Talk:Ethnic groups in Europe/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

• Talk partially retrieved from European people

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)

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 ^Talk 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" [1]

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." [2]

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)

[Removed inapropriate title]

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 ^Talk 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 Wikipedia. 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 ^Talk 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, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia I have no doubt that there are huge problems, then they should be improved. But anyone editing Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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;" [3] KarenAER 14:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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: [4]

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

split

The article should be split up and reduced to a disambiguation page. There is nothing here that isn't already treated at Demography of Europe, Genetic history of Europe and European culture. --dab (𒁳) 07:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this proposition. Alun 08:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

What he said. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. There is no reason for this page to exist at all. No educated european could talk about indigenous europeans in public; it would suggest they were in the BNP or Front National. The article is contradictory. Possibly its originator nodded off during history, geography and biology lessons at school. --Mathsci 09:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This seems like a blatant POV fork. I have no problem with an article on European peoples that discusses nations and ethnicity. Since most of us are from the US and Europe, we have more people who know the scholarly literature on this and will produce a more nuanced article - it is a shame that the article on Asian peoples doesn't draw on important works like Thongchai's Siam Mapped, Duara's Rescuing History from the Nation, or Chatterjee's The Nation and its Fragments but that is no reason for an article on european peoples to rely on OR and the use of political (governments and the UN) sources to make claims about races, nations, and ethnic groups when there is a serious body of scholarly literature. Changing the title from European people to Indigenous Europeans is ipso facto argumantative and only begs the question. The bozos who refuse to read books and articles seem to think that if there is scholarly debate about ethnicity, there can be none about "indigenous" - but that is as much a social construction and culturally variable as anything else. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I just don't understand how it is justifiable that the articles Asian people and African people exist,might I add fairly peacefully, and yet it is absolutely unfathomable that this one should. As Slrubenstein said earlier, two wrongs don't make a right, but to remove this article would be to ignore an overwhelmingly common concept. I have spent too much time arguing these point already. To me the deletion of this article would be the ultimate example of liberal ignorance. To propose that ethnicity, culture, ancestry, identity, etc are not at least to some degree intertwined is completely and utterly ridiculous as it would essentially invalidate all of European history. That is of course only my view but the fact that Slrubenstein is the only one that is willing to engage in any sort of debate is a testament to what a complete waste of time many wikipedia articles have become. I just looked today through a Smithsonian Photography Initiative photo album entitled The Europeans which was meant to be a work similar to the ones anthropologists published after returning from foreign lands (i.e. a survey of peoples in their native setting). I wish this article could've become something of similar value but that is obviously not possible. JRWalko 00:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Please could you give more details of the Smithsonian Photography Initiative publication. I couldn't find it here. --Mathsci 07:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You can find it as a source in the article on Tina Barney. JRWalko 21:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The Europeans - Barbican Art Gallery and Steidl Press (Goettingen), 2005: it's not published by SPI. It also seems to be about the european upper classes, very little to do with anthropology. Who do you think you are kidding, Mr Walko? You may as well as well have given us pictures of Lady Moseley's salon in Paris :)--Mathsci 19:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Tina Barney is known for photography of the social elite, and that includes her recent work on "The Europeans", which by no means represents Europeans as a whole, but an elite. BTW her work is fabulous. - Jeeny ^Talk 22:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This article would have no problems if it was created in good faith. Unfortunately it was simply created as a POV fork. Various materials were rejected in the white people article, so this one was created for those materials. In its present state it is promoting a Nordicist agenda.

To prove this we should look at the African people article. It has sections for people who are of European ancestry, African people#European, people of Indian ancestry African_people#Indian and other such as Lebanese and Chinese immigrants. In the context of the article all these are considered African People. However this article even refers to Turks as non-europeans or semi european. Something needs to be done to address these issues soon. Muntuwandi 01:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Armenian estimate

There's about two million Armenians in Russia, half a million in France, and much more its not including Armenia. --Vonones 18:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Look here: [5] --Vonones 18:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Then you should fix the Armenians article first, which gives 1 million in Russia (and it is anybody's guess how many of those are actually in Europe). --dab (𒁳) 19:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

DAB, where do you set the boundaries of Europe? Are there gray areas in your interpretation? --Kevin Murray 09:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

circa --> approx.

Good job, this all is for you :D

I've replaced all instances of "ca." (circa) with approx. as circa is normally reserved for dates, whereas "approx." is more appropriate for general numbers, such as population numbers.--Ramdrake 19:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• I've received complaints from KarenAER and Fourdee that neither of the gingerbread men in the graphic have blue eyes and blonde hair. --Kevin Murray 02:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Pan-European Identity?

It seems the title of this section should be changed because it is totally in conflict with the theme of the main article Pan-European identity. This refers to a phenomenon within Europe and not in former colonies in the rest of the world. Also some discussion of colonized countries and continents other than the USA would be welcome. For example Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc, etc. It does not seem at all clear what this section is trying to say. --Mathsci 10:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Roma People

As they are immigrants from South Asia they shouldn't be mentioned in the article. MoritzB 13:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

They have been in Europe for more then 600 years! There they develloped specific ethnic carachteristics. They are European, or at last are considered by many to be so (As the European Union...). Even if process of descrimination do sometimes enhance their supposed non-Europeanness or even their supposed non-whiteness, that is just another POV. Pelase, do not try to make articles the narrative of your own POV, as you have tried to do in other places, such as White people. Thank you. The Ogre 14:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I think that the Roma migration and interactioin in Europe is important to mention. I think that some mention of the word Gypsy is appropriate since historically this is the term used. Also, I think there should be some discussion of Jewish culture in Europe, since their migration began 2000 years ago. --Kevin Murray 16:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I Agree. The Ogre 12:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Map of the Cultural / Ethnic areas of Europe according to the Encyclopedia Britannica: POV? Or just refering to Europe before 1945?

This map shows a German cultural area in western and northern Poland, and up to Kaliningrad (former German Königsberg). Is this mean to say that the map represents Europe before 1945? Or is there same kind of POV here? The Ogre 13:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it represents Europe before 1500-1800. And the map is great. MoritzB 13:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It can not represent Europe before 1500-1800! That is too wider a timespan! It makes no sense! And the map in this article should represent the current areas, not former ones. The Ogre 14:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what the supposed date is. At least the Old Prussians are gone but the Finns are still in Sweden.MoritzB 18:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is a bit confusing. For example the map implies that here in Helsinki the dominant culture is not Finnish but "Scandinavian", which is linked to Sweden and Norway. This is clearly nonsense and was decided by someone who obviously has never visited Helsinki. The Swedish speaking Finns do not form the majority group in Helsinki, that is a matter of fact. Isn't there a better source for this sort of material than Britannica? Is the purpose of Wikipedia just to reproduce Britannica's mistakes? Besides how can it be possible to divide Europe into discrete "cultural/ethnic" geographical regions when many regions of Europe have a multiplicity of cultures and ethnicities all mixed together. This erroneously implies that people of different cultures and ethnicities never geographically coincide. Alun 06:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It's totally rubbish. I deleted it. - Jeeny ^Talk 06:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a relevant historical map. MoritzB 10:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not. You reverted Jeeny and I reverted you. The question here is not that the map may have slight errors, the question here, as Alun said and well, is that one CAN NOT "divide Europe into discrete "cultural/ethnic" geographical regions". This is even a major problem in linguistic maps (such as the one I added to this article and that Dbachmann turned into Template:Linguistic map of Europe), who tend to be more tradicionaly aceptable. Furthermore, the map does seem to represent, from its flawed perspective of discrete units, a previous historical period that may be seen (the German stuff I mentioned above...) as German-centered POV (the German nationalist do claim those areas from where Germans were expelled after WWII). There are other POV issues, for eg., it normatively considers the Turks a "sporadic group of extra European origin", instead of just saying "Turks" in a descriptive manner. There also seem to be serious copyright issues. As Dbachmann said "basically, it's crap. There's no end of issues, I won't even begin enumerating them. Their source "have been associated by ethnographers into some 21 culture areas" -- on Wikipedia, this would be removed as unsourced weasling." The Ogre 13:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Great article

I must say this article has come a long way since I created it, and thankfully it hasn't been hijacked by P.C. postmodern multicultural 21st century chauvenism. I created it because there was no article on the "European" identity common to most of us who are descended from colonial immigrants in ex-colonial countries. Thankfully the article still reflects that due to some sterling work on the part of others who have added brilliant depth to what I started with. A.J.Chesswas 20:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of this article: that was Dbachmann. Kindly stop trolling and making idiotic statements. Mathsci 20:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Check your facts mate (i.e. history page). Feel free to delete your above comment once you have :) But full credit to Dbachmann for sure, that was the point of my comment really... A.J.Chesswas 21:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This page has changed name and content from the embarassing page entitled European People. I am quite surprised that you admit to having something to do with that page. Please stop trolling unless you intend to contribute to this page. Mathsci 22:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Gee who stole your lunch?? A.J.Chesswas 00:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Nobody. Please read WP:SOAP, WP:POV, WP:NPA and WP:FORUM. Whatever induced you to write "P.C. postmodern multicultural 21st century chauvinism"? Too much vegemite? Mathsci 05:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

lol... good to see you know wikipedia policy too ;) A.J.Chesswas 07:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You might like to know that the bit of Europe where I live has being invaded by your compatriots. Alarmingly the locals have put up no resistance to this invasion. Quite the opposite - a huge banner welcoming them has been hoisted on the tourist office. Like you, they seem extremely interested in Cro Magnon man. Mathsci 18:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

you are feeding the trolls, Mathsci. dab (𒁳) 10:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Original Research?

Hard to detect any citations in this article. --Blue Tie 20:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

feel free to work on it. It's based on the sources cited at the individual sub-articles. It's a menial task to transfer these onto this page, and you are welcome to help. dab (𒁳) 10:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Caucasian peoples

User:Assary added a list of Caucasian peoples before the section on Caucasian peoples. I have therefore reverted their addition. This information should be added in the relevant place to keep the article consistent. It was also true that some of the wikilinks had not been disambiguated. --Mathsci 08:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

In fact User:Assary has just copied and pasted the contents of the WP article peoples of the Caucasus, along with all its errors. This is terrible wikipedia editing. Dbachmann's original wikilink was much better. I am unprepared to edit war with an editor who seems intent on making a point on what appears to be their first day on WP. --Mathsci 15:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Once wikilinks are allowed to be expanded like this, why exclude Finno-Ugric peoples like the Veps and the Livonians for example? I hope somebody can sort out this mess. --Mathsci 16:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll refrain of any future correction. However, Chuvash people still do not live in the Caucasus area and there is obviously a spelling mistake: Gaugaz people do not exist, it should be Gagauz. I recommend the original author of this text should correct it himself. Assary 05:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out these two errors/typos which I will correct on your behalf. --Mathsci 08:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Jews

Judaism is listed under religion. I am not sure whether it would be a good idea to list Jews as an ethnic group, because that would mean counting doubly (Jews are already included in the headcount for whatever country they happen to live in). I admit this is a special case, and there may be room for bona fide disagreement. --dab (𒁳) 10:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

While Judaism itself is a religion, it is comprised of various ethnic divisions, some of which are clearly European. I vote to include Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews in this article. Ashkenazi Jews migrated to Europe as early as the 8th century, while Sephardic Jews have been in Spain even longer. Kindest regards, AlphaEta ^{T / C} 14:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The sentences that you wrote above and later included in the article, are slightly misleading. The Sephardic Jews were expelled from Spain in the 15th century and have a very small presence there now; and, as the wikilinks you added make clear, because of intermarriage over the centuries amongst other things, the different groups are now defined more by cultural and religious traditions than by ethnic origins. I have slightly modified what you included to reflect these ambiguities. --Mathsci 08:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean, "different groups are defined by cultural and religious traditions than by ethnic origins?" Ethnicity typically links cultural traditions to geographic origins. This is precisely the case with Jewish groups - Sephardic, Ashkenazic, and Temani Jews are distinguished by different cultural traditions that they link to distinct geographic origins. Just like other ethnic groups. That said, I think Mathsci's edits to the article were good - I do not object to them. I see not problem with "counting twice" - no one would calculate the population of a country by adding up all the members of different religions and then adding all the members of different ethnic groups. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

At present it seems to be a question of how individual people choose to identify themselves. I think that's all I meant by this. --Mathsci (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

"Celtic" language speakers

Can someone provide a citation for the claim that there are only 1 million Celtic language speakers in Europe? The Republic of Ireland alone accounts for over 2 milllion here: http://www.cso.ie/statistics/irishspeakerssince1861.htm , and I don't think that includes people in Northern Ireland and certinaly not Brttany, Manx, Scotland, or Wales. Shoreranger (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

these aren't native speakers, but mostly people who have learned some Irish grammar in school. SIL Ethnologue gives 355,000 Irish speakers overall, plus 60,000 Scots Gaelic, 530,000 Breton and 530,000 Welsh, so that the total is probably closer to 1.5 million. It we take your statistics at face value, the total would be about 2.5 million, so perhaps we should settle for 2 million here. This question shouldn't be addressed in detail here, but we can go into it at Celtic languages. dab (𒁳) 11:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank yfor your reasoned reply. I concur that 2 mil. is a reasonable comprimise, though I retain my suspicions that the number is quite higher in actuality. Let's edit to read "2 million". Shoreranger (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Draft "European people" article

User:Ssolbergj/European people
I've made a draft article about European people, with standard infobox etc.. Please feel free to edit and discuss there, but if you question such an article's right to exist in general, we can talk about it here. (but don't think it'll be a mere "celebration of the EU and European unity", it is of course intended to be historically correct and NPOV) I've only read parts of the the discussion at the top of this talk page. Isn't consensus that European ethnic groups doesn't cover every aspect needed? At least I think; if there's articles called European American, African people and even Asian people, then European people (same type of article with standard infobox template) can be a justified article. If the response is positive and some (more or less quality) text is written in (or copied from existing articles into) all sections, the article can be launched - $\mathrm {S}$. $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$. 00:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts, which are obviously in good faith and thoughtful. However, with respect, I question your method. Articles ought to provide accounts of all notable views found in reliable and verifiable sources. Therefore, I do not know how we can know what content belongs in an article, and how it should be organized, until we know what the notable views in reliable and verifiable sources are. We could spend time arguing over what are reliable and verifiable sources, because I readily admit I do not know all of them and doubt any one editor does. So I have a very pragmatic proposal: let´s see if we can agree on an admitedly limited and partial list of reliable and verifiable sources. I propose that these would be major peer-reviewed journals in the fields of history, sociology, and anthropology. To repeat: i am sure there are many more reliable sources, but if we turn to books we might end up arguing over whether a particular book is reliable or not. I propose journals in these fields because I believe it is obvious that (1) academic journals are generally important resources for researching an encyclopedia article and (2) whoever else may have studied ethnic groups, we sure know that historians, sociologists, and anthropologists have studied ethnic groups. My proposal would be to compile a list of major journals in these fields and search for articles that have as key words (either Europe or European) and (either ethnic or ethnicity). By sticking to major journals and searching for keywords in the title of this article, we can keep our (editors) own biases and preconceptions out of the research and feel more confident that the results will be notable views rather than our views. Based on the articles we come up with, we can determine the notable views and come up with a structure that best accomodates them. this would of course just be a start ... I am sure that these articles would themselves refer to recent or classic books and would thus draw us to a wider body of literature that may reveal to us other views which may eventually lead us to create new sections. My main motive is to focus on a process for researching an article, rather than a discussion of its contents or organization, because I think this is the best way to keep our own assumptions and biases out of the picture, and ensure we comply with NPOV and NOR. Needless to say I advocate the same method for articles on ethnic groups in other parts of the world. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You are questioning my method? Are you saying that my method of starting an article with a draft containing unreferenced (and often low-quality) information, is not the normal/right thing to do? Or are you just planning the perfect route to acquiring NPOV sources? I'm not sure if I understand what the purpose of your boldness-killing, gigantic speech on methods of gathering reliable sources (I think?) was, but I was expecting a response to having an article called "european people", in general. - $\mathrm {S}$. $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$. 03:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The highly problematic page "European people" - the previous version of this page - was changed by consensus to this page. The previous page was unencyclopedic and attracted racist editors. The current page was the compromise: it is now in a stable and encyclopedic state. In view of the history of the current article, I for one would recommend Solberg's article for speedy deletion. There is no need to replay history in this particular case where the problem has already been solved. Initially European people was redirected here, then one editor changed the redirect to the European disambiguation page. I have restored Dbachmann's disambiguation page to avoid future confusion. Solberg should definitely read this talk page more carefully before attempting to recreate some form of the problematic article from which this article evolved. Mathsci (talk) 07:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW Solberg's ill-conceived draft article, with almost no content at present, already has a mini-version of the notorious picture galleries that drag talk pages into endless, pointless and often racist arguments. This is not a good sign. Even White people does not have a picture of Adolf Hitler in its gallery. What made him/her include his picture in the template? What made him/her refer to Cyprus in the lead, when the United Nations does not classify it as a European country? This all seems very, very odd, in fact a bit like trolling. Mathsci (talk) 07:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

So this is such an extremely sensitive issue, that a compromise over an historical article should indefinitely block new attempts? Is it not worth it? Manhours of writing in talk pages should not be relevant enough to do that. Don't you think the White people article hasn't attracted racists and been controvercial? But still it exists. And don't bother to insinuate that I had racist intentions when I made the collage, I was just thinking purely of fame, not merit. Is it a crime to mention Cyprus in the introduction of a draft? It would have been easier to make a new attempt different from the failed historical article, if it could be seen. - $\mathrm {S}$. $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$. 11:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Why did you insert the picture of Adolf Hitler in the template, when on WP it would normally be interpreted as the action of a troll? Please explain your reasoning. This article was originally entitled "European people". In view of its history, your time might be better spent lobbying to have African people and Asian people changed to African ethnic groups and Asian ethnic groups. White people is an even more problematic article: the problem was solved here, but not there. Mathsci (talk) 16:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Saying it attracts racists is not a reason to remove it, lots of articles attract such people and their edits, but by removing the article your just doing what they want. Right now it is just a draft, it can be worked on. No need to have such a harsh reaction to it from the first bat. Why not try to get better sources in, improve it and then once we've got somewhere, then everyone would be better able to judge if the article is a good or a bad thing. The idea of a European people article can hardly be discounted considering the presence of African people, Asian people and so on.- J Logan ^t: 11:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ssolbergj, it's a good idea to see whether we can produce something worthwhile from the draft; it's not like we're under pressure to produce anything, but why not try to work on it and see where it goes? I really don't see a problem with the concept of the article... —Nightstallion 12:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read the top of this talk page. This mainspace article was formerly called European people. It did attract racist trolls and then became this encyclopedic page. Were Solberg, J Logan and Nightstallion unaware of this? If they knew, then their suggestions are disruptive.

This talk page is in any case not the correct place to discuss the ill-conceived, poorly written and hopelessly sketchy draft of another unrelated article or fork. The correct place to discuss it is on the talk page of the article already entitled "European people", currently a disambiguation page. Mathsci (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do you ridicule the early sketch? If the "compromise" was to delete and forget the whole thing, then it was a really bad compromise. Maybe it was because the article was unencyclopedic and contained only uncited POV claims (how could I know, it's deleted. Why was it?) The bitterness of editors here, and whether or not the old article attracted racist editors, are irrelevant and should not be decisive. You can't expect any newcomer to this talk page to read such a huge chunk of old discussion. Don't you have any valid arguments against the idea of a standard people article for Europeans, a la European American etc., that you can list up right now?

I used Hitler in the montage because I guess he is one of the most known (although infamous) people ever born in Europe. That if of course arguable and editable, but you can't use it as an argument against the sketched article's existence as a whole. Like Time Magazine did when they chose Hitler in 1938 and Putin in 2007 as their Person of the Year; it's not neceseraly an honour, but rather a manifestation about how much the person has influenced the world, for better or for worse. Fame of any kind. If we could get on track to turn the draft into a good article, we could have a real nice, democratic process of choosing the six individuals. But like I said earlier, please discuss the content on the talk page of the sketch, and its very existence here. - $\mathrm {S}$. $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$. 20:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not ridiculing the sketch. I am just saying that it is very poorly written and ill-conceived: it does not seem to have been properly thought out in any way at all. Your lobbying on J Logan's talk page and here show that you simply cannot be bothered to verify that a page "European people" existed and was changed to this page. I am afraid none of the comments that you have written about your proposed page strike me as being (a) particularly intelligent or (b) aimed at creating a realistic WP article. Please note that African people and Asian people are about ethnic groups, not famous or notorious personalities from history: no images of individuals like Ghandi or Mugabe appear there. Your explanation of why you included Hitler's image reads rather like the comments of User:fourdee and User:MoritzB: your reply is disingenuous and trollish. You have not explained what "European people" would contain that is not already in the current article European ethnic groups. Again this is not the right place to discuss your sketch article. At the moment you probably cannot create a page with that exact title, since a disambiguation page with the same title already exists.

BTW, I do expect you to read this talk page. As you are probably aware, WP editors have been blocked recently for disruptively trying to recreate deleted articles in their user space. Mathsci (talk) 07:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Please mention an admin who would block me for drafting in good faith. The act of critizising an (openly early) draft for containg low quality content, is considered paradoxal and meaningless by most people. Why on earth would my explenation for including Hitler be trollish? Do you think I'm a racist troll in disguise? It seems more trollish that you are saying that my comments are unintelligent. Why don't you focus your efforts on deleting the European American article? I'm wondering if the old article was deleted solely because it contained only unencyclopedic crap. If that was the case, there's no reason why all new attempts should be blocked, unless there's a profound consensus that Europeans cannot be considered as 'a people'. It would be more relevant to have that debate, instead of bashing my draft and accusing me of being a troll.

"verify that a page "European people" existed"? I certainly believe that such a page existed, but as I have said before, I don't know why all main-space traces were deleted. - $\mathrm {S}$. $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$. 16:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Question about origins

• Should Europeans be called Africans because they are immigrants from Africa. It all depends on the time frame. Muntuwandi 18:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about that. There are no truly indigenous peoples outside of Africa where the species originated. When does a migration become historic and when is it recent? Mongols to Eastern Europe, Slavs to the West, Gauls to France, Romans to Spain, France and England, Jews to Europe, Moors to Spain, Saxons to England, Norse to France, Normans to England. I think all are clearly pertinent to the development of Europeans in recent history. So do we ignore major recent immigrations? There is no purely objective cut-off. --Kevin Murray 18:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

No, that would be WP:POINT. It would, however, be completely reasonable to add to the section on physical appearance and genetics a variant of the following sentence from the WP article on Cro magnon man:

European individuals probably descended from an East Africa origin via the Middle East and even North Africa from a genetic perspective.[6]

Note the use of "probably" here and the National Geographic source. --Mathsci 10:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

All genus Homo evolved in Africa, as did H. Sapiens, so from a species point of view, the migration out of Africa to populat the world is significant. I propose that later migrations are significant more for political or economic reasons than genetic. For example, the movement of Jews into Europe, as a result of Roman domination of the Mediterannean generally, and Roman conquest of Judea specifically - and other movements of people caused by the expansion of the Roman Empire, is one significant phase of migration. The migrations of so-called barbarian tribes, that began with Han expansion in China which displaced the Huns and had a cascading effect that played a role in the transformation of the Roman regime in europe to Feudalism, is another significant phase. Next, the, relocations of populations, often from countryside to town and generally within states at the time of industrialization, is another imporant historical moment. This is for "European peoples." If this were the article on whites, blacks, or Native Americans, I would add that the migrations starting in the 16th century - primarily through economic relations in Europe and characterized by much greater degrees of force in Africa and the Americas, constitute another important historical moment. In short, I do not think the issue is whether it happened recently or a long time ago, or at some arbitrary number of years ago. I think most historians and anthropologists are concerned with migrations that are pegged to majore transformations in political or economic relations, and identifying those moments of great transformation. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I have included a short sentence about the probable East African origins of Cro-Magnon man: only prehistory is concerned here. Mathsci 22:02, 7 September 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 Wikipedia.----^DarkTea© 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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 05:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Also to the editor up there. New Zealand is not in Europe. - Jeeny ^Talk 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 ^Talk 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[1], or recognition by others as a distinct group[2], or by common cultural, linguistic, religious, or territorial traits.[1] "

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 Wikipedia 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." [7]

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.[8] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 ^Talk 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 Wikipedia editors think simply does not matter. Wikipedia editors are not to put their own views into Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia article on the topic) and that view too should be represented. Remember, Wikipedia is about verifiability (that the view is held by some), not truth. Slrubenstein | Talk 04:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)