Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:36, 26 August 2007

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.

• Talk partially retrieved from European

The article seems...

The article seems entirely geared towards telling a story about non-native Europeans calling themselves Europeans than actually describing what a European is. I will be re-writing some of it. Snowbound 19:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I could only write from a NZ European perspective. I welcome some European proper content. I was suprised the article hadn't even been created yet!!A.J.Chesswas 05:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reinstated my added parts. You have no right to remove large chunks of detail that I have added without first discussing your reasons. Snowbound

I didn't remove large chunks of what you wrote Snowbound.

1. I merely removed "primarily" from the first sentence, because by using it you discount and demean European identity outside of Europe.
2. I also removed "strong sense of identification" because esp. in New Zealand we consider each other "European" whether we "strongly identify" with Europe or not.
3. I restored paragraphs 2 and 3 to read as one paragraph. I believe it flows better this way. I note you didn't discuss the matter here before splitting it into two, or before adding what you did add to this article.
4. I renamed this section "European Colonies" rather than "Culture and Identity". "Culture and Identity" is a broad heading which could apply to Europeans anywhere. But what is certainly distinctive about this paragraph is that it concerns European colonies.
5. I relocated the "European Union" paragraph to follow the "Distribution" paragraph. I did this because the intro and "European colonies" refer to the demographic distribution of Europeans, and this paragraph rounds that discussion off nicely, being demographic in content as well. The "The European Union" paragraph, on the other hand, is a discussion about contemporary politics. Thus if our formatting seeks to group similar subjects together, and to flow chronologically, then the format I provided makes the most sense.

I would prefer to see the article revert to my last changes, but I am willing to discuss the merits or otherwise of your preferred format in the meantime.A.J.Chesswas 02:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you willing to discuss why your version is preferable Snowbound? If not I vote that I reintroduce mine.A.J.Chesswas 10:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The European people?

European people redirects to a page on the demographics of Europe. There are articles on white people, Caucasians, and several related ones like European American. It seems to me however that there is not a single article dealing with "Europeans" as a group. All of the existing articles encompass very inclusive concepts and given the emergence of the "European identity" do other editors here feel perhaps Europeans should be treated as a general ethnic group like Asian people or African people? What do you think? JRWalko 03:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree! The Ogre 11:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree also. European is an adjective and can mean anything European, not just a person from Europe. European people is a better a title for the article which is chiefly about people. A word of warning though... its hard to call Europeans a single ethnic group given the mix of ethnicities within it. E.g. it now encompasses British Asians and West Indians, Spaniards and French of mixed European/African descent, Swedes with connections to the middle east etc.. A single "European Identity" is something that is only slowly emerging as a result of political forces that are still in train and nowhere near ingrained in all the peoples or in all regions. --Tom 14:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

How should we approach it then? Should we focus on people from Europe and their diaspora around the world or just on Europeans who currently live on the continent? I don't mean to exclude people but given the migration situation in Europe I think simply living in Europe does not make someone European just as working in the US does not necessarily make someone American. I think we should have a thorough discussion on the scope and direction of this article before we do any major revisions.JRWalko 01:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

How about this? We can turn this page into a disambiguation article and move most of the contents to the new European peoples article?

At the beginning of European peoples article, we can add this:

This article deals with Europeans as an ethnic group(s). For information about residents or nationals of Europe, see Demography of Europe. For information on other uses please see the disambiguation article European(this one) KarenAER 12:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This article should disambigulate to "European people". The contents of this article that deals with Europeans as a racial group should be moved there. The new "European people" article should only deal with indigenous Europeans. Romani and European Jews are on the fence, but we'll work out there place when we make further progress on this issue. It is completely unfair that the Asians get their own article, but Europeans have been denied their article. There seems to be a double standard against whites on Misplaced Pages.----Tea© 17:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment. "A double standard against whites"? Put white into the search box. See how many white articles you come up with. Europe is multi-cultural. This isn't 1930. - Jeeny  02:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, my answer is no to the first question. European is multi-cultural, that includes whites, browns, reds, and blacks. - Jeeny  02:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Why are we in this situation AGAIN? JRWalko 03:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikpedia is open to scrutiny. - Jeeny  05:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not the European article, this is ethnic European article. X people articles in Wiki are ethnic X articles. Thank you...KarenAER 04:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Turkey, at least the Eastern part, is indeed in Europe. And European PEOPLE include Spanish, French, Italian, and Turkish (among others). This is the 21st century. Things change. This is not a history book. Add a section of history you you must. European people are not an ethnic group of whites. - Jeeny  05:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Also to the editor up there. New Zealand is not in Europe. - Jeeny  05:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Improve your geography. Only 3% of Turkey is in Europe KarenAER 05:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Umm, that means "part" of it IS in Europe. 3% or whatever you say, is not 0%. I don't have time to teach you, or point you in the right direction. Also, what does that map prove? - Jeeny  05:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"I don't have time to teach you, or point you in the right direction" KarenAER —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 05:45, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Turks are a native ethnic group of Anatolia, the fact that their state has 2% of its area on the continent of Europe does not make their ethnic group European. Similarly the UK has territories in North Africa but that does not make Britons African people. This article is about people who are traditionally considered European. The ethnic groups that are the subject of this article came to exist in Europe and have always been identified with Europe and no other area.

Turkey for one only became Europeanized in the past century, something that would obviously not be taking place if Turkey had been European. Countries such as the US and New Zealand are listed because they are populated by a majority of European immigrants. Americans of European descent mostly belong to the German and English ethnic groups.

The removal of eye and hair color maps is simple vandalism at this point. They come from a respected peer-reviewed journal specializing in this topic yet incredibly some editors feel they don't quite trust this data! If you have an issue with his work then go get a PhD and publish a response. Different hair and eye colors are one of the most distinct physical characteristics of European ethnic groups. To ignore these characteristics would be like failing to describe zebras as striped animals. JRWalko 15:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the key issue here is that the boundaries of Europe have changed over time, and at times there has been disagreement as to what those boundaries are. I wouldn't put it quite the way Dark Tea did, that Jews are on the fence, but I think she has a good point: at certain times Jews have and have not considered themselves European, at certain times other Europeans have/have not considered Jews European. One can define Europe geographically - which can be somewhat arbitrary - and it leaves certain countries in both Asia and Europe, primarily Russia and Turkey. I think when Conrad wrote Under Western Eyes he did not see Russia as part of Europe - one could say that starting with Peter the Great Russians have had a complex and ambivalent attitude towards Europe and their own Europeanness. Ditto Turkey. Clearly there was a time when Europe was considered Christian and non-Christians - primarily Jews and Muslims - were non-European. I think this accounts for some considering Turkey non-European (the current president of France has as much said so, I believe - although Turkey's largest city was the capital of the Roman Empire at its Christian height!) ... the Spanish had to expell by force Muslims and Jews in 1492 to create a Catholic Spain. During the Cold War the boundary of "western" and "eastern" Europe was redrawn - imagine, Czeckoslovakia being considered eastern! Milan Kundera published a fantastic essay reflecting on the different ideas of Europeanness which was published last year in the New Yorker - Milan Kundera, "Die Weltliteratur," The New Yorker, January 8, 2007 - I highly recommend it to anyone working on this article. The creation of the European Union is I suggest redefining the boundaries of Europe and how Europeans view themselves. Whatever else goes into this article, I think that sections on Europe's boundaries and how they have fluctuated over time, and a detailed historical section, if not wholely historical approach in general, will help editors get a good grasp on the material and help readers too. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said, this article is not European, it is European people, ie: ethnic Europeans. Turks and Jews are not ethnic Europeans although they may be Europeans. KarenAER 16:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You are right about what this article is about, but I think my comments are still relevant. What after all is an ethnic European? The answer may seem obvious to some, but not all, and even to those to whom it seems obvious I suspect only in hindsight. It certainly does not mean anything like "indigenous" - Jews who first arrived in Europe during Roman times were considered non-European (often, almost always prior to the Enlightenment) by the descendents of Goths, Vandals, and other groups that entered Europe hundreds of years after the Jews. After the French revolution many French jews considered themselves members of the French nation - why are they less "ethnic Europeans" than Christian Frenchmen (surely, you do not think ethnicity = religion? I know most Churches do not, and French Jews did not). And I am by no means sure that there is any real evidence that anyone in the year 500 or 800 or even perhaps 1000 considered him or herself an "ethnic European." I do not think one can answer this question without looking at the boundaries of Europe historically. At this point I would suggest three highly relevant books: Ben Anderson's Imagined Communities, Ernest Gellner's Nations and Nationalism and John Cole and Eric Wolf's The Hidden Frontier. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"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, or recognition by others as a distinct group, or by common cultural, linguistic, religious, or territorial traits. "

Jews do not have common ancestry with Europeans. They have a different religion. And they are usually regarded as a distinct group. Ex: Jewish Americans...KarenAER 17:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

One cannot make empirical claims by reasoning deductively from dictionary definitions. One must do empirical research, or read books and articles by people who have. Anyone who reads the scholarly literature on ethnicity in Europe will quickly discover that the boundaries of ethnic groups and ethnic identities are often in flux and change over time ... which brings me right back to my basic point. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Nota bene according to their Misplaced Pages articles, Jews do not constitute one ethnic group but are divided into a few distinct ethnic groups, Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews being two European ethnic groups. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

White Americans are one of the USA ethnic groups, but they are not native American. Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews may be ethnic groups in Europe but they are not ethnic European since their origin is Middle Eastern...

"Recently published research in the field of molecular genetics -- the study of DNA sequences -- indicates that Jewish populations of the various Diaspora communities have retained their genetic identity throughout the exile. Despite large geographic distances between the communities and the passage of thousands of years, far removed Jewish communities share a similar genetic profile. This research confirms the common ancestry and common geographical origin of world Jewry."

Jews and Arabs are 'genetic brothers'....They may have their differences but Jews and Arabs share a common genetic heritage that stretches back thousands of years......The comparison also showed that Jews have successfully resisted having their gene pool diluted, despite having lived among non-Jews for thousands of years in what is commonly known as the Diaspora - the time since 556 BC when Jews migrated out of Palestine. KarenAER 17:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You can not equate ethnicity with biology. Jewish populations have been in Europe for at least 2000 years - in that sense they are European! I basically agree with Slrubenstein on everithing. And, KarenAER, you seem to be trying to present your own normative ideals as fact! The Ogre 17:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said, they may be European but not ethnic European, ie native European. White Americans are in the US for 400 years but we are not native Americans neither. KarenAER 17:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

White Americans are natives of the US, but not "Native Americans," not because they came from Europe and NA's came from Asia, but because "Native Americans" refers to the people subjugated by European colonists, and their descendents - it is a political and not biological distinction, although the political distinction has itself taken the form of biological regulations. Before US Colonialism there were no "Native Americans." Slrubenstein | Talk 17:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Before english was developed, before the existance of the word "human", there were still humans. There has been native Americans since they immigrated there thousands of years ago. KarenAER 17:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep focused: we are talking about ethnic groups. If by "native American" you mean an ethnic group,well, all I can say is, what you do not know about native Americans is a lot. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews may be ethnic groups in Europe but they are not ethnic European since their origin is Middle Eastern" - well, if the origin of Ashkenazic Jews is Middle Eastern, the origin of most other Europeans is East Asian (where Huns, Vandals, and Goths originated before entering Europe). Of course, all human beings originate in Africa. This means that when people make any other claim about origins (e.g. Middle East, or East Asia, or Europe) they are selecting from natural history a cultural or social history that has meaning for how thy see themselves in relation to others (which is precisely why, as The Ogre points out, biology does not equal ethnicity, and normative ideas are not "facts" except in the Durkheimian sense of "social facts" which means they can do and will change over time as people's political, economic, and social situation/relations with others change. These stories often change over time, and - to repeat a point I have already made - anyone would know this if they have actually researched the topic. I recommended three particular books that are widely well-thought of, and I could recommend more.Slrubenstein | Talk 17:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You will have to source that East Asian claim. Vandals, and Goths are Germanic and they originated in Northern Europe. Huns are not even European and originated in Central Asia. Of course all humans originated in Africa but also all living organisms originated at oceans. The time scale is therefore important. But it should be common sense to see the difference between 50,000 European origins of ethnic Europeans vs 2,000 year Jewish presence. KarenAER 17:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Originated there? Hardly. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

KarenAER rejects that Ashkenazic Jews can be ethnic Europeans, and she is not alone - the Nazis too rejected the possibility that Jews could be ethnic Europeans (let alone ethnic Germans). And that is certainly an important POV that Misplaced Pages needs to acknowledge. But it is not the only POV. Ashkenazic Jews spoke a European language, ate European-styled food, worke European-Styled clothing, and had customs that distinguished them from non-European Jews. That they are a European ethnic group is another POV but one which Misplaced Pages too must acknowledge. That is called NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

And it wasnt only Nazis, it was very widespread in Europe. So you will have to source they are ethnic Europeans. KarenAER 17:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be fair to say that "Jews" themselves are not native Europeans but they include members who are ethnic Europeans that converted to or have been included in their faith. In the Jewish sense of the word Jews can't be European because they come from Israel. Many people however don't recognize it as such and for example Irish Jews are often considered Irish people who embrace Judaism, and not necessarily "an Israeli tribe that now resides in Ireland". JRWalko 18:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Jews do not come from Israel - at least, not according to Jews. And as I said before, all Europeans come from someplace else. The question is, are Ashkenazic Jews a European ethnic group of Jews? that is what the Misplaced Pages article says. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

From a etic perpective they are, so are Sephardi Jews (strictu senso). From different emic perspectives, they are not, and sometimes are... it varies. The Ogre 18:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

How do Jews not come from Israel? Isn't the story basically that Judaism arose there, Jews formed the nation of Israel and then were dispersed due to invasions of their country? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JRWalko (talk • contribs) 18:59, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

If you have ever attended a Passover seder, celebrated each year, you would know that the answer to the four questions essentially begins with the quote, "My father was a wandeing Aramean." According to the Biblk, Abraham was fronm Ur of the Chaldes. If the three patriarchs (founders of the nation), only one spent his entire life in Israel. Moreover, the Torah was revealed at Mt. Sinai (not in Israel) and the Hebrew Bible largely tooks shape during the Babylonian Exile (Abraham's old turf). Nest to the Bible the othe major piece of sacred literautre is the Talmud, which was also largely composed in Babyonia. Israel is at the heart of Jewish thought but it is not where the Jews or their religion originated. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. So my understanding would be that some Jews (converts) are part of European ethnic groups but Jews (as in the actual original founders and their descendants) are not. JRWalko 20:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome. And, no. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"And, no." - Do you agree or disagree that the original Jewish ethnic group is not a European ethnic group? JRWalko 00:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes they are. But, I would like to know how far back in time are you going with "original" and/or "native" European people. Please explain. Thanks. - Jeeny  00:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect to Jeeny, my answer to JRWalko is this: it does not matter whether I agree or disagree, becaue what Misplaced Pages editors think simply does not matter. Misplaced Pages editors are not to put their own views into Misplaced Pages articles, which would violate both NPOV and NOR. What is important is that articles provide accounts of all significant verifiabl views without claiming that any one view is the truth. I know that one significant verifiable view is that Ashkenazic Jews are not a European ethnic group and acknowledge that that view should be represented. I know that another significant verifiable view is that Ashkenazic Jews are a European ethnic group (my source is the Misplaced Pages article on the topic) and that view too should be represented. Remember, Misplaced Pages is about verifiability (that the view is held by some), not truth. Slrubenstein | Talk 04:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggested merge

This article seems to have been created after the White people article was locked. I don't understand the intentions of the creators of this article, but feel it should be merged with Demography of Europe, or Demography of Europe should be merged with this article. This should not be an article for the White race. - Jeeny  16:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. X people article and Demography of Xland is the standart in Wiki...KarenAER 18:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with merging the article. Muntuwandi 22:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree, one addresses demography in current European states while this one pertains to ethnic groups. JRWalko 01:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I've suggested yet another merge as this is now included in the article: The European (or Caucasoid) geographic race is characterized by white or lightly pigmented skins and variability in eye and hair colour and by a number of biochemical similarities. Please be aware that there already is an article for the Caucasian race, which BTW uses that exact same definition, so this is just duplicating the article under what could be construed as a POV fork.--Ramdrake 19:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, no one here is advocating the concept of a European race but rather the idea relating to the emerging European identity. This idea is being debated because it is unclear whether it is related to all inhabitants of Europe - European, or the native inhabitants of Europe - the subject of this article. JRWalko 19:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, the "European identity" is something geopolitical, even cultural. This article speaks about a "European race" which is at one point equated with the "Caucasoid race" (through the OEG definition). Are you suggesting that the "European identity" applies selectively only to the native (whatever that means) inhabitants of Europe?--Ramdrake 20:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If that was the case, we would move this page to European. But the italic text at the start of this article clearly outlines the scope. It's like Indigenous peoples. All humans are indigenous to this planet, yet all humans arent the scope of that article. KarenAER 20:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

What I'm trying to get through is that you start the physical characteristics section which equates "European" with "Caucasoid", blithely ignoring that "Caucasoid" (or Caucasian) already has its own article, thus rendering this some kind of a POV fork. You're mixing bits of European geopolitical identity with a description of traits that describe ""whites", "caucasians" or "caucasoids", in effect spinning the concept that only "whites" are "The European people". You're mixing geopolitical identity, appearance and genetics. There is an inherent conflict in there.--Ramdrake 20:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Caucasoid: "Caucasian: of or relating to Caucasian people"

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."

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? KarenAER 21:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

From a real online site:

• Question: Would not “giving” black contractors 2 percent of the available job, reserving that portion for blacks just because they are black, actually be easily understood, clearly defined reverse discrimination? And wouldn’t it also be patronizing, condescending, and unfair? Does it really help those presumed disadvantaged to give them free things solely because of the color of their skin?

*Answer: It seems to have helped white people.

LOL, funny innit? - Jeeny  23:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there something about this that pertains to the article? The Behnam 01:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

No, not really, I was going to put it up where DarkTea was talking about a double standard towards whites on Misplaced Pages. I struck it out. It was a bad idea, I'm sure it is likely to be seen as "stirring the pot". My bad. - Jeeny  01:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Identity and culture section

The section "Identity and culture" appears to be OR based upon the editors' personal judgment of the supposed identity and culture of European people. Without stating whether or not I consider these reasonable judgments, as OR the section needs to sourced really soon or else it will be deleted. I have tagged it out of courtesy. Please provide sources posthaste, and remember that the sources must be RS and explicitly support the claims made. Many thanks in advance, The Behnam 01:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That section does not state anything new. What do you want a source for? That the culture of the US comes from Europe? All of European history is essentially about ethnic groups creating nation-states. Do you need a source stating that the Danish culture is a European culture? JRWalko 02:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

JRWAlko, you seem to be ignorant of much of the scholarly literature. I would suggest to begin with that you read Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities and Ernest Gellner's Nations and Nationalisms. These are two of the most frequently-cited and well-regarded works of scholarship on the literature and are unquestionably verifiable, reliable sources (I am not saying they are the only sources, just two very good ones). Also, Cole and Wolf's The Hidden Frontier. I do not think any of these authors would accept your claim that the history of Europe is ethnic groups creating nation-states. Since we believe in NPOV the article cannot just provide Wolf and Gellner's views. But if you think that there are verifiable reliable sources for an opposing view, you need to provide them. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't know if this will qualify as a RS for you but how about Charles Kegley and Eugene Wittkopf's "World Politics" text which is used as a basic political science text at Columbia? Nationalism - "a mindset glorifying a particular state and the nationality group living in it, which sees the state's interests as a supreme value" and then goes on to say that nationalism is "the most powerful movement in our world today", cites Aldous Huxley as saying it was "the religion of the 20th century" and then clarifies by stating that it is "the dominant force throughout European history". So I think cultural identity certainly deserves a mention here, don't you think? Anderson and Gellner are the foremost scholars as far as modernist theories go but are only one POV in systematic studies of this issue. Additionally before the emergence of post-Westphalian states ethnicity carried even more weight. In places other than Rome and Greece (where the concept of citizenship emerged) Europe was far more homogeneous. Tribal identity based on ethnic lines emerged well over 1000 years ago.

Going back to the original issue I don't see a single statement in this section that needs to be sourced. They all seem very obvious to me. What statement do you find controversial? The map is sourced from Britannica so it also shouldn't be an issue. JRWalko 16:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that Anderson and Gllner are one POV and have no problem identifying them as such - but it does mean other POVs must be clearly identified. I certainly have no objection to using other POVs Slrubenstein | Talk 16:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

As for the original issue, everything needs to be sourced, even if it seems obvious to us. I could point out what I personally take doubt in but that is aside from the point. The Behnam 16:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And to be specific, I have no objection to using a college textbook as a source, but I do think that recent books published by university presses and peer-reviewed journal articles (yes, even by people in IR) are at least as important, I woud argue often better. I also think we need to distinguish between research that is directly on nations or ethnic groups, and work that makes assumptions about them in the course of analyzing something else. By the way, I am not specifically criticizing your textbook, but making a principled point I think you should find unobjectionable. I read an article recently on the economics of wine production, that in the course of the argument made certain claims about Chilean culture. The analysis of wine production is based on clear data, and is made by an economist. I would give a fair amount of authority to the analysis of wine production, and to the authors claims about economics. I would give less authority to the incidental claims (or assumptions) about Chilean culture in that article than I would to claims about Chilean culture made by an anthropologist or social or intellectual historian in an article based on research specifically about, and specifically on, Chilean culture. Using sources appropriately means using them critically i.e. among other things gaging their claims in relation to the training of the author and the nature of the research. Another example (just to make sure I am communicating the idea clearly): many people have written about Jesus; I know of at least one book by a German historian and another by a geologist. But when writing about the historical Jesus, Misplaced Pages articles give priority to books and articles by Biblical and 1st century Roman Palestine historians, and scholars of 1st century Hellenic, Near Eastern, and Biblical literature. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's the thing: I agree with you that things need to be sourced and they should reflect some of the major views on the issue. However I disagree about sources and the extent of the need for variability. To me a college text is a "better" source because it will reflect what more people are taught. Texts in say their 9th edition are fairly accurate and have undergone sufficient peer evaluation (after all, they are being used). I don't like recent journal articles because they reflect the view just now meaning that they suffer from an inability to view the issue over time. IMHO there aren't going to be articles that say "European people are..." because I was not aware that this was ever contested and I've been in this field for a while. We don't state that boxes are rectangular prisms, do we? To me the subject of this article is very simple just like there are articles for African people and Asian people there is a disambiguation page for European and this article. I apologize if I come off a bit rude in my responses but I am a little annoyed at some of the attempts at negationism here. JRWalko 18:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you are being rude and right here we are discussing a simple point, and I think we both agree. I do not object to including a citation from a textbook, and I am sure that whatever your prefernce you co not object to including citations from journal articles. As to the larger issue - well, come one, two wrongs do not make a right. If there are problems with the articles on African and Asian peoples, and this being Misplaced Pages I have no doubt that there are huge problems, then they should be improved. But anyone editing Misplaced Pages articles in good faith shoulbe be trying to make them better, not lowering them to the lowest standard. I do not think anyone has a serious objection to an article on European people, I think they have objections to specific content of the article and to certain ideas certain other editors have for the article. This being Misplaced Pages, we will end up negotiating over these matters - and to be clear, my only negotiating point is this: I want to hold the contents of this article up to reasonable standards of academic scholarship by which I mean it should include, prominantly, major trends in relevant academic research. I feel this way about all Misplaced Pages articles. I work only on the ones that interest me and that i know something about. Isn't that what virtually most people do? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. It will take time since academic sources can't be all located overnight but I hope we can work on making this article better. JRWalko 19:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I am very glad. But at this point, as i suggest below, I think you and Karen need to sort out what I think is a major difference of opinion between the two of you. If you prevail, then we can move forward - I would first propose that this be both about ethnic groups and nationalities. If this is okay with you we can start by incorporating material from Kegley and Witkopf, and also Anderson and Gellner, and Anthony Smith (whom I happen not to like but I think he is as important as the others). If this topic is really close toyour heart I really recommend you read Cole and Wolf's The Hidden Frontier; even if you do not like it you should find it interesting. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Physical appearance and genetics section

While I can understand genetics being included in describing the supposed ethnic group "European people," how is the physical appearance information relevant? I've yet to see any RS (including those used here) include physical appearance in defining the ethnic group, as ethnicity is based upon believed ancestry (hence 'genetics' may be relevant, depending on treatment in sources) and common culture. Eye and hair color may vary in this region but nothing suggests that they actually define the ethnic group. At best, such information can be relegated to our articles on the hair, eye, or skin coloration in humans, where they are relevant. I will tag the section appropriately until this matter is resolved. Regards, The Behnam 01:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that nothing suggests they define the ethnic groups where they occur but they are nevertheless a characteristic of that group making the inclusion of this info relevant. JRWalko 02:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This is moronic. Even Encyclopaedia Britannica discusses these:

"The vast majority of Europe's inhabitants are of the European (or Caucasoid) geographic race, characterized by white or lightly pigmented skins and variability in eye and hair colour and by a number of biochemical similarities;" KarenAER 14:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages should strive to be better than Encyclopedia Brittanica. The one advantage we have over major Encyclopedias is that we can incorporate the most recent advances in research (Encyclopedias revise themselves but often only after many years have passed, and even then they never have every article revised or rewritten, but only a set portion). The EB article is using an antiquated notion of race. Besides, I thought we agreed this would be about Europe's ethnic groups? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

We havent agreed on anything. And your views about EB is irrelevant. It is a WP:RS KarenAER 15:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You want to research writing an encyclopedia article by reading ... other encyclopedias? You don't know how to read books or peer-reviewed journal articles? Interesting how you sling around the word moronic. And as for agreement - I was referring to your 12:12 17 August comment. But I guess you disagree even with yourself. I guess that is going to make trying to agree with you pretty difficult... Slrubenstein | Talk —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:45, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

I dont have a 12:12 17 August comment here. LOL...KarenAER 16:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I Quote:

How about this? We can turn this page into a disambiguation article and move most of the contents to the new European peoples article?

At the beginning of European peoples article, we can add this:

This article deals with Europeans as an ethnic group(s). For information about residents or nationals of Europe, see Demography of Europe. For information on other uses please see the disambiguation article European(this one) KarenAER 12:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

LTM Slrubenstein | Talk 16:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a point you are trying to make rather than the stupidity of the fact that you are simply fabricating arguments for me then saying I dont agree with myself? KarenAER 19:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

LTM again, as apparently you are again disagreeing with yourself. First you argue that you don't have a 12:12 17 August comment here, then you argue that I just made up your arguing that! Are you now claiming you just denied having a 12:12 statement to which I referred? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok I need to explain this slowly I guess. I dont have a 12:12 17 August edit on Talk:European people. I looked at the history when you said that and couldnt come up with any match. It's because that those comments were copy and pasted by someone else from European. Got it?

I guess I need to explain it to you even more slowly. I never said anything about where you made the edit. I simply referred to your 12:12 edit. You are suposed to take editors on good faith - if you had, you would have looked at this page and you would have seen the 12:12 edit of yours. Do you object to it being on this page? Do not blame me, and do not object now: I did not move it onto the page; if you did not want it on this page you should have complained several days ago when someone else put it here. But in any event, I just refered to your 12:12 edit. If you didn't think to look on this page, you could have just checked your own "my contributions" list to see your 12:12 17 August edit - it doesn't matter where you made it, that is the edit to which I was referring. In any event, your initial response, to deny that you had a 12:12 edit on this page, was just a mistake on your part: you made a 12;12 edit and it was to that I was referring; it happened to be copied to this page and anyone could see it here. Lacking good faith and the thoughtfulness and time to look at this talk page to see for yourself to what I was refering, you just made a mistake and denied you ever made the comment (when really you should have thanked me for reading the comment and at least trying to understand and respond to it). So I cut and pasted your 12:12 comment so you could see what I was talking about. But instead of admitting to your mistake and saying, "Okay, I see what you are talking about" you just compounded your mistake and accused me of fabricating things. Now, I know at your age you would much rather make a snide comment than ever admit to making a mistake - I know that this is what kids think is "cool." But this is Misplaced Pages, and you should try to act more grown up if you want to accomplish anything.Slrubenstein | Talk 21:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I did search 12:12 17 August in the article but didnt come up with anything. Turns out I forgot to add the comma, ie: 12:12, 17 August. So I assumed you are mistaken. KarenAER 00:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

As to matters of substance: can we agree that this article will be about ethnicity? If so we can go on and address your ignorance about ethnicity and ethnic groups, or what you think is my ignorance, but at least we can agre to be arguing about "ethnicity." I am trying to be constructive and to find some common ground, some point of reference both of us can agre to to continue working on the article. I, like most scholars, think race and ethnicity are distinct. If they are, it makes sense to have one article on European ethnicities, and one article on the White reace. Now, from what you have written, you seem to think race and ethnicity are either the same or so overlap that they must be treated together. But if this is the case, you need to provide a cogent explanation for why Misplaced Pages needs two articles on Caucasian and European people. Caucasian clearly deals with a race. If this article deals with race too, we may as well merge the two, right? (If you disagree you need to explain why). But if it doesn't deal with race but instead ethnicity then maybe we can keep it separate. Now, here is a big test for you: are you able to work with adults? you now have a choice: respond constructively and address the issues, so we can talk about how this article would be distinct from Caucasion. Of you can just make more snide sarcastic comments, like every other comment you have made to me. Maybe that will make you look cool to the other kids in the mall, but it won't accomplish anything for you if you want to contibute to this article. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You are partially correct. This article is about ethnicity. And if you arent ignorant about ethnicity, you'd know that one of the definitions of ethnicity is based on descent. This article is about that kinda definition of ethnicity. This is the standart 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. You failed to comprehend this so far. As for the rest of your post, I had already answered them here:

As for your other comments without any substance, if you expect a constructive attitude, you should get one yourself first. So stop patronizing and accusations of racism/POV pushing. Now, here is a big test for you: are you able to work with adults?

Also, be careful with your spacing, your messing with linearity and hence readibility.KarenAER 00:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

As for my claim, "Is there a point you are trying to make rather than the stupidity of the fact that you are simply fabricating arguments for me then saying I dont agree with myself? " I have not disagreed with myself. I still agree actually. 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.)

Black British are an ethnic group in Europe. So are Ashkenazi Jews. So they are two of Europe's ethnic groups. But they are not ethnic European. That was my argument. I hope you will understand this time... KarenAER 19:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The Britannica article is clearly not talking about the ethnic group supposed by this Misplaced Pages article - rather, it is talking about people in Europe in terms of race, and as Slrubenstein mentioned, in antiquated terms. Ethnicity is not defined by such characteristics, and as this article is about an ethnic group, we should include items that define the ethnicity rather than items that do not. BTW I am restoring the tag until the entire issue is worked out - please don't prematurely remove it again. Your addition (which is about 'race') has simply added to the array of content that is of questionable relevance to this article. Thanks. The Behnam 16:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Race and ethnicity are overlapping terms. Please do not add the tag until you have a valid reason. KarenAER 16:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

NO, they are not! You seem to ignore ALL the academic research on these topics! The Ogre 16:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The tag stays until the problem goes away. As for your remark, I don't know why you would conflate an outdated idea "race" with ethnicity, but frankly I've yet to see any reliable definition of ethnicity use 'race' as a component. Certainly, our ethnic group article doesn't support your claim - in fact, it suggests that there is a contrast. Without RS narrating ethnicity in terms of physical characteristics, the necessary relevance is not present. We need to decide if this article will be about a "race" or about an "ethnic group." The Behnam 16:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This article never claimed to be about Europeans as an ethnic group. It is about A COLLECTION of groups that are European. There is no such thing as a European race, there is no such thing as a European ethnic group. There are however ethnic groups who are collectively regarded as Europeans. JRWalko 18:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Lead

While I know that the "native" assertion in the lead is already under discussion on this page, I would just like to note that the defining sentence must be sourced as well. If we don't have an RS for this definition, chances are this isn't really treated as an ethnic group by RS and consequently the article shouldn't exist. The Behnam 01:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it should be sourced and it is a shortcoming that needs to be worked on. However, let's be reasonable here, what are you trying to dispute here? Isn't it obvious that if the Greeks are people who came to exist in Europe, lived in Europe through the course of their entire history, and presently exist in Europe; aren't they European people? JRWalko 02:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Including unsourced material because it is "obvious" to us completely violates WP:OR, and for something like the defining statement it is particularly critical to have a source. As I've said, if there is no source defining this subject, chances are that RS don't really treat this as a subject, and so this article is a novel narrative that should not exist. I personally don't understand why anyone would add content to Misplaced Pages without a source. The Behnam 17:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Boy did JRWalko pick a bad example to support his point. While there is nothing contentions about saying tha Greeks live in Europe, the question of greek ethnic and national identity is highly contested. There is a strain of Greek nationalist thought, and an element of Greek ethnic identity, that includes an identification with Pericles, Plato, and Homer. This identification is sometimes expressed not just in terms of a cultural identification (indeed, culturally there are plenty of differences between Greeks today and greeks of Plato's or Homer's time, which contemporary Greeks wouldn't argue) but in terms of biological descent as well - and there have been studies by anthropologists and historians that strongly challenge these claims, that argue that if not all then many contemporary Greeks are largely descended from Slavic groups that migrated into the region in the post-Roman period (and of course claims that Homer was actually a collection of poets from around Bulgaria). Let's remember that Misplaced Pages is about verifiability, not truth. i am not arguing who is right and no one else here should. But these are verifiable views involved in a verifiable debate. The debate complicates any simply story about the Greek nation or Greek ethnicity and certainly demands that we cite approrpriate sources! Slrubenstein | Talk 17:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The genesis of the concept of Greeks took place in Europe and has remained there (though it has also spread to Asia Minor and Egypt for a part of its history). I do not presume to know where the people who became Greeks came from but it is clear to me that Greeks are an ethnic group (through religion, culture,language, or descent) from the Greek peninsula. It is not up to me to determine who is Greek but it is obvious that if they are Greek then they are European, wouldn't you agree? Just to pick a regional example I would think Turks are not a European ETHNIC GROUP. I would think a Turk can be a European but the Turkish ethnic group emerged in Asia and Anatolia and that is their homeland. This is identical to the concept of Spaniards who have been present in the Americas for well over 500 years yet are not considered Native Americans (which by the way happens to be yet another article describing native ethnic groups). JRWalko 18:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that there are two issues hee: First, how Europeans self-identify as ethnic groups. I believe (but I am not arguing this right here and now) that at least some Turks consider themselves ethnically european. If I am wrong just skip it. But my point is, self-identification is one issue. Of course Greeks self-identify as a European ethnic group. But self-identification is only one point of view: debates concerning the development of ethnic and national identities by scholars is another point of view that belongs in this article. It is when you bring the two together that the Greek case gets interesting. JRWalko, I wonder if we are talking past one another. I am not arguing that there are not European ethnic groups or that there should be no article on European ethnic groups - I sometimes wonder if you think that is my point, because sometimes it seems as if that is the point you are arguing against in your comments to me. That is not my point. My point is that when writing about European ethnic groups we need to use scholaly sources, and when we do we often see controversy over self-identification and self-understanding versus scholarly research, and because of these controversies it is important to provide appropriate sources. That is the point I am tryint o make and your resply seems argumentativel, but doesn't seem to address my point (at least not in a way I fully understand). Slrubenstein | Talk 22:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I tend to argue that point because I'm replying to both your comments and that of other editors here (and they seem to be overwhelmingly against any concept of an article relating to any people of European descent). It's unfortunate that wikipedia doesn't have a more efficient system of discussion so it's difficult for me to keep five discussions going at once. As I said I also want this to be verifiable to the same degree as other articles. I don't want to have to source obvious statements like that there are ethnic groups in Europe, as some here have requested. Some of us have resorted to being vulgar because this whole problem started in white people as you can see in that page's discussion. JRWalko 23:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

JR, I understand your situation and apologize if I sounded defensive. I believe that we fundamentally agree or that there is ample grounds for us to reach agreement, even if I may feel that there is a greater need for citations than you. I agree that we will only make progress by untangling distinct disagreements. I did not mean to suggest I thought you were being unreasonably argumentative, only that there was some miscommunication between us - is that fair? Slrubenstein | Talk 00:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

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."

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 . Harold Isaacs has identified other diacritics of ethnicity, among them physical appearance, name, language, history, and religion . Thus, Joan Vincent observed that ethnic boundaries often have a mercurial character . Ronald Cohen concluded that ethnicity is "a series of nesting dichotomizations of inclusiveness and exclusiveness" . 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 . 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 Misplaced Pages. Please explain more, who are the "Native Europeans"? Thanks. - Jeeny  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. 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 Misplaced Pages.. 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, or recognition by others as a distinct group, 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: ) 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 Misplaced Pages, 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  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  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

Template:RFCsoc

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:

• (scientist) M (Italian)
• (musician) M (German)
• (royalty) F (English)
• (warrior) F (French)
• (philosopher) M (Dane)
• (scientist) M Pole
• (poet) Russian M
• 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 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? 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." .

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)

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)

1. Ronald Cohen 1978 "Ethnicity: Problem and Focus in Anthropology" in Annual Review of Anthropology 7: 385 Palo Alto: Stanford University Press
2. Isaacs, H. 1975 Idols of the Tribe: Group Identity and Political Change New York: Harper
3. Joan Vincent 1974 "The Structure of Ethnicity" in Human Organization 33(4): 375-379
4. Ronald Cohen 1978 "Ethnicity: Problem and Focus in Anthropology" in Annual Review of Anthropology 7: 387 Palo Alto: Stanford University Press
5. Ronald Cohen 1978 "Ethnicity: Problem and Focus in Anthropology" in Annual Review of Anthropology 7: 386 Palo Alto: Stanford University Press

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