Talk:Ethnic groups in Europe

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

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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Ethnic groups in Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20151205031959/https://books.google.com/books?id=YRtnAAAAMAAJ to https://books.google.com/books?id=YRtnAAAAMAAJ

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

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

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

Adinneli (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 04:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

My apologies, let's try it again.

Please change the mention of Frisian-speaking Dominant to South Moluccans in the Netherlands in "by country" section of the article. The article states 200,000 South Moluccans live in the Netherlands, which the country has 18 million residents, so they make up over 1% (1.5%?) of the population.

Adinneli (talk) 04:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

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


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

germans without Immigrant background same as Ethnic germans?
Is the true percentage of Ethnic germans lower than 81% in the form? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nero011 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 one external links on Ethnic groups in Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111217151026/http://2001.ukrcensus.gov.ua/eng/results/general/nationality/ to http://2001.ukrcensus.gov.ua/eng/results/general/nationality/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706163803/http://belstat.gov.by/homep/en/census/2009/main.php to http://belstat.gov.by/homep/en/census/2009/main.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110510003403/http://www.mfa.gov.lv/lv/latvia/integracija/integracijas-politikacopy/ to http://www.mfa.gov.lv/lv/latvia/integracija/integracijas-politikacopy/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090504094914/http://www.en.bmi.bund.de:80/nn_148248/Internet/Content/Themen/Auslaender__Fluechtlinge__Asyl__Zuwanderung/DatenundFakten/Deutsche__Auslaender__mit__Migrationshintergrund__en.html to http://www.en.bmi.bund.de/nn_148248/Internet/Content/Themen/Auslaender__Fluechtlinge__Asyl__Zuwanderung/DatenundFakten/Deutsche__Auslaender__mit__Migrationshintergrund__en.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120918155443/http://www.ssb.no/emner/02/01/10/innvbef/tab-2012-04-26-04.html to http://www.ssb.no/emner/02/01/10/innvbef/tab-2012-04-26-04.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006110329/http://www.gks.ru/free_doc/new_site/perepis2010/perepis_itogi1612.htm to http://www.gks.ru/free_doc/new_site/perepis2010/perepis_itogi1612.htm

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2016
Modern ethnic Europeans are a recent and ongoing evolution. The original anatomically modern human migrants to Europe from Africa arrived 40,000 years ago; these prehistoric Europeans were predominantly dark skinned, short of stature, lactose intolerant, and looked dramatically different in comparison to modern Europeans. The genetic lineage of Europe mysteriously transformed about 4,500 years ago, with changes in diet, body size and skin pigmentation, when Central Asian and West Asian migrants arrived with taller height and light skin genes, respectively.

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

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

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


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

DailyMail as a source?
The genetic lineage of Europe rapidly transformed about 4,500 years ago, with changes in diet, body size and skin pigmentation, when Central Asian and West Asian migrants arrived with taller height and light skin genes, respectively.[2][3] There is no precise or universally accepted definition of the terms "ethnic group" or "nationality"..

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Ethnic groups in Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121202023700/http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_393_en.pdf to http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_393_en.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060524004644/http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf to http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150608162822/http://www.24chasa.bg/Article.asp?ArticleId=252055 to http://www.24chasa.bg/Article.asp?ArticleId=252055

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

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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ethnic groups in Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081002184956/http://www.mankindquarterly.org/samples/niskanenbalticcorrected.pdf to http://www.mankindquarterly.org/samples/niskanenbalticcorrected.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030421233303/http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2001_v69_p1314-1331.pdf to http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2001_v69_p1314-1331.pdf

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

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

Requested move 18 January 2017

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

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

Ethnic groups in Europe → Indigenous peoples of Europe – Harmonization. The article title is an odd outlier. It is the only one on indigenous people per continent which does not address these peoples as such. Therefore it needs to be brought in line with that of the others in the Category:Indigenous peoples by region: Note that all these overview articles are either directly or indirectly categorized under Category:Ethnic groups by continent, just as this one, so there is no reason for making an exception for Europe.
 * Indigenous peoples of Africa
 * Indigenous peoples of the Americas
 * Indigenous peoples in South America
 * Indigenous peoples of Oceania

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

Finally, while it is true that a small subsection of this article refers to non-indigenous groups, these complements have not kept the other continental articles from being titled as they are (e.g. Africa). Kind regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   08:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Article title should be brought into line with those of every other article dealing with Indigenous peoples of a continent. siarach (talk) 09:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the problem arises from the meaning of Indigenous peoples, which is based upon the UN definition as those groups that are currently ethnic minorities within nations that have majority populations from colonial/settler ethnic groups. This is the definition in international law. The everyday dictionary definition of "indigenous" as synonymous with "native born" (as opposed to immigrant) is not generally accepted or ditinct; since those that have been born in a county but continue to speak the language and observe the customs of their parents or ancestors are likely to identify themselves as having a "hyphenated" ethnicity; but another individual may abandon the hyphen in the first generation. The "indigenous peoples" of Europe would only be minorities such as the Basques? The peoples of Europe that do not identify as either colonized or colonizers do not fit neatly into these distinctions. Distinctions based upon historical migrations and conquests, where there may not have been majorities tied to any geographic location, become even more problematical. For example, are Celts defined by language, heredity, history, or culture? Indigenous in one country but not in another? This rename would impose the term "indigenous" on people who do not identify themselves as such.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It does make sense to unify titles that discuss analogous topics, but if there is a real difference in how the topic is discussed by experts, then it would be better to follow the actual terminology in use, even at the expense of uniformity. If the UN definition is in widespread use among anthropologists, historians, linguists, and other experts on ethnicity, then that should be reflected in the article title. It is better to have a title that stands out from similar titles than it is to have a title that is inaccurate. Consider how the sources treat the term "indigenous peoples" before deciding whether to make a change. In just a cursory examination, none of the works in the bibliography have "indigenous" in their title, whereas most of them have "ethnicity" or "ethnic groups". The article title should follow the prevailing terminology used by reliable sources, before any other consideration. After looking through the articles Indigenous peoples and List of indigenous peoples, it seems clear that there is a distinction between the case of Europe and the case of the places described in the other articles. "Indigenous" in this sense is used to distinguish one ethnic group from different ethnic groups that settled, invaded, or colonized an area later. By that meaning, there is no way one could consider the English or Russians an indigenous people, since there are no later settlers to contrast them with (though Basques, Sami eg. are considered indigenous to differentiate them from the current ethnic majorities of the regions they inhabit). In that sense "Indigenous peoples of Europe" would be a different article than this one, including only those ethnic groups named in List of indigenous peoples, and not those that make up the majority of the population of Europe. This distinction seems pretty consistent throughout the site, so unless you find some sources describing all of the ethnic groups of Europe as "indigenous peoples", then nothing should change. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * But the same objections can be applied to all the other continents. Why is it that ought only be valid for Europe? There are also those in all the other continents who are historical immigrants, many Europeans, but also those from other continents. So shouldn't all the other articles be renamed then as well? It makes no sense to have different headings for the entire world except for Europe even though the situation all over the world is the same. The only possible difference there is, is that of political motive. So either rename the other articles to "ethnic groups of", or give the people of Europe the indigenous status they are due.SonOfTheLion (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * If there are really objective reasons for treating Europe different from all other continents, these scholarly sources should be laid out here for discussion, but I find it hard to believe that such a Lex Europa should exist in anthropology. On what grounds? My sense is that the List of indigenous peoples is very much at odds with the general notion of what constitute indigenous peoples and in any case Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying that the other articles should be treated as definitive. However, no sources supporting this move have been presented. An editor's reasoning, valid or not, is not enough justification to make a move when the existing information argues against it. The UN website about indigenous peoples (which seems like a good place to start) contains this: "Indigenous peoples are inheritors and practitioners of unique cultures and ways of relating to people and the environment. They have retained social, cultural, economic and political characteristics that are distinct from those of the dominant societies in which they live." Furthermore, the UN Guidelines on Indigenous Peoples' Issues lists several definitions, all of which emphasize a distinct culture among a dominant society that came later. If that definition of "indigenous people" is the prevailing one, then this article is not about the "indigenous peoples of Europe", and naming it such would be misleading and inaccurate. If there is a definition more generally accepted or more appropriate here than the UN one, then there should be some sources explaining it. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. While the description "indigenous peoples of Europe" is accurate, the term indigenous peoples is typically used (as reflected in the UN definition) for marginalized or oppressed peoples whose distinct way of life (not only language) is more noble or worthy than that of the oppressors or marginalizers.  That is not the case with the peoples in this article.  Instead, the term most often refers to peoples like the Lapps or Nenets.  Note the usage in Indigenous peoples of Africa where the term normally only refers to groups like the Pygmies or Bushmen.  It is the List of indigenous peoples that has problems and should be culled.  —  AjaxSmack   20:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose even a glance at the article shows it's about ethnic groups, not indigenous peoples. Hungarians are on the map in the lead, they're not indigenous, they're from Asia. For anyone who demands an initialism for justification, there's WP:DESCRIPDIS. Ribbet32 (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose as argued above. This article is not primarily about "indigenous peoples of Europe" as the term is defined. The title "ethnic groups in Europe" accurately describes the contents of this article. It contains useful information that is broader in scope than "indigenous peoples of Europe", and shouldn't be cut, changed, or renamed to fit a topic that would be better served by its own article. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 05:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above, though we could have an article on actually indigenous peoples of Europe. It would need a whole section on different ways to define that. Many would include the Hungarians at this point, while others would not even include the Indo-European groups and only include the Basques, Lappland Finns (Saami) and other groups (mostly extinct/absorbed, like the Picts) that pre-date the Indo-Europeans.  A problem here is that "indigenous" in the socio-political sense most of us are familiar with means "present in an area before European colonists arrived", so that most common definition is automatically inapplicable to Europe itself.  While anthropologists and such may have alternative definitions, they are not the ones users will be familiar with.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - clearly not about indigenous peoples. BobLaRouche (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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


 * That is just baseless lies. 88.106.238.93 (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ethnic groups in Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://censimentopopolazione.istat.it/_res/doc/pdf/primi-risultati-censimento_opuscolo.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081218230512/http://vetinari.sitesled.com/euroaims.pdf to http://vetinari.sitesled.com/euroaims.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926140009/http://stedwards.edu/business/pdf/PerspectivesV0201_09.pdf to http://stedwards.edu/business/pdf/PerspectivesV0201_09.pdf

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

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

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

Here are examples: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierebean (talk • contribs) 11:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * http://www.eurfedling.org/maps/Languages_Europe.jpg
 * https://i2.wp.com/thedockyards.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Languages_of_Europe_map-e1428050358509.png

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


 * Our ancestors were blacks, the 10,000 BC came from Africa. Even a racist IP can not change that. Phillipm0703 (talk) 11:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


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

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


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

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


 * Not exactly. From what I can see, and what little I know of Yiddish, it's sort of an amalgam of German and Hebrew--Vercalos (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Yiddish is Germanic, and Indo-European. It has words of semitic origin, but calling it a semitic language is not consistent with it's consensus based classification. I have corrected the information on the page.Paolorausch (talk) 06:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Paolorausch, Yes, I see you removed it from the list of Semitic languages in section Linguistic classifications in this edit, I've gone ahead and added to the list of Germanic languages higher in that section; the parent article Languages of Europe claims 600k speakers. Mathglot (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

Related RfD discussion
Please see: --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 3

Removal of Jewish ethnic groups
recently proposed the removal of Jewish ethnic groups from the list. The rationale in their edit summary was:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * Ceneri, I came here to discuss this. I'm curious to know what page of the source this claim is found on. I was able to find the actual link from the publisher here: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-211-35310-3. And, the file is out there...
 * The original version of this sentence originates from an edit by User:Dbachmann at 15:24, 16 December 2008. In its original form:
 * This was only changed in June 2020 by User:Dietic, who is now blocked: link]. There is no explanation for the change; as such, I am going to revert this to the original text.
 * Anyway, according to Kurgan hypothesis, the Urheimat of IE language and culture is the Pontic–Caspian steppe c.a. 4,000 BCE. To me, this would imply that IE peoples are not indigenous to Central and Western Europe, rather the edge of Eastern Europe and Western Asia. And, many IE groups migrated to the rest of Europe well after
 * We know that people did inhabit Europe prior to IE migration further into the continent (the Basque language may be evidence of this). I think the question of contemporary European indigineity relies on how much influence Old European culture, genetics, language, etc. influenced those groups that immigrated. However, this is a question for academics and I have no knowledge of what the consensus on this currently is.
 * Personally, considering the comments above regarding the "white race" and similar content I removed from the actual Indigenous Peoples article, it sounds like this is part of an agenda.
 * I think your comment above dovetails well into what I've said above: the reason this article does not make sense is because modern European ethnic groups are _not_ native to most of Europe...hence the confusion. If you want to hit your head against the wall a couple more times, check out List of indigenous peoples, which is a complete mess.
 * This article and related topics need a complete rework.
 * --💬 KaerbaqianRen 22:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This article and related topics need a complete rework.
 * --💬 KaerbaqianRen 22:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

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


 * I am sorry, it was indeed WP:Synth. I have now included the new study below, without changing the Lewis citation. But I do not understand why you removed the whole edit. A simple fix would have been easier.213.162.81.102 (talk) 08:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The IP is a sock of WorldCreaterFighter, a well known LTA editing genetic topic pushing a East Asian agenda.195.208.178.74 (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The content included by the sock IP is furthermore WP:OR. The first study about Uralic languages does not speak about East Asians or East Asian geneflow, but mentions the arrival of an Siberian component to the Baltic region, possibly linked to the Uralic expansion. This component refers to the "West Siberian hunter gatherers", not East Asians. As we can see above, the IP sock also tried to manipulate other content but was stopped by a careful user . Secondly, the content claimed to be from Reich is WP:OR and WP:Synth. Reich did not said such things, and the modeled components are sublineages of the "West-Eurasian genetic cluster", the human lineage which split from Ancestral East Asians 45,000 years ago soon after the Out of Africa migration. The content is pure WP:POV of the Austrian IP sock of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/WorldCreaterFighter, see also this discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Austronesier/sandbox#Woolen_footwear.195.208.178.74 (talk) 09:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

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


 * The second part is still WP:OR after checking again, thus removed. I have worded the first part more neutral. One study not "studies" as example.195.208.178.74 (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Can you clarify as to why this is WP:OR? TheGEICOgecko (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


 * , the Reich paper distinguish these components, but they are all "West-Eurasian" lineages, not as distinct as modern Europeans and Chinese. As such it is WP:OR. At least the editorial from 2018 newspaper (also fails WP:RS in this topic.195.208.178.74 (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The editorial does indeed fail WP:RS, so it should not be considered. Is there a reason from the paper itself for WP:OR to apply, or perhaps from a different reliable source? TheGEICOgecko (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The paper itself is fine. Thank you.195.208.178.74 (talk) 12:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

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


 * I agree that the lack of credible sources is concerning. However, there are plenty of WP:RS within the mix. I believe it worthwhile to update/clean up the section, rather than just disregarding it altogether. Examining the sources case by case (with the intent of removing any WP:OR) may be the more tedious approach, but probably more reasonable compared to a simple blanket delete. I have added an update section template to the paragraph with the hopes that it (along with this discussion) will garner the attention of editors willing to assist. Cheers, Archives908 (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Russia, and Sweden have references. That's 14 out of 44. Of these, the source given for Germany doesn't support the claims, and that for the Netherlands supports only minor claims (I didn't check the other 12). I don't see how that's "plenty of WP:RS". Updating is not the problem. The problem is OR, and my template hasn't attracted any editors for a month now. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


 * And your point? Some CN tags have been around for over a decade. Just because sources haven't been added in 30 days, it doesn't mean that they won't, nor does it justify a blanket deletion wherein some sources are present. If sourcing is a concern to you, you have also had a month to help fix it. Alas, Wikipedia is a voluntary project and Rome wasn't built in a day. I can go through the remaining 12 when I have extra time. In terms of adding new ones, hopefully this talk page discussion (which was only just posted today) will draw attention. Archives908 (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


 * WP:V is a core content policy. The material in articles about ethnic groups is often abused to support nationalistic or racist views, so we have to be very careful here. Another problem is that we have very different types of society in Europe. While in some cases (e.g. Latvia), there are mutually exclusive ethnic groups, other cases (e.g. Germany) have less distinctions and the groups are more fluid. I'm going to look at each country individually and remove everything that is badly sourced and also the unsourced lines if they don't seem plausible. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

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


 * Also the UK is missing; besides England, this also cuts out Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If nobody objects, I will add rows for these countries so that others can fill them in from RS. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC)


 * While the model of dividing the population into different ethnic groups surely is a good model for some states, I'm not so sure about other ones. In the case of Germans there seem to be no good sources that "Germans" primarily denotes an ethnic group. In the case of Britons, which one is the ethnic group ? Britons, or English people ? Rsk6400 (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Firstly, this is a list of sovereign states in Europe. Every such state should be represented and the status of its ethnic grouping (or otherwise) summarised. So these sovereign states need to be reinstated here. Secondly, your questions are largely answered in the demographics articles I added links to but you deleted instead of following through. For example the Demography of the United Kingdom gives a detailed Ethnic demographic breakdown. So all that is needed is to lift the relevant facts from there and fill in the rest of the row here. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:23, 14 January 2023 (UTC)


 * As I stated in the discussion preceding this one, verifiability is one of WP's core principles. Completeness of lists is not. Regarding Germany (or France): Ethnicity is not part of the census (difficult to imagine for Americans, but true), which has to do with the way our societies see themselves. Regarding UK: Is White British really the majority identity ? Or should it be English (or White English) ? Any reliable sources for that decision ? Rsk6400 (talk) 07:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Are you having trouble following up the references cited in the section on the UK's Ethnic demographic breakdown, which I linked to especially for you to follow up? If you do so, you will see that the UK does actually incorporate questions on ethnicity in its census forms and publish the results. Why are you asking me to repeat it here? If I were to restore my edits and copy-paste those references into them, would that keep you happy? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * No. Rsk6400 (talk) 11:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Can you please explain why those sources are not suitable? Blanket denial is not discussion. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * No, that's the wrong way. According to WP:ONUS it is you who should explain why certain sources answer my question which one is the ethnic group ?. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Is White British really the majority identity ?" Yes
 * "Or should it be English (or White English) ?" No (as they are amalgamated into one group being White British)
 * "Any reliable sources for that decision" the 2011 census figures which are perfectly acceptable source for this sub-section as it relates to demographics. Tweedle (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Tweedle, for the helpful contribution. But still I doubt that we can decide the question based on a primary source. A quick search on Google books found this quote, distinguishing between the 52 million English, the Lowland Scots and other groups. That the census amalgamated English and Scots into one group doesn't say that an ethnographic academic source would describe them as one group. Those Scots who voted for independence in the last referendum don't seem to want to be in the same ethnic group with the English. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Sure, but to avoid a problem like this we can simply state that it amalgamates them so it is clear to people when reading. All of the current entries on the table list are based on primary source census figures and due to the fact there are no coherent figures on how many 'White: English' people there are its best to use White British as an effective proxy. Tweedle (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * If you want to be specific anyhow, you can state that because the Scottish census differs slightly in its ethnic question, that there exists 4,446,000 enumrated (in 2011) 'White: Scottish' people (but again this is amalgamated into the larger White British figure) Tweedle (talk) 12:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * In my understanding, the no-OR policy of WP doesn't allow us to decide what "to use ... as an effective proxy". With regard to other countries: As far as I see, most breakdowns are according to indigenous populations (e.g. Belgium: Flemish and Walloon), and that would correspond to English people / Scots etc. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


 * No but when a country collects ethnicity data using its national census then I think it should be rightfully included. Your never going to get a perfect metric or answer which fully gets the best picture of ethnicity within the country but when one exists it should be included and sourced.
 * Belgium does not collect ethnicity data (and is not sourced to anything), neither does Finland, Iceland, Norway, Denmark, and Sweden, all of which collect 'Origin' data which is a metric based on a mix of your country of birth and nationality status, so is a poor example to use (and should probably be removed). Tweedle (talk) 09:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

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


 * All this makes me question the validity of the whole table here. All we can do is to cite such RS as we find. We should not be cherry-picking our RS for different entries in the table, arguing technicalities against one source but letting another at least as dubious pass. One Ring to Rule them All. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree, I know for a fact that the majority of countries for Eastern Europe do collect ethnicity data (albeit alot of it is out of date, like Ukraine or Macedonia) but for Western and Central Europe this is not the case (this link if you scroll down a bit gives a list on those who collect ethnic and racial data). Alot seem to have footnotes provided if they don't from when I assume they were originally added.
 * Belgium, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Italy (which looking at the sources I think is going off of foreign nationals? I know they don't collect ethnicity data) and Greece don't, not sure about Switzerland though. Tweedle (talk) 10:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

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


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

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


 * It's a bit sad to see that you were edit warring twice without ever taking the dispute to the talk page. As far as I can see, neither map is sufficiently sourced, see File:Simplified Languages of Europe map.svg and File:Rectified Languages of Europe map.png. I removed both according to WP:V. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Rsk6400- Let's get the facts straight. Several IP's began removing/replacing maps without explaining why. I merely restored the article to the last stable version. You yourself did the same thing and had every opportunity to start a discussion here, but did not. Regardless, the IP's should have explained their edits, or after being reverted, should have brought their suggestions to talk. After the IP's got nowhere, along came Academic10 who proceeded to replace the map (without any explanation) just as the IP's did. Academic10 then brings the discussion to my personal talk page, which is by far, not the appropriate place for a discussion about this article. Now that we got the timeline of events correct, let's discuss the map. The original simplified version of the map has been updated continually since 2017 and has been a standard on this article for many years. The rectified version, meanwhile, has not been updated since 2015. Academic10, I'm perplexed how you think a map which hasn't been updated in 9 years is more accurate? Your argument that the map is "visually easier" is null since you can't even expand the image on this article. Rsk6400, thank you for finally starting the talk page discussion. However, your removal of the original simplified map lacks justification. I noticed you again restored the map before removing it entirely. I believe you should restore the status quo and then present your arguments here and let's all try and reach a consensus. Agreed? Archives908 (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Archives908, you had every right to restore the status quo. But you could also have started this discussion here, especially since Academic10 is a new editor. I didn't see the discussion on your talk page, but you are right in stating that your talk page is the wrong place for it. The reason why I removed the map and don't think it should be restored is that the map itself is not sufficiently sourced. Only the sources for Belarusian, German, Rumansh, Slovenian and Ukrainian are given. But on WP, all information must be verifyable, and this includes the information contained in maps. Rsk6400 (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Rsk6400. I do agree with your concern, however, I believe the map to be sufficient (at least, at the most basic level) and useful in terms of providing a general visualization to readers. Perhaps the map itself can be worked on and improved? It seems that other editors have been trying to actively update it. Therefore, perhaps it would be wise if you restored the status quo and we can tag the image itself requesting additional citations. Thoughts? Archives908 (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The fact that "Simplified" has been updated several times may not be a good sign, it could also mean POV pushing, something that frequently happens on Commons (note that I don't say that it really does mean that). If we look e.g. at Alsace and Lorraine, "Simplified" is certainly not up to date and shows a much larger German speaking area than there is in reality. The only solution would be drawing a completely new map from a good, secondary source. Verifiability is a core principle on WP, providing dubious information is not. That's why I think we can't restore an unsourced map, tagged or not. On the other hand - this article is about ethnic groups which in many cases are not identical with language groups (e.g. many ethnic Ukrainians use Russian as their first language) - so a language map is not necessary here, and we should solve the problem of an ethnographic map (newer than 1896) first. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Procedural note Talk pages are for discussing content, not "who did what". As for the map, it seems sufficiently good. It's not perfect by any means (I see several minor errors) but still better than most language maps of Europe. None of the languages mentioned by the OP is a major language by any stretch of imagination, some of them are not spoken by the majority population in even one village and hence would not be shown on a linguistic map. Jeppiz (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)