, but didn't you advocate earlier that we should give preponderance to how nationals see themselves (as per WP:NCI), and in this case it is quite clear that Turkey sees itself politically and economically as part of Europe.--Ramdrake 21:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
No it is not quite clear to me. Israel is part of Eurovision and UEFA but it is not a European country. So find a RS which says Turks are European. Not your interpretation. KarenAER 21:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Citizens of European countries are European, they are not non-europeans. It is not possible to have a non-european-european. Muntuwandi 18:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I support a separation similar to topics dealing with European countries. These are commonly accepted as European countries...These are considered European for cultural, etc, reason...However I am still neutral on the gallery because I can just see how people will add controversial people all the time without any agreement. JRWalko 00:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I would agree that the gallery will require some monitoring to maintain the balanced photos agreed to by consensus, but every paragraph of any contentious topic requires the same effort. --Kevin Murray 15:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Problems with the current gallery:
1)People from the British isles are over represented.
2)There is a pic of Sami. Sami's pop number are max 100,000.
3)There is a pic of Chechen. Chechen's pop number is max 2 mil.
4)Yet, despite pictures of these people, there are no: Poles (pop:40 mil), Dutch (16 mil), Scandinavian(20 mil). Noone from Balkans. Noone from outside Europe but of European ancestry. So the gallery is unrepresentitive.
5)Too many politicans.
6)These people are, for the most part, historically insignificant.
So the current gallery is simply of pretty low quality. And I'm wondering what kinda consensus Murray is speaking of? Who agreed on this? KarenAER 20:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
You claim that 1) there should not be a picture of Sami people (why does their population number matter, they are an important indigenous group) and 2) that no Scandinavians are represented. Well Lapland is in Scandinavia. Alun 09:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

the gallery doesn't belong here, per {{cleanup-gallery}}. Such galleries are welcome at commons:; people interested in compiling galleries will find a more satisfying environment for working on galleries there. I've moved the gallery to commons:Europeans, please continue working on it there. --dab (𒁳) 07:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

  • DAB, while I agree that the gallery should eventually end up at commons, please leave it here while it is in development. When it stabilizes, I'd be happy to work with it at Commons. --Kevin Murray 14:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The gallery again

What is the Turk doing in the gallery? He is from the non-European (geographical) part of Turkey. The Chechen and the Georgian are also debatable. MoritzB 15:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Under the broader definitions of European, these examples are valid. I think that the text should make clear that there are different definitions of the term. Thanks. --Kevin Murray 15:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Under what broader definitions the Turkish guy is European? MoritzB 16:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Asia Minor is pretty much the antithesis of Europe. There is no way Turkey can be considered situated in Europe. Per {{cleanup-gallery}}, we don't want a gallery here anyway, move it to commons:European people. --dab (𒁳) 19:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I would agree, considering Turkey is a transcontinental country, that its largest city is situated in good part in Europe, and that it has applied for membership in the Eruopean Union (and is already an associate member), but I certainly won't go to war over this; however, I would appreciate if you could consider these facts.--Ramdrake 20:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The person is from Trabzond which is outside Europe.MoritzB 02:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Further research beyond {{cleanup-gallery}}, does not show that galleries are prohibited, discouraged or specifically preferred at Commons. In fact I dispute the validity of that tag as not demonstrating any true consensus position, just the opinion of the tag's creators. Please consider the ongoing efforts at Wikipedia:Galleries where there is an attempt to consolidate a policy guideline on galleries. Putting galleries at commons is an option and the examples given show situations of collages at Commons which appear on the pages at WP, not just the link style used by DAB. However, I think that we should stand-down on the gallery process until there is a solid decision on which peoples are properly included and the the format of this article stabilizes. Regardless of the delay, I still advocate some balanced visual presentation directly viewable here. --Kevin Murray 09:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


Languages map

This map is misleading in this context. It sits within the secton on ethnic groups, yet it does not illustrate ethnicity or culture, but language, which is not at all the same. For example: The island of Ireland is depicted as largely Germanic-speaking - fair enough as most are primarily English speakers, but genetically and culturally cetainly *not* Germanic, Anglo-Saxon, or the like. This is very mis-leading to the casual reader. I suggest this map be used elsewhere or otherwise removed from the article. If a valid map depicted ethnicities is inserted: great. Shoreranger (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. This articles obviously confuses language groups and ethnicity and needs serious revisions. People speaking the same category of language may or may not be part of the same "ethnic group." Languages and ethnicity are not the same. Of course they can overlap, but that does not make them the same thing. Would you equate the Romanians and the Portuguese whilst separating Slovenes and Austrians? That's just silly. Codik 12:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the map. There is already an article, linked in this article, that addresses European languages and includes this map. That is the proper place for it. Shoreranger (talk) 14:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The map is not irrelevant and cannot be misread or misunderstood, considering its caption. It is a helpful and useful addition to the article. I am unaware of any way of producing a map showing the current distribution of ethnic groups in europe, since no precise definition exists, so no precise statistics exist and therefore there is no hope to illustrate them graphically. Language is one aspect of ethnic groups: like officially declared religion, it is one of a very small number of scientifically measurable statistics where there is an obvious correlation. The objections above seem naive. Mathsci (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I strongly agree! There is no confusion here. The Ogre (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Please could User:Shoreranger counter the above arguments before reverting? This map has been in place for some time (following Dbachmann's creation of the new version of the page). --Mathsci (talk) 12:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Shoreranger on this one. His objections are not naive. The map is completely misleading to the casual reader. In fact, I fell prey myself: after viewing the map for a while and noticing many inaccuracies (such as the aforementioned missing Gaelic elements, the extent of Germans into Switzerland, Austria and Italy, and many others I wont get into) I realized it's actually about linguistic groups, not ethnic groups: the subject of this article. I came to Talk to comment on this and found this existing thread. The map does not work here because:

  • it suggests overlap between language and ethnicity is the major factor in defining an ethnic group
  • it IS confusing
  • it already exists in the languages article.

Since an accurate map is impossible, I suggest that no map is better than a misleading one. Dionix (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


The idea of "ethnicity" as a distinct think from cultural aspects is a very misleading and ethnologically wrong notion. What defines the "etnicities" IS specifically the language. No people in the world is unified by its genetics, nor is genetically homogenous. What make a nation homogenous, what makes a people to exist IS the CULTURE, and NOT the genetics. The main unifiying criterium of culture (alongside with religion) is the LANGUAGE. So I think this language map is having rightly all it place on this article, since "ethnics" groups in Europe are usually define on this scientifically mesurable element. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.59.166 (talk) 09:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

68 Million French ???

Hello. I was reading this page and I began to question whether up to 70 million people are of French descent in Framce. While there are no official statistics from ISTAT, estimates state that one quarter to one third of France is of non-French origin. There are millions of people in France who have Italian origins who are also indigenous to Provence, Rhone-Alps and Corsica rather than immigrants. Including Walloons, I would so there are no more than 50 million persons of direct French origin in Europe. Please is there any other opinions or statements??

That's the story of France. There are no "ethnic French", whatever that means, but many different regions and influences. Codik 12:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Under ethnic groups of Europe, why are Italians, Sardinians, and Friulians not added together. What make them so different from the French where they are added with Walloons and Romands; does not make sense.
I like (sarcasm) how we can also consider the Swiss to be under Germanic Europe, when Swiss persons can also be of Italian and French descent as well. In all reality, they form a confederacy of ethnic groups rather than a single ethnic group (see Wikipedia; Swiss people). Why are we so willing to consider the Swiss an ethnic group instead of the French. The French are as much of an ethnic group as Spaniards, Italians and the Dutch. - Galati


french "ethnicity", as well as any éethnicity" in Europe is defined by the language. It is the same for all European nation, such as Germans (Germans+ Austrians, Etc), all of them have not necessary the same origins. As long as their mother language is french the people are ethnically french. that's why the number is 68million (France 62millions+ French speaking switzerland about 2million+ French Belgium 4millions) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.59.166 (talk) 09:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)