Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:35, 5 June 2008

Europe Unassessed

This 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

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 Misplaced Pages; 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)

Turkic peoples

It always disappoints me to see editors battling it out at an article, but not working things out at talk. As soon as it's clear that there are multiple reverts going on, please immediately take things to the discussion page. --Elonka 05:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It disappoints me that you did not look at the diffs properly before making this kind of statement. As explained below, this was just an act of vandalism to the first two lines of the 12 lines on Turkic peoples. The editor was invited by three different editors to justify himself on this talk page, contrary to what you have suggested above. Mathsci (talk) 07:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

When I saw the edit war going on, I almost did the same thing and create a "Turkic" talk section. I read through some of the previous discussions about whether Turkic people were considered a European ethnic group, but it didn't seem like there was consensus as well as it seemed like it was just everyone's opinions. Bottom line: someone needs to find a source or two that would include this ethnic group, as it doesn't matter what anyone thinks. I don't know enough about the subject to even have an opinion; however, my opinion wouldn't matter if there were no sources to back it up. Kman543210 (talk) 05:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. --Elonka 05:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) User:Dbachmann created this page (from the problematic article European people), but did not supply a comprehemsive list of sources. One standard place to look is the CIA factbook. Turkey is a transcontinental country, geographically partially in Europe. It is made up of 80% turks, 20% kurds. Is it original research to proceed from there? Mathsci (talk) 05:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Both Elonka and Kman543210 seem not to have noticed something quite important. A careful examination of the diffs shows that this editor removed the header Turkic people and then Turks, but left 10 other Turkic ethnic groups. The editor's subsequent attempts to justify his edit are therefore rendered completely inconsistent. I can't see what this was other than cackhanded vandalism.

It seems that ethnic groups present in transcontinental European countries are for the purposes of this article classified as European ethnic groups. As in the case of Georgia, footnotes can give more detailed explanations where there is any ambiguity. Mathsci (talk) 06:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

See WP:VANDAL#NOT. --Elonka 07:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not a social or geographic issue, but rather one of history and ancestry. Included are only groups originating and indigenous to Europe. The Turk peoples have no commonality with Europe apart from currently occupying a portion of East Thrace as part of the Republic of Turkey. Koalorka (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

can we be reasonable about this? Turkey is a transcontinental country, hence the Turks living in Turkish Thrace are Europeans. We can give all sorts of qualifications to that, no problem, just try to find some compromise solution acceptable to everyone. dab (𒁳) 21:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You are speaking in terms of geography. This is an article about ethnic origins. The Turks, though a small percentage of them has been implanted onto the European continent through Ottoman colonialism, are not a European ethnic group. Koalorka (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

the truth of the matter is that only people from that region of thrace should be included as a european ethnic group being the vast majority of turkey is not in europe they all cant be european ethnic groups--Wikiscribe (talk) 22:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The only Turks in East Thrace that could be considered European are those of Greek, Macedonian or Bulgarian decent that have been Islamicized over the centuries and adopted Turkish nationality. Koalorka (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Populations of 4 provinces in European Turkey (=Turkish Thrace) in 2000 census according to Turkish Statistical Institute (cited in article)

• Edirne Province - 596,616
• Kirklareli Province - 328,461
• Istanbul Province - 10,318,765 (est. 12,573,836 in 2006)
• Tekirdağ Province - 623,591

12-14 million seems correct as a rough estimate 8 years later. Perhaps User:Dbachmann has other sources. I have no idea where the Turkish diaspora estimate comes from. It could be removed or modified if there is some ambiguity in what meaning it might have. Mathsci (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot the European part of Çanakkale Province. Mathsci (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, this is not an issue of nationality or geography. The Turks are derived from a Central Asian ancestry and are not indigenous to Europe. I cannot make that any more clear. Those in East Thrace could be considered European, if this were an article on geography, but it is not and pertains to those groups of people that had their origins in Europe. The Turks and Turkic people do not. It's really quite simple. Koalorka (talk) 22:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

And Russians are in part descendants of Mongols, and Spaniards have some North African blood too. We could use this argument ad infinitum and probably discount many more European ethnic groups. The truth of the matter is, Istanbul, the largest population center in Eastern Thrace, has a long history first as Byzantium and then as Constantinople and very much traces its root deep into ancient European culture (the Greek and Roman Empires, specifically). To deny its Europeanness doesn't really make sense.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, you are speaking about a confused geography and culture. This article is about INDIGENOUS European groups. Turks, despite occupying some historically European lands, do not qualify at all. Your comment about the Russians and Spaniards is also very inaccurate. For a greater understanding of the subject, please see HERE. Read carefully, then allow me to correct this article. Koalorka (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

WP articles are not permitted as sources for editing other WP articles. Please cite a book or a scholarly article. Mathsci (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not use it as a source. It was used to brief some of the confused editors on the scope of this particular page. Now, please cite a book or scholarly source stating Turks originated in Europe, otherwise, the information will be removed. Koalorka (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, this article is about "European Ethnic Groups", my take is it talks about ethnic groups with long-standing residence in Europe. Your definition of "indigenous" seems to me to be much more restrictive, and unsupported by independent, reliable sources.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Not long-standing residence. But groups that came into existence and came to be known what they are today from Europe. The Turks just happen to have colonized East Thrace from Greece through bloody conquest 500 years ago. This does not make them European ethnically. It's very simple. Any further questions, if no, I'll proceed to remove the false information. Koalorka (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You must provide sources for your statements from books or scholarly articles if you wish to make changes. Please provide sources for the statements you have made. Mathsci (talk) 23:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Funny, but I'd say 500 years is very long-standing residence.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

some of the turkish ethnic groups should not be here such as the Kazakhs they are not european and the article states that they are from central asia--Wikiscribe (talk) 23:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

All Turks are basically from central Asia, originally developing from Mongoloid stock. Naysayers, you are the ones that have introduced controversial changes, the onus of providing sources stating Turks are ethnically European is on you. Koalorka (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:CON. Please be aware that you need to gather consensus for your changes to pass.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. That is why I removed the Turkic people from the list. There was no consensus to insert this foreign group there. I usually find sneaky Turkish nationalists are responsible for those types of edits, pushing for acceptance of EU integration. Koalorka (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that I am a sneaky Turkish nationalist, basically Mongoloid from Central Asia? Was it something you found in my editing history? BTW personally I have slightly mixed feelings about Turkish integration in the EU, mainly because of problems of Islam fundamentalism, but that is not the issue here. I voted for British incorporation in Europe in the 1970's (probably long before your birth), again not the issue here, except to show that you might have made an extremely uncivil and erroneous personal attack on me. Might this help you to get certain things a little clearer in your mind? Mathsci (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Please be aware that most of the editors opposing the inclusion of Thracian Turks as a European ethnic group were subsequently indef-blocked. Since then, the consensus (which has stood for months) has been to include Thracian Turks. While you're free to test for a changing consensus, (there are a number of avenues for this), I reiterate that your POV goes counter to current consensus. Thus, the onus is on you to gather consensus to exclude. Also, please be civil as your comment above looks very much like an attack on Turks.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Why were they blocked? Where's the consensus? This all seems strange because the consensus itself seems like a POV push by a few. Koalorka (talk) 01:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope that there is no link between you and koalorka1 on Youtube and elsewhere. Mathsci (talk) 02:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I am glad to see that there is discussion going on about this issue. For best results though, I would ask that (1) Everyone focus on discussing the article content, instead of the editors; and (2) that discussions be source-based. It's not about people's opinions, it's about what the sources say. There also seems to be a bit of a disagreement about the scope of the article, as to whether it should include ethnic groups that originated in Europe, or whether it should include ethnic groups that are in Europe. It might be worth making separate sections on this, or flagging such groups accordingly (again, based on sources). I personally have no preference how it's done, but it may be a case that just changing a section header, may address the entire dispute. --Elonka 03:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly enough koalorka1 has just closed his account on Youtube within one hour of my post. Coincidence? koalorka1 made some of the most vile racist remarks (the N word) I have ever seen, still in google's cache. Also he had an interest in guns, was pro-german, was a member of a European patriot group and European Defence Force (even the creator) on Youtube, etc, etc. Mathsci (talk) 04:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The question you have asked about ethnic groups that originated in Europe is impossible to answer. The section on genetic origins makes this clear, since scientists now believe that Cro-Magnon man originated in Africa. Also the continual migrations over the history of Europe do not help things. We just have to take what is recognized as Europe - bearing in mind the ambiguities over the precise borders - and record the groups present now, whatever their history. Where there is ambiguity, we write careful footnotes based on sources, such as the CIA fact book. Where two sources disagree, we record that the matter might not be clear. This is what the current article does. One real problem (not a dispute) that this discussion has highlighted is that the article in fact lacks sources for various statistics, something that can easily be remedied. An expert editor is needed to handle the border problem. Mathsci (talk) 04:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)There are other difficulties. A large of Turkey was part of Greece in 500 or 600 BC. The city of Marseille was a colony of Phocaea in Anatolia, part of Ancient Greece, although technically Asia Minor. I have no idea about which ethnic group occupied Anatolia at that time or to what extent they continued to have a presence in the succeeding centuries. Undoubtedly this must be discussed in the scholarly literature. I can fancifully imagine that the Marseille pastis comes from somewhere in Turkey, a chic adaptation of ouzo. Anyway the largest ethnic group in Marseille seems to be the Italians, not the French. Just an example of how complicated things can be in Europe. The first evangelists in Marseille were Lazarus and Mary Magdalen who came to our shores from the Holy Land in their rudderless sailless boat. What ethnicity were they? Small pieces of their bones survive encased in gold, sometimes more bones than a human body normally contains, but I am not sure the Church has ever allowed them to be analysed scientifically. Mathsci (talk) 05:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Even though the genetic make-up of Europe is very complex and has been fluctuating over the centuries, we cannot introduce false information and use, say, simply the current demographics out of convenience. Koalorka (talk) 04:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no false information at present. You simply haven't accepted that Turkish Thrace or its inhabitants are part of Europe. It's not a good idea to make claims without producing sources. Referring to "sneaky Turks" is equally unacceptable. Please find the books or scholarly documents as Elonka has suggested. FYI I found one book on ethnic groups that did not list Turks among ethnic groups of Europe. (I didn't look at the rest of the book in detail.) Your quest: find that book. Please also try to see that this is not a black and white issue: the article will record ambiguity where there is ambiguity in the literature. Mathsci (talk) 05:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Koalorka, be reasonable. Turks, whether one likes it or not, have been in Europe for the last 600+ years (PS: it's May 29th). How much time should we let pass before we grant a group "autochthony"? In the end, we're all immigrants (imagine how the native -paleolithic or neolithic, depending on the theory one adheres to- peoples must have felt after the various Indoeuropean migrations, for example ;). Btw, Mathsci, do one's activities outside Misplaced Pages concern us? I'm seriously asking; is there a guideline? 3rdAlcove (talk) 06:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I'm not sure there is a guideline. Each case is different. But I would imagine that if somebody confirms that they are a regular contributor to Stormfront, it might be perceived that they have a COI if they edit articles such as Race and crime. In this case, apart from his self-created anti-Turkish userbox already mentioned, this editor has confirmed on my talk page that he posts elsewhere as "koalorka". There are postings under exactly that pseudonym on anti-immigrant gun-related forums off-wiki (guns are User:Koalorka's hobby). These circumstances are quite rare on WP. He is the one who has made several anti-Turkish accusations on this talk page, as if it were completely acceptable. In this case, his actions seem to have been condoned by Elonka, because she has not given him a specific warning, even following his 24 hour block for revert warring with 3 different editors.This incident is the only major trouble we've had on this page since it was recreated under this name. Mathsci (talk) 11:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

re "You are speaking in terms of geography. This is an article about ethnic origins. The Turks, though a small percentage of them has been implanted onto the European continent through Ottoman colonialism, are not a European ethnic group" -- Jesus Christ, have it ever occurred to you that "Europe" is a geographical term? This isn't the Nordic race article for crying out loud. If you want to discount "implanted" populations, I am afraid we will be left with the Basques, and perhaps the Sami. If even that. We might also redirect this article to Neanderthal, since the current populations all derive from Cro Magnon imperialist expansion. So the Turks were "implanted" only recently? As in, 600 years ago? Then where to draw the line? The Hungarians clearly aren't "European" in this case. And of course, about 99% of US Americans aren't "American" at all, but recently transplanted foreigners. Seriously, I don't know why we are even discussing this. dab (𒁳) 07:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with 3rdAlcove and Dab. If you wanna define European peoples, you do it by listing the peoples who reside in Europe in the current era, not by bringing forward the ethno-geography of the early medieval era or the mesolithic age. That's a fairly obvious point of neutrality. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There certainly is a distinction between (1) ethnic groups in Europe and (2) ethnic groups that underwent ethnogenesis in Europe - which is criterion the man on the street uses to distinguish between "European" and "Non-European". The problem is the article title does not distinguish between the two, and both can be construed as "European ethnic groups". Simply put: this dispute is the result of a "loaded" title. —Aryaman (talk) 10:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The neologism "ethnogenesis" is probably outside the vocabulary of the man on the street :) Mathsci (talk) 11:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Right...which is why he gets broadsided in a forum like the present when he tries to defend his belief in a difference between "people from Europe" and "people in Europe". No, he hasn't studied ethnology/ethnography, and usually cannot articulate his position. Which makes it all the easier to dismiss him as an uneducated closet racist crackpot-in-the-making. Alas, that doesn't change the fact that the distinction I mentioned above does exist, and is at the root of the problem with this entry. —Aryaman (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

We must agree to differ there. This talk page is not a forum as you suggest. I have no idea what ethnogenesis means in the context of migrations such as the Norman invasion or whether it is in fact used by historians in that context. There is the notion of integration and assimilation of immigrants (like me in France); personally the only part of myself I have reinvented but alas not perfected is my accent. I self-identify as British, only as English during the Rugby World Cup, if things are going favourably for us - Perfidious Albion. However, it is far from innocent to write, "There was no consensus to insert this foreign group there. I usually find sneaky Turkish nationalists are responsible for those types of edits, pushing for acceptance of EU integration." The use of words like "foreign" and "sneaky Turkish nationalists" is a clear articulation of a certain extreme point of view. Mathsci (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree to differ on what? I'm trying to shine a little light onto the reasons for this dispute and suggest an improvement, and you actually feel it necessary to remind me that Misplaced Pages is not a forum? And what the hell do the Normans have to do with it? The point of my comment is this: "European ethnic groups" is a "loaded", i.e. a "poorly defined" and "inherently contentious" title. Ethnic groups in modern Europe would be more like it, considering the present scope. Keep the title as is, and you can count on periodic and entirely avoidable flare-ups just like the present. Change it, and you circumvent all such flummery from the start. And "indigenous" is a piss-poor excuse for an improvement in this area - regardless of whether it can be sourced or not - for the reasons mentioned above and then some. Right now, the article is a grab-bag of all sorts of things clustered around the key-words "ethnicity" and "Europe" - for which we undoubtedly have the mergists among us to thank. There is no risk of a PoV-fork, as we are dealing with entirely different topics here. IMO, this article needs to be hacked into tiny little pieces and cast into the raging sea of diasambiguation. —Aryaman (talk) 13:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your second interpretation and agree with what many other editors have said, and I have already said: that the article takes the geographical continent of Europe and lists the current ethnic groups. Prior to the Normans, there were Angles, Saxons and Vikings in Britain. Historically these different ethnic groups were then intermingled after the Norman conquest. Likewise the population of Sicily is marked by similar but probably more complicated changes. It is precisely because of this historical complexity, already outlined for Marseille, that I assume the modern day geographical definition has been adopted. Although I'm not very keen on your suggestion for a change in title, I think you have a valid point that the limited scope of the article - as you quite rightly say ethnic groups in modern Europe - could be spelt out a little more explicitly in the lede, perhaps by the insertion of an adjective like "modern-day" or an adverb like "currently". It seems obvious that a discussion of say Picts, Vikings, Ostrogoths or Saxons - all historically valid European ethnic groups - is completely beyond the scope of the current article. Mathsci (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: "The article takes the geographical continent of Europe and lists the current ethnic groups." Yes, the article does do that...and a whole lot more: it tries to discuss the "physical appearance and genetic origins" of Europeans, various "European diasporas" that have occurred in recent history, both out of and into Europe, it broaches the topic of "European identity and culture", and to top things off, the "European Religion". And even if it limited itself to the scope as you just defined it, the title would still be inappropriate. I'm not quite sure how one can agree that the actual scope is indeed "ethnic groups in modern Europe" on the one hand, yet continue to think that this is best listed under "European ethnic groups" on the other. 'Tweaking' the lead is not going to fix the problem: it is inherent in the title itself. Terms like "European culture", "European ethnicity", "European religion", etc., may help sell party programmes and travel brochures, but they are hardly terms with which meaningful academic discussion can take place. Regardless, the spirit of the age is on your side, I suppose: rather than eliminate this kind of inherently POV jargon from our vocabulary once stripped from the domain of the radical right, the left has simply gobbled it up as its own intellectual property, complete with the right to define its components at will. But, I digress. If you demand to keep the title, then at least compose the remainder of the article with the bravado it deserves. Onward! (FYI: Prior to 1066, the Angles, Saxons and Danish Vikings were kissing cousins speaking mutually intelligible Germanic dialects, and the Normans were themselves descended from migrating Danes - not exactly the 'melting pot' scenario it's often cracked up to be.) —Aryaman (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Mathsci, you know well what the scope of this article is, do not evade that. You are aware of the existence of a European demographics page which is basically a list of ethnicities inhabiting the geographic entity that is Europe, what you proposed here. Why create a duplicate of that page? This page is CLEARLY dedicated to identifiable ethnic groups originating in Europe. Koalorka (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Varoon Arya's suggestion has some merit: a minor tweak to the title, such as Contemporary European Ethnic Groups should take care of the situation. It's obvious here we're not talking about Celts, Picts or Angles, so I don't see a problem with making that explicit.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Would that then include foreign non-European populations currently residing in Europe? Indonesians, Somalis, South Asians etc? Koalorka (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the scholarly literature and other reliable sources. We need to stop pretending that we Misplaced Pages editors have the power to decide who is and is not European. It is our job to report on what other people say and if there are debates try to explicate them. Are Jews a Europopean ethnic group? Not for us to decide. Some say yes, and some say no, and scholars (historians, anthropologists, sociologists) are generally not concerned with deciding who is right but are rather interested in what is going on that makes it possible for some people to say yes and others to say no. The sooner we start rewriting this article to explain all this to people, and stop arguing among ourselves who is a European, the sooner we will ... well, be writing an encyclopedia article instead of an ersatz blog. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

COMMENT. The editor User:Koalorka, since his arrival last year on WP, has consistently dedicated his edits unrelated to weaponry to removing Turkey from articles on Europe (once on Europe itself) or removing references to Turkey as a partially European country. He has made approximately 180 edits of this kind in Turkey-related articles/templates/categories. He has also been cautioned on WP:AN/I for taunting Turkish editors and has been blocked for antisemitic comments while editing the talk page of Stormfront. We have just witnessed one further example of his systematic campaign of vandalism and disruption. As Slrubenstein has said here and below, this disruption has nevertheless raised some general points that have helped improve the article. Mathsci (talk) 08:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you actually had time to count all 180 edits? I personally don't see what the problem is with just adding the ethnic groups of Turkey that may be considered part of Europe and putting an asterisk that some don't view them as part of Europe (if both views have sources). Kman543210 (talk) 08:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Similar ambiguities and differing interpretations are already carefully explained in footnotes. But the best idea is to look at the book cited in the bibliography on Turkish ethnic groups to see what they say and/or elsewhere in the academic literature, as Slrubenstein has already suggested.

BTW I not only counted the edits, I read them all and created a subpage on them, with annotated diffs (not 100% accurate) :) User:Mathsci/subpage. Since an editor on this page accused me elsewhere on WP of being "close to edit warring", I just wanted to find out exactly what was going on, just in case the situation recurs here or elsewhere. This was in fact the second time the editor removed the material on Turkic groups without discussion. As you might imagine, I must have been quite upset by the editor's accusation to have gone to the length of preparing the subpage. Mathsci (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Tone of the discussions

Someone asked what the policy was on this, and I'd like to be clear, that talkpages are supposed to be used to discuss article content and not editors. See also no personal attacks. Some of the above comments have very little to do with the content of the European ethnic groups article, they are just ruminations about the character and off-wiki activities of one of the editors. But on Misplaced Pages, it is not that important what someone says off-wiki, it matters how they behave on-wiki. As long as someone is able to express their opinions in a civil way, they are welcome here. If there are concerns that someone is using multiple Misplaced Pages accounts in an inappropriate way, file a sockpuppet report.

I do realize that the concept of ethnic groups is a very hot topic which gets emotions involved, but could I please ask everyone to stick to discussing the article. Also, instead of everyone debating their own opinion on what does and doesn't constitute a European ethnic group, it would be far more helpful to supply sources. See also Misplaced Pages:No original research. Surely in the ranks of academia, this concept has already been debated and written about. Or in other words, unless we already have a source that a group is a European ethnic group, it shouldn't even be included in this article. Per Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, any unsourced information can be removed from any article, and then it is the responsibility of those who wish to add it back, to provide a source. If we have conflicting sources, then we can debate consensus on the talkpage as to how much weight to give to different sources, per WP:UNDUE. But right now we have several people arguing strictly from personal knowledge and opinion, without any sources, and further, attacking other people for arguing from their personal unsourced opinions. C'mon folks, we can do better. If there is something in the article which anyone feels is false, add a {{fact}} tag to it. If no one provides a source in a reasonable amount of time, remove the statement. If anyone tries to add it back without a solid source, they will be warned, and in extreme cases, blocked. --Elonka 15:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

In an ideal world, editing might be done like this. However, in this case your remarks fail to recognize that

• this page has been almost entirely the work of just one editor and that sources have been gradually added afterwards
• the disruptive newly arrived editor, reported and cautioned for similar behaviour on WP:AN/I one month ago, has spent the last 8 months making similar unjustified and unsourced removals and deletions to Turkey-related articles/templates/categories all over the WP.

Before embarking on "ex cathedra" pronouncements to other editors, please could you try in future to spend some time making sure you know what is actually going on. Otherwise you risk needlessly causing offence to established good-faith editors. Mathsci (talk) 08:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, as I see it, there is more than one editor being disruptive here. I would remind everyone that this article falls within the scope of certain Arbitration Committee decisions. For those who aren't sure what ArbCom restrictions are, I'll explain, without going into too much detail. Basically, ArbCom, on the behalf of the Misplaced Pages community, has identified that there are certain "hot spots" of ethnic conflict on Misplaced Pages. As such, ArbCom has ruled that some topic areas can be put under tighter restrictions than other parts of Misplaced Pages. These restrictions can do such things as tighten up civility controls, put editors on 1RR (one revert) restrictions, allow administrators to place topic bans on certain editors, and so forth. This particular article, European ethnic groups, falls within the scope of multiple such hot spot areas, so we can look at which restrictions apply to which areas, and this depends on which topic area/case we're talking about. One applicable case is called Digwuren, which deals with the topic area of Eastern Europe. Though since the most recent dispute on this article has to do with Turkey, I'll quote the restrictions from what is called the "AA-2" case, or Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, which deals with conflicts around "Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iran, and related ethnic/historical issues." The restrictions, as of January 2008, state:

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.

In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Misplaced Pages as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Misplaced Pages's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

So, as an uninvolved administrator, I am hereby notifying everyone about these restrictions. At the moment, things appear to be fairly calm, so everyone has more or less amnesty, but if there are further problems, I will not hesitate to send official "restriction" notifications to individual editors, and then if problems continue, there may be further restrictions ranging from topic bans to blocks. Specific things that I would like to focus on:

• Civility. I want everyone here to treat each other with respect (most of you have been doing quite well in this regard, but this is just a general reminder). Also, this means I want people to stop throwing the word vandalism around, unless referring to blatant vandalism as defined in WP:VANDAL. Ideally, just stop using the term altogether on the talkpage. As a rule of thumb, if there's disagreement about what is or isn't vandalism, it probably isn't vandalism.
• Please keep talkpage discussions focused on article content, and not the contributors involved.
• Sources. Please ensure that any further additions to the article, are linked to reliable sources
• Limit reverts. Except in cases of obvious vandalism, no one should be reverting this article more than once a day

Sticking to the above items (which most editors on this page already do) will help to reduce disruption, and ultimately should make everyone's editing much more pleasant. If anyone has any questions, feel free to ask here, or on my talkpage.

Thanks, --Elonka 14:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Having added three four sources, four five ten bibliographical references, and asked dab about sources (he is now supplying sources and has told us where to find extra ones), I was trying to find out whether the Gajal or Gadhjal people should be added as an ethnic group. I have found it hard to find a non-wikipedia reference in the English language (the refs elsewhere seem to be in Bulgarian but it seems the numbers are 20,000 or more). Can anyone be of any help there, for example if they happen to read Bulgarian? This ethnic group is not mentioned in Levinson's handbook and I cannot judge how that handbook is regarded by scholars (I'll look for a book review in the academic literature). Incidentally I applaud dab's recent scholarly additions to the mainspace page - the most content that has been added since he created the page under its current name. He is an excellent example to us all. In the two histories, I can find no evidence of disruption on the mainspace article or this talk page prior to Elonka's very recent arrival and actions behind the scenes. Mathsci (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ethnogenesis and indigeneity

The discussion on Turkic people was valuable for raising complex issues, but also counterproductive because we need to address those issues without getting bogged down on specifics about Tuks, Turkics, and Turkey.

As I read through the morass of argument, it seems to me that the really problematic word is "indigenous." Whenever the debate gets especially heated, it seems like people start adding the word "indigenous" before 'ethnic group" as if this solves the problems. in fact, i think "indigenous" itself is a loaded and not very helpful word, at least not in and of itself.

Above, Varoon Arya made an important point:

There certainly is a distinction between (1) ethnic groups in Europe and (2) ethnic groups that underwent ethnogenesis in Europe - which is criterion the man on the street uses to distinguish between "European" and "Non-European". The problem is the article title does not distinguish between the two, and both can be construed as "European ethnic groups". Simply put: this dispute is the result of a "loaded" title.

I am not sure I agree, but I DO see this as a constructive comment that ought to be taken seriously and built on.

By the way here as in all things we should stick close to NOR and V and try to represent notable views in verifiable sources. Our account of ethnic groups, and of debates over ethnicity, should be based in serious academic debates. I think we might as well admit out the outset (if now can be called an outset) that this means we will be using concepts not familiar to "the man on the street" but hell this is an encyclopedia and it is often our job to provide accessible accounts of complex concepts. We aren't going to cut whole swaths of the articles on quantum mechanics or the theory of relativity because they are counterintuitive or hard to grasp by "the man on the street" and we should hold this article to the same standard. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Good. I think the first thing that should be done (if, that is, we have in fact decided that the title of this article should be either "Ethnic groups in modern Europe" or "Contemporary ethnic groups in Europe"; I prefer the former, as it helps to cut short such unproductive and OR-prone discussion such as "...but the Illyrians ARE a contemporary ethnic group!") is for everyone involved to take a look at something like David Levinson's Ethnic groups worldwide (1998). The introduction to the section on Europe is viewable on-line, and gives a good, reputable overview of exactly this subject. Other editors may suggest other, equally reputable and equally accessible standard reference works for the purpose of group orientation. After that, the contributing editors need to agree upon acceptable terminology (Levinson's appears to be based on a good deal of research and is quite useful, to boot). This can then be used to draft an acceptable outline for the article, into which the bare facts can then be inserted. (Naturally, the superfluous stuff needs to be split off - and there will, if done correctly, be a good deal of it.) Then, barring any huge oversights, we can begin with copy-editing. How does that sound? —Aryaman (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

i think thats a great idea, renameing the article as you have suggested would cure alot of the problems people have had with including non native european ethnic groups than maybe there could be a splinter article stateing more indigenous european ethnic groups only--Wikiscribe (talk) 19:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikiscribe, either you have a penchant for sarcasm, or you misread my intention with the proposed title change. Either way, the idea is to limit this article to ethnic groups in modern Europe, regardless of whether they are considered "native", "non-native", "indigenous", "non-indigenous" or whatever. After this article has been cleaned up and put back on the right track, we could explore the possibility of creating an article on ethnic groups which underwent ethnogenesis in Europe. Ethnogenesis is a relatively new addition to the scholastic vocabulary, but seems to be gaining ground steadily. With that said, let's focus on the topic at hand, yes? And while you're at it, why not read the suggested literature above? :) —Aryaman (talk) 19:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

These issues can and should be discussed here side by side. Two issues need to be looked into:

• which groups do we have on the territory of Europe. This is a straightforward headcount. This includes Kalmyks, Chuvash, Tatars and what have you. Kalmyks are clearly an "ethnic group in Europe", since Kalmykia is west of the Caspian Sea and thus clearly part of (the eastern fringe of) Europe.
• which peoples are considered "native" to Europe. This is much more loaded, and built on notions of race. It is true that the Kalmyks, as a Mongolian people, are "racially" clearly Asian, not European (much more so than the Turks!). Yet the place they call home is in Eastern Europe. We can discuss the distinction of "native" Europeans and "non-native" groups that "underwent ethnogenesis elsewhere", but anything connected to this must be clearly sourced to WP:RS. These are subjective gut notions we may all share here, but which nevertheless are far from objective and as such need clear attribution.

The second point should perhaps be addressed in the "indigenous" section, which at present only talks about marginalized groups (Sami, Basques). If somebody can present a source, this would be the place to present the notion that Basque, Celtic, Latin, Greek, Germanic, Slavic, Baltic, Albanian and Finnic groups are considered "native", while Turkic groups (and the Kalmyks? and the Maltese?? and the Romani?? and the Hungarians???) aren't. The latter group is clearly divided from the former by virtue of arriving in Europe in the Middle Ages (after 500 AD), while the former groups have direct predecessor populations in Europe dating to at least 500 BC. So the millennium between 500 BC and 500 AD would seem to determine who is "really" European? That's a possible claim, I suppose, but a claim that needs to be established off-wiki first. dab (𒁳) 21:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you one the first point. Regarding the second, I'm leaning towards a split under something like European ethnogenesis (/-es) (Google Books; Google Scholar). I don't think it would be a case of WP:CFORK to create a separate article under some such title, as the two topics, though closely related, would be distinct in that the former would deal with the present situation in Europe, including coverage of the Diaspora into Europe, while the latter would deal with the historical situation and the Diaspora out of Europe. ("European Diaspora", if not already a redirect to the Jewish Diaspora, should perhaps be created to disambiguate here.) But you are certainly right that, while the head-count issue is pretty straightforward, the question of "ethnogenesis" will be a different animal altogether. Yet, it also seems to promise the most potential to become an informative and interesting article.

As for the terminology: "native" and "indigenous" are going to be very slippery to deal with. For some, it is actually part of the definition that an "indigenous" population be politically/economically/linguistically "marginalized". As for groups such as the Germanic, I think it shouldn't be difficult to show that there are two things going here on regarding their "ethnogenesis": (1) that by which they conceived of themselves as an ethnic group, i.e. their primary ethnogenesis (which never really happened to the Ancient Germanic peoples as a whole, but instead on case-by-case basis, e.g. Anglo-Saxons ethnogenesis), and (2) that by which a national ethnic group later reflected upon (and sometimes reformulated) their own ethnogenesis (the birth-place of a good deal of the nationalism of the 19th and 20th centuries). I'm just tossing out some ideas to be explored here, but I do think that we should seriously consider splitting the two early on so that work can progress with a clearly defined scope in one or both cases. —Aryaman (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Terms like native and indigenous are slippery indeed. I think we have to do two things. First, when relying on state or quasi-statal sources (the German census; UNESCO; the CIA handbook) we have to use their categories and provide notes explaining how they define their terms. I also believe that there is some scholarly debate out there about how people come to be considered "indigenous" or "native" and we should cover these debates insofar as they apply to specific ethnic groups in or of Europe (we should discuss the debates in a more general sense in the articles on ethnicity, race, and nation, I think). Slrubenstein | Talk 10:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The last suggestion - assuming that it would be combined with an effort to improve articles like Definitions and identity of indigenous peoples) is probably the best way to deal with the bulk of the "native/indigenous" issue. Terms like "native European" and "indigenous European" are indeed found in the literature...typically referring to members of the plant and animal kingdoms, and thus really don't belong in a treatment of European ethnogensis at all, other than perhaps to give something like a 'layman's synonym' in the lead. —Aryaman (talk) 11:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

well, nobody suggests there is an "European ethnicity". If there ever will be one, it will emerge in the future (Pan-European nationalism). The idea of "Europeanness" is one of a "super-ethnicity", of common traits spanning a large number of ethnic groups, each indigenous to parts of Europe, none of them simply "indigenous to Europe". I don't know if we can come up with an "European ethnogenesis" article, but I suggest we expand the "Indigeneity" section in this article for now, and see what people can come up with. dab (𒁳) 12:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No, there is no single "European ethnicity" as yet. But the term "European ethnicity" does play a role in the literature relating to the Diaspora out of Europe, particularly the US, but also in regards to the Diaspora into Europe. Richard Alba, Richard Dyer and others have made a case for the emergence of this so-called "European ethnicity" in the late 50's and 60's as a response to the Civil Rights movement. In Europe, the notion is mainly due to the projection of Muslim immigrants (i.e., self-identifying as sharing a "non-European ethnicity", and thus bolstering the emergence of "European ethnicity" - soundbites of Geert Wilders blaring in the background). Be that as it may, talk of "indigenous Europeans" is going to do little more than make the deficiency of the various definitions for "indigenous" apparent. We will be very close to something like what you scoffed at above, i.e. limiting "indigenous European" to the few remnants of Old European culture, as they are the only ones that really fit the definition. While it may seem like common sense to view Indo-European cultures in Europe as "indigenous", I am seriously wondering if anyone can provide a source in support of it. Gimbutas has done a good job of portraying the IE peoples as "invaders", and I haven't run across anyone contradicting her in the name of good sense. —Aryaman (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

dab: thanks for making the changes, which are a great improvement to the article. Is it possible to add some sources? Mathsci (talk) 08:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

it is, and you can help: all of the articles linked should contain reasonable sources we can import as required. dab (𒁳) 09:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ethno-linguistic groups

This term needs to be used vey cautiously in the article. While language is often an important diacritic of ethnicity, there is no reason to suppose that people who speak the same language are related to one another. This means that even if we establish that people living in one part of Europe five or six thousand years ago spoke a Germanic language, does not mean that people in the same part of Europe speaking a Germanic (I do not mean to pick on Germanic, you can put in any other language group here) language are their descendents. It is certainly possible that they may be their descendents. In many parts of the world people usually marry people who speak the same language, and because of this people who speak the same language may be closely related genetically. But this is not necessarily the case and in some parts of the world, and at some times, it has demonstrably not been the case. It is just as likely that people who migrate into an area learn a new language. This is why so many people in the United States who speak English, a West Germanic language, itself Germanic which was a proto-Indo-European language, and may thus be said to be members of the Germanic or Indo-Eruopean ethno-linguistic group, are not descended from Germanic or even Indo-European people (or, if they have among their ancestors people sho lived in central Europe five thousand years ago, they ar eonly a small portion of their ancestry). There was a time - I do not have the reference in hand so I do not know if this was a german, Russian, or US census - when Jews were identified as Germanic because they spoke Yiddish. Yet no one at that time believed that these speakers of a Germanic language had, among their ancestors five thousand years prior, many who lived in Europe.

I am not denying that someone who speaks English or German today may have some many or all their ancestors five thousand years ago people who lived in present-day England or Germany.

The only point I am arguing is that we need to be careful in how we use terms like Indo-European or Germanic or any term that could be used either for a language, ethnicity, or both. And when we make claims that link a continuity of language to a continuity of ancestry, we need to have citations for reliable sources. The article opens by saying this is something anthropologists study and that is true, and there will be articles in major journals, notably Current Anthropology and American Anthropologist but also linguistic and physical anthropology journals, on precisely these topics. Many of these may not be available on-line, but we should look to them for information for building this article. As always, let's not start with something we happen to believe and hunt for a citation that supports it. let's look for the most current scholarship on the topic, and report what they say. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

you talk about cultural continuity vs. genetic continuity. By "ancestry" you mean purely genetic ancestry, and you somehow seem to think cultural continuity is less "real". This article looks at both aspects because both aspects constitute ethnicity, and you are right, of course, that it needs to be clear which aspects it is discussing at any given point. I am not sure whether you are saying we should list the European Jews as a separate ethnicity. We could do that, I suppose, or rather we could list Ashkenazi Jews (1.5 million) and Sephardi Jews (0.5 million). I am aware, of course, that the Jews are a special case wrt "ethnicity", so we can treat them as a special case, but I don't think that means we need to re-organize the presentation of the 70 or so other groups listed. dab (𒁳) 15:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I am impressed that yo have mind-reading abilities ... I honestly do not know where I wrote anything that even implied that I think cultural continuity is less real than biological continuity. Could you please point out th place where my fingers were operating independently of my brain? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, the reason you are not sure whther I am saying we should list european Jews as a separate ethnicity is because I have not expressed any view whatsoever. I guess your mind-reading abilities switched off. But I will tell you what I actually do think: I think we should follow notable views in reliable sources, and if there is more than ne notable view from reliable sources, we should provide an account of both/all notable views. As always, I do not think this is for any Misplaced Pages editor to decide, that would violate NOR. When you write "we could do that, I suppose" are you proposing to violate NOR, or do you have a verifiable source that does this? if you do, by all means, let us include it in the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

As for the seventy or so groups that are listed, perhaps we ought to be more careful about providing the verifiable sources, and being sure whether how they define ethno-linguistic group, whether they mean people who speak a certain language, or people who self identify as members of an ethnic group, or people for whom there is genetic evidence of descent from people from the Bronze age or some other time. Unless these things are clarified, the distinction between people of European and non-European origin in the first section (with the list of 70 or so groups) is unclear, confusion, and/or misleading as well as the statement in the following section that these "indo-european groups" developed "in situ." Slrubenstein | Talk 16:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

well, I was giving you the benefit of assuming that you actually were making a suggestion in relation to this article, within WP:TALK. Your statement "there is no reason to suppose that people who speak the same language are related to one another" seems to imply that your notion of "relationship" is purely genetic, and that cultural or linguistic ties do not count as "related". I'll refrain from second-guessing what you may want, then, and wait for a concrete proposal on your part. dab (𒁳) 09:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did mean related genetically, but this does not mean that I deprecate cultural or ethnic identifications. But right now the first two parts of the article are unclear. My proposal is a request that in any case where we make any historical claims about an ethno-linguistic group - e.g. that it is "indigenous" or formed in the Bronze Age and today has x million members, we have sources for each of these claims that defines what is meant by "ethnolinguistic group" or that makes it clear that the source provides no definition. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

you will find no claim in the article that any given culture "is 'indigenous' or formed in the Bronze Age and today has x million members". The inventory of current groups, the discussion of "indegeneity", and the inventory of historical populations is clearly separated. You do find head-counts of super-groups, like "Indo-European" Indo-Europeans (total 665 million). It is clear that there is no "Indo-European ethnicity" in Europe today, but a number of ethnicities that share Indo-European origins in the Bronze Age, but are clearly separate today. I think you should state what precisely you want a source for, since none of the sorts of claims you seem to object to are present. I do know this sort of thing is a problem on Misplaced Pages, and I have a long history of removing national mysticism, but there is none present here that I can see.

in so many words, feel free to clarify points if you think you can rephrase them better, and feel free to use {{fact}} where you feel a claim is dubious, but let's not play games here. If you object to the statement "The Basques are assumed to descend from the populations of the Atlantic Bronze Age directly", try to propose a better phrasing, don't play the skeptic. Go to Origin of the Basques and see what material you find there that may be useful for the purposes of this article. We could have done this easily in the time we've already invested in general musings on "cultural or ethnic identifications". dab (𒁳) 12:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The population figures given in the first part, as far as I can tell, are derived from the population of a country and speakers of the language. This is not the same thing as an ethnic group. Jews living in Poland will speak Polish and be counted in the Polish census as Polish and show up on this table as members of the "Polish ethno-linguistic group" which is a mistake. The first part also distinguishes between the larges Ethno-linguistic groups (e.g. Latin and German) and then distinguishes other Europeans who are part of diasporic groups. The wording implies that members of the large European ethno-linguistic groups are not members of diasporic communities, when of course many are. If the wording is meant to suggest that these are overlapping rather than mutually exclusive groups, then perhaps this can be clarified. I have not made any edits myself because I was unsure what the intention was. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

the population figures are derived from the obsessively and meticulously researched infoboxes in our ethnic group articles. Thus, the English people infobox, at Template:English populations presents an estimate for 45.26 million English in the UK. That's an estimate, but it's the best we can do. The Hungarians infobox presents a detailed estimate for some 13 million Hungarians living in Europe. I am not sure what you want. It is perfectly clear that we can only ever present estimates here. Hence the repetitive "approx." in the headcounts. As for Poles, we have estimates of 38,860,000 in Poland, 1,055,700 in Germany, 900,000 in France, 400,000 in Belarus, 250,000 Lithuania, amounting to some 42 million. Does this number include the Polish Jews? It does according to the Poles article. Personally, I find the implication that Polish Jews aren't Poles somewhat disturbing, but I guess it's a matter of WP:CITE. If you are unhappy with having the Polish Jews counted as Poles, I suggest you go to Talk:Poles and complain about it. According to this, "Estimated number of Polish Jews is between 10 and 30 thousand. Not all of them are religiously Jewish, many of them are Christians, predomenantly Catholics." Slrubenstein, are we really discussing the question whether a group of 0.03 million is or is not included in the "approx. 42 million" estimate? Don't you find the question rather moot? You will also note that the long history of European Judaism finds due mention under "Religion", where, being a religion, I suggest it belongs. dab (𒁳) 06:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Some people claim that there is no Jewish ethnic group, but most scholars do not. And it doesn't matter why you would find the claim that Jewish citizens of Poland may be ethnic Jews and Polish citizens disturbing. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

indeed. As you say, it's a complicated question, and ostensibly not the focus of this article. I think it would be a good idea to contribute to the Who is a Jew? article if that's your field of interest. I apologize for the somewhat testy tone of my replies. It was due to my difficulty to make out any constructive or on-topic suggestions for the purposes of this article in your comments. As far as I can make out, your comments, in spite of being phrased very generally, concern the Jews in particular. As far as I can see, this would affect listing of Ashkenazi Jews (about 1.4 million), Mizrahi Jews and Sephardi Jews (about 0.3 million each), and perhaps Bené Roma (some 50,000) and Romaniotes (some 6,000), or roughly 2 million people in total. I have no objection to briefly mentioning the complicated case of a Jewish ethnicity, sub-ethnicity or non-ethnicity phrased according to your preference. But please be aware that this is an overview article of a population of 0.75 billion people, and we clearly cannot carve out the details on each and every sub-group here, that's simply beyond the article's scope. Thanks, --dab (𒁳) 08:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

DAB, my remarks are not focused on Jews; they merely provide one convenient example. May I suggest that your response has something to do with your taking my initial comment personally? At least, that seems to be the case in your as you describe it testy response. Let me assure you that the comment was not directed at you personally nor intended to be read as relating to you personally. It was a general comment picking up on some issues raised by another editor in a preceeding section, and meant to be of general value to any discussion about moving the article forward. Now, I know you have put a lot of work into the article. nevertheless, my comment was not directly about you or your work. If your thinking it was in any way accounted for any of the testiness of your reaction, let me just assure you: do not take it personally. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

no, I do not see anything personal here. I just found your comment less than constructive. If you're going to pick an example, perhaps we can make it not the Jews, who are, as is very well known, a sort of special case as far as ethnicity is concerned (we have a who is a Jew? article, besides the main Jew one for a reason; there isn't going to be a who is a Hungarian? article anytime soon). So. Is there any suggestion what to do next? As you may have noted, I have come up with a suggestion regarding the Jews distilled from my comments all on my own. This feels a bit silly, as in a one-man editing dispute. Perhaps you could just make some coherent suggestion what you want to see changed in the article, or perhaps even edit the article yourself (it's a wiki). This will save me the effort of second-guessing what your suggestion would be applied to the article as it stands. --dab (𒁳) 12:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"This will save me the effort of second-guessing what your suggestion would be applied to the article as it stands." You still insist on taking it personally. This is not about you. You do not own the article, and not every comment is directed at you. if you do not understand the comment or do not find it constructive, just ignore it. let other people read it and decide for themselves whether they want to engage it. The purpose of this talk page is not just to influence Deiter Bachmann. It is for general discussion among all editors. You are not the arbiter of what goes on the talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I assure you I am not taking this personally, at all. "Second guessing" refers to on-wiki editorial activity, not to my private life at all, I am not sure how you can mistake one for the other. I don't know why you insist on trying to make this personal by attacking me all the time, bringing up my full name (although misspelled), etc. I have strictly commented on your comments, not your person. If you would prefer not to receive a reaction to your comments over receiving critical feedback, by all means, ignore everything I've said. Other editors do not seem to fall over themselves to reply to your comments, but I must maintain that I've never tried to prevent them from doing so. If others can be bothered to take this up, cheers to them and cheers to you. If not, this section can just sit here until it is archived, no problem. dab (𒁳) 13:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry i misspelled your name. It was unintentional but sloppy and regrettable. I did not think that anything I wrote was an attack or could be construed as an attack on you. As you say, if no one finds my comment worthwhile, it will be archived soon enough. C'es la vie. Best, Slrubenstein | Talk 14:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I've read through this thread and I would like to know what other ethnic groups may be effected by your general comments. Setting aside the issue of European Jews, which I think we all understand, could you please use another example to explain your comment a bit more clearly? Is there another methodology you propose? Do you propose to focus on genetics only in determining ethnicity? The conversation seems to have been derailed first into the specific case of Judaism and then into something about taking the thread personally, but as an interested outside reader here I'd love to hear the answers. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I do not have a criticism, but i do have a concern and question, regarding this:

Of the total population of Europe of some 730 million (as of 2005), some 85% or 630 million fall within three large ethno-linguistic super-groups, viz., Slavic, Latin (Romance) and Germanic. The largest groups that do not fall within either of these are the Greeks and the Hungarians (about 13 million each). About 20-25 million residents are members of diasporas of non-European origin.

The last sentence refers to members of diasporas of non-European origins. Does this imply that the three large ethno-linguistic groups mentioned first are of European origin? What does this mean? i assume it means that when the language developed (e.g. Slavic, latin, or germanic) it developed in Europe. But we are not just talking about a linguistic group (that would be clear enoug), we are talking about an ethnolinguistic group i.e. not just a language but the peole who speak it. What does it mean to say that they developed in Europe? Does this mean that none of them are descended from any of the 20-25 million residents who are members of a non-European diaspora? Is it not possible that many German speakers are descended from people who migrated to Europe from outside of urope? The linguistic group may have clear origins in Europe, but the people may have their origins outside of Europe. this is my main concern. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, what about this:

The Basques are assumed to descend from the populations of the Atlantic Bronze Age directly. The Indo-European groups of Europe (the Centum groups plus Balto-Slavic and Albanian) are assumed to have developed in situ by admixture of early Indo-European groups arriving in Europe by the Bronze Age (Corded ware, Beaker people). The Finnic peoples are indigenous to northeastern Europe.

Perhaps there is very compelling language that the Basque language developed in what is today Spain and France during the Bronze Age. But that does not mean that wll Basque-speakers are descended from people who lived in this area during the Bronze age. What does it mean to say "Finnic people" are indigenous to Finnland? Does it mean the same thingas I am inidgenous to Brooklyn as I was born there? Or does it mean that Finnish identity - primarily the Finish language - developed in Finnland. Well, okay, let's say that it did. That does not mean that people later migrated into Finnland, and learned Finnish. Are we sure that that never happened? And if people could migrate to Finnland and learn Finnish and their descendents be considered "indigenous" to Northeastern Europe, why not say someone who moved from Algeria to France and learned French - or at least that person's kids - are indigenous to Westen Europe? And if so, what does the word "indigenous" really mean? i ask these questions because the article uses the term "ethnolinguistic" which combines people with language - when in fact a language and the people who speak it can have very different histories. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Unassessed Europe articles
• Unknown-importance Europe articles
• WikiProject Europe articles