Talk:Ethnic groups in Europe/Archive 5

The British are not an ethnic group
British is a demonym for a citizen of the United Kingdom, whose indigenous peoples include the English, Scots, Welsh, and before Ireland's independence, the Irish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.207.245 (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Greeks
You put Greek Macedonians as a minority in Greece-why?

Interesting article, but in need of attention
First, I'd like to say that I see that a few users have put a lot of effort into this page and I applaud them for it. It is an interesting article, but I also think it suffers from some major problems. The main problem, as I see it, is the source "National Minorities in Europe" by Pan and Pfeil. I hope I don't offend anyone by saying that this book is of little academic value and this page would probably benefit from not relying so much on it. This is not a place for a review of the book, but I'd like to mention a few obvious errors in this article; I'm not claiming all of them are the fault of Pan and Pfeil:


 * Contradictions: Sometimes this article treats all inhabitans of a country as belonging to the same ethnic group, sometimes it doesn't. Both views can be defended, but a choice would have to be made, or at least it would have to be explained why we keep changing foot from paragraph to paragraph.


 * Levels: For some peoples, we make sharper distinctions than for others. Is there any justification for having Spaniards, Italians and Portuguese as three separate ethnic groups but to lump together six Scandinavian peoples as one group. Why is a Swede and an Icelander part of the same group but a Portuguese different from a Spaniard?


 * Lack of understanding: How is "Gaeltacht" and "Gàidhealtachd" sub-groups to Irish and Scotch. This is just someone who doesn't know the first thing about these countries. Both terms refer to certain areas, not to peoples.


 * Language or Ethnicity: For some groups, we count those who speak a certain language, as for the Basques. For others, we count everybody with that nationality, as for the Irish and Welsh. Once again, there's no consistency.


 * Comparisons: A similar problem, the lack of consistency and of proper definitions, leads to strange comparisons. The term corresponding to "Italians" is "French", not "Francophonie". For the Italians, the definition is the country; Italian-speakers outside of Italy are not included in the term. For French-speakers, it is the other way around. Once again, we need to make up our mind. In the tables, should we focus on languages or state boundaries. Again, both choices can be discussed and defended, but to keep jumping back and forth cannot, it looks like original research.


 * Regional majorities: Estonian Swedes are listed as a regional majority population. That used to be the case prior to WWII but there is no community in Estonia with a Swedish majority these day. Noarootsi has recently made Swedish co-official for historical reasons. In contrast, the large Russian minority is not mentioned as a regional majority, although it definitely is a majority language in parts of Estonia. If I may make a crude comparison, this is a bit like putting Norwegian above Catalan in Spain.


 * Lack of sources: There a lot of unsourced claims in the article. I didn't put the tags there, but I certainly agree with many of the tags. Very strong claims are made with no support in any source.


 * Inclusion of bad sources: I know that Pan and Pfeil claim that the majority population in Romania and in Moldova is "Vlach", but just because they make mistakes in their book, I don't think it is necessary to repeat said mistakes here. It is, to put it mildly, an opinion that Pan and Pfeil are very alone in holding.

There are some other issues, but these are the main ones. Once again, there is a lot of interesting and useful information in this article as well. I've focused on the downsides as these are things we would need to address. As I believe I've made it clear, the main problem is the lack of definitions and lack of consistency that is evident in much of the article. Looking forward to hearing your opinions.Jeppiz (talk) 05:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * you are right that there are contradictions. That is largely because editors who have worked on this article fenerally are divided into two points of view.  But the solution to this article's problems is not to pick one side over the other.  The problem is that many sources are provided without any contextual framework.  For example, I think Pan and Pfeil are silly.  But some editors here feel that they represent a significant view.  And accourding to our WP:NPOV policy we must include all significant views, even ones that are in conflict or mutually exclusive.  What we need is a clearer framework for understanding different views, and organize the article accordingly.  For example, who are Pan and Pfeil writing for?  What interests does their work serve?  Who cares about how many ethnic groups there are in europe, and why?


 * Jeppiz, I think you make some veryinsightful comments, but it sounds like you are not familiar with our core content policies, WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. You - or I - can identify as many mistakes as we can in a source.  It doesn't matter.  Wikipedian editors do notput their own views into articles.  What matters is whether a source is reliable according to our policies.  Pan and Pfeil may be reliable, they may not be, but it is not for you to decide.  It has to be based on Wikipedia's policy.  There are plenty of reliable sources that assert views I think are wrong, and I have good scholarship to back me up.  But as long as the source meets the project's reliability standard and is significant 9again, according to our standsrds) we have to include it.  Of course, if there is another reliable source that provides a different view, we can include that too.  I think some of your criticisms may lead to removing some sources, but you have to prove to the people who included them (not me) that they are unreliable or insignificant.  My bet is that the result of most of your comments wil instead be (1) adding other views from other sources and (2) adding a framework that makes clear why people have divided, even conflicting, views about what ethnicity is and how to talk about it, and even how to identify specific ethnic groups, and why.  Now, if you are willing to do (1) and (20 in a way that complies with our core content policies, be my guest, I am sure the result will be an improvement. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for you comments! While I agree with most of what you say, there is one point I'd like to address. I'm very familiar with WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR, and it precisely because of this that I wrote my first post. As you will see if you look again at the eight points I mentioned, seven of them explicitly target violations of these core policies. Pardon my use of space, but I'll outline them again and explain why I think they violate these policies.
 * Contradictions: The article treats all inhabitans of a country as belonging to the same ethnic group, sometimes it doesn't. This doesn't build on any source and would appear to violate WP:NOR, with individual editors using the interpretation they prefer.


 * Levels: Separating Spaniards, Italians and Portuguese into three separate ethnic groups while grouping all six Scandinavian peoples together. This certainly violates WP:NOR, perhaps also WP:NPOV.


 * Lack of understanding: Claimning "Gaeltacht" and "Gàidhealtachd" as sub-groups to Irish and Scotch. This is very WP:OR, apart from just being very weird. It's like claiming "Miami" as an ethnic sub-group to "American".


 * Language or Ethnicity: Counting only people who those who speak a certain language, or counting everybody with that nationality. Ask any Basque or Irish person, and they'll say that it is WP:POV. It certainly is WP:OR as it doesn't build on any sourced definition.


 * Comparisons: Comparing "Italians" to "Francophonie" instead of "French". If this was done on purpose to make the number of us French-speakers seem higher, then it violates WP:NPOV. At any rate the whole table violates WP:NOR by not being properly sourced.


 * Regional majorities: Claiming that Estonian Swedes make up a regional majority is factually incorrect. It's not clear from the table if this is the WP:OR of a user or if Pan and Pfeil claim it to be true. In the latter case, it doesn't violate any of the policies you mentioned, but it still doesn't make it true. Perhaps we can could add a paragraph that Pan and Pfeil mistakenly thinks there are majority Swedish-speaking areas in Estonia. We can easily source that this is erroneous, there a lot of sources available, both the Estonian census and various academic sources on the Estonian Swedes.


 * Lack of sources: Well, the many tags speak for themselves.


 * Inclusion of bad sources: This is the one point in which my suggestions are opposite to the policies. Still, the view represented by Pan and Pfeil is very much a minority view. I don't suggest deleting it, but the claims they make could be compared with those of other, sourced, opinions.

In other words, I don't think I suggest violating any of the core policies, I suggest instead that we should strengthen them in this article. I look forward to an interesting discussion!Jeppiz (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I think you make a strong case, and from my point of view, there is no need for discussion, go ahead and make the changes you lay our right here. When it comes to Pan and Pfeil, I think your considered point is good - identify them as a minority view, and provide the majority view, with context (as I said, perhapos these two divergent views are motivated by different interests, or reflect different contexts).  I have no argument with any of your owther points, so I say, just go ahead and delete or change as needs be.  Just understand: whoever added this material will come back, or someone like him/her will come back.  You either have to watch this page and defend your changes when they come back (they may not be around now).  In my experience, the way to make an edit stick is not just to delete bad information or even to replace it with good information but - using verifiable source - explain why the majority of scholars (or politicians, or bureaucrats, or jurists, or activists, or whatever interest group/stakeholder/constiutency/that is, "point of view") have the view they have, and also provide an explanation for why there are minority or even fringe views.  Adding this kind of contextual information leaves little room for POV-pushing or original research. I admit I know nothing about the specific issues you raise (European ethnic groups/ethnicity), but I do have lots of experience with this kind of edit-warring and all I can say is if you make your changes and try to do what i just suggested, your changes are much more likely to last a much longer time. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would not object to the Overview section being removed completely. It does not seem to be about ethnic groups in Europe. Mathsci (talk) 22:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I would add that the ethno-linguistic section seems to be just about languages, not ethnicity. The "Eurobarometer" chart looks like it is pure original research and provides no information to enable a critical assesment for it.  In my view, the manor problem with this article is that it conflates dictics for ethnicity (language, religion ec.) for ethnicity itself.  At a minimum we need some discussion of how in some cases hese may be markers of ethnicity and in other contexts not. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Armenians
I had included Armenians in the original list because I was aware of the constant pushing of "Armenia is European" at Armenia, not because I had any source. Pan and Pfeil do not include Armenians in their "peoples of Europe". Armenia is clearly not in Europe geographically, and the "historical cultural ties" proffered for inclusion are bogus twice over, one, there are no such ties other than the annexation of Armenia into the Russian Empire in the 19th century, and two, because "cultural ties" don't make you "European", or all of America and Australia would need to be included here. I suggest that we drop the Armenians unless a clear, notable (WP:RS) argument can be referenced that says "Armenians are Europeans". --dab (𒁳) 17:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * According to europa.eu, which deems itself "the official portal of the European union", Armenia is included in the list of "other European countries" so its conditional inclusion in the article may be legitimate indeed.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

After all the pedantry I had to put up with above regarding WP:SYN, I think the least I can expect is a reference to the Armenian people (not the Armenian Republic) descibed as an "European people" or an "European ethnic group". --dab (𒁳) 17:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If the EU acknowledges the country as an "other European country", it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that its ethnic people are also recognized as a European people. The reverse doesn't make much sense.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The website you link mentions Armenia as European because of the Armenian Republic's advances towards EU membership (see Armenia and the European Union). This has nothing whatsoever to do with an ethnic classification of the Armenian people and is purely a current-day political issue. If you can show that the EU itself (as in, in a quotable document as opposed to a random website maintained by god knows who) acknowledges Armenia as a European country, you are welcome to mention it at Armenia. "The reverse" would be stating positively that the Armenians are Asians. Simply avoiding mentioning the Armenians isn't "the reverse", it is what we necessarily do in the absence of sources either way. That said, it was I who included the Armenians in the first place, and I am not pushing their removal. But I do agree that since their being listed is now contested, we need to present a good source if they are to remain. --dab (𒁳) 18:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no geographical definition of Europe which includes Armenia. Is there any particular reason to keep re-adding them here? This article is clearly based on a geographical concept of Europe.--Mttll (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * May I suggest we wait until other editors have chimed in until we decide whether or not to exclude the data? I see 3 editors in a more or less 3-way split on this so far, hardly a consensus.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The general tone on this talkpage has forced us to keep a very tight, no-nonsense regime of "WP:CITE or out". I accept that when challenged, my information needs to be closely referenced, or it needs to go. At the same time, I can expect every other editor to accept the same. The debates with Slrubenstein all over this page have made painfully clear that there is nothing we can amically agree on here. In this spirit, I suggest we wait until other users have chimed in before we decide to keep mention of the Armenians. In the absence of sources, consensus is irrelevant. Consensus exclusively concerns the proper and adequate presentation of sources, which obviously presupposes the existence of sources. --dab (𒁳) 08:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to say I sympathize with dab here. The point is to avoid any knee-jerk assumptions.  I can guess why some might consider Armenians Europeans - for a long time one important marker of the difference between European and non-European was Christian vs. non-Christian.  Some people I think still hold this view, but as dab points out, correctly in my view, the growth of the EU may be leading to new definitions.  But maybe my guess is wrong!  The only way we will know is through research.  I am making two points: first, I agree with dab that we have to be careful to see what kinds of scholarly research exists on claims about the identification and classification of national and ethnic groups.  Second, I think these kinds of debates will be easier to resolve, these questions easier to research, if we assume that ethnic identities, including the very definition of "European," may change over time; what was considered European in 1500 may not be considered European in 2000 and vice versa, not because a group of people moved or changed their language, but because definitions of Europe have changed.  Maybe.  We just need to research this. (if i am right, this will require us to move the article away from straightforward lists to creating sections for specific epochs ... I am talking about an organizational principle, dab and many others have already added information that could easily fit into a new organization.  We do have a section on history, but it is not really about the changing of concepts and definitions.) Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Europe is closely associated with "Western Christianity", but certainly not with Christianity as a whole. Armenian Christianity along with Syrian, Egyptian and Ethiopic Christianity are archaisms, remnants of Asian Christianity, which actually goes to separate Armenian culture from Europe, grouping it with Syria, Egypt and Ethiopia. --dab (𒁳) 11:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * We could put Armenians in a sort of "marginal inclusion" section, or whatnot. Though I'd like to note that even the inclusion of Georgians is a stretch, but that's allowed mainly because although Georgia is mainly in the Middle East, it is clearly culturally closer to Europe. Christianity isn't a valid argument: except for the fact that the North Caucasus is mostly Muslim, if you listen to the music, especially that of the Circassians and often Chechens as well, it sounds much more European (especially if you compare it to Medieval Western European music, including the use of the recorder and accordion, etc...) when compared to Armenian music, which definitely sounds more Middle Eastern in the scales and instruments it uses, etc.


 * Though, may I also state that my personal view is that the "Europe vs. Asia" division of Eurasia isn't the best. Personally, I prefer "Western Eurasia", which includes the Middle East, Europe, the Caucasus and North Africa, and the rest going to "Eastern Eurasia. This makes much more sense culturally: West Eurasia is mainly Abrahamic religions, whereas the "East" is Brahmanic religions, and comparing genetics, especially the strong affinity between the Middle East and Europe (Caucasoid race, for one), it seems more legit. But in divisions of this Western Eurasia, I'd still say Armenians are more Middle Eastern, by note of many things listed above. Christianity alone does not make a people more European. Though, this is still a matter of personal opinions, which is largely my criticism of this page as a whole... (and on that note, aren't the US and Canada and Puerto Rico and so on inhabited primarily by people of European descent? If that note is applied to models of the borders of Europe and its culture, it makes things even more impossible to clearly define...)--Yalens (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. Why are Turks, Azeris, Georgians, Iranians all considered European ethnic group but not Armenians? However, if Georgians are listed as a European ethnic group, Armenians should be listed as well as a European ethnic group. Not only is Armenia connected to Europe by culture and history but also DNA of Armenians show a great connection with continental Europe in addition to connection with various ethnic groups in the Caucuses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MosMusy (talk • contribs) 05:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Turks are by no means europeans. They slaughtered they way into Europe, but, look: I'm a white-skinned, green-eyed argentinian. Being born in America does not mean I'm amerindian, or that I have any kind of tie with the Incas. Iranians is a huge WTF, as well as Azeris. In the other hand, Georgians are like Armenians, they had plenty of contact with the Romans and the Byzantines. I think Alans (aka Ossetia) deserve more the title of "europan" then Turks and Azeris (think of the byzantine emperess Maria of Alania) --201.252.15.192 (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Italy - Ancient In listing Europe's historical migrations, the authors somehow skipped the extensive Greek colonisation of the coasts of Southern Italy in the 8th and 7th centuries BCE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Graecia; and extensive Jewish diaspora presence in Rome is attested well before 70 AD, in fact since the 2nd century BCE http://www.livius.org/di-dn/diaspora/rome.html

Italy - Modern According to the most recent Italian government statistics there are now 4.279.000 foreign-born persons residing in Italy (7.1% of the total population, largest component Eastern Europeans).The 2010 breakdown by country of origin is given in the Italian-language wiki (source: ISTAT - Italian Bureau of Statistics): Romania 953.000 Albania 472.000 Morocco 433.000 China 181.000 Ukraine 172.000 Philippines 120.000 Moldova 109.000 Poland 107.000 Tunisia 105.000 India 104.000 etc etc http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigrazione_in_Italia#Caratteristiche

In the entry for Italy in the table "by country" I think it's ridiculous to write "includes Sicilians, Sardinians, Lombards and other subgroups" - one might as well list the inhabitants of every single region of Italy (Piedmont, Venetia, Liguria, Emilia-Romagna, Tuscany, Umbria, Latium, Campania, Calabria etcetc) as a "subgroup" - ALL Italian regions and their populataions have distinct historical identities, all have slightly different (but usually mutually comprehensible) neo-Latin regional dialects, slightly differentiated cultural traditions cuisine etc: all-alike make up the ITALIAN people so cannot be considered "subgroups" (Note: Corsicans are ethnic Italians too: they speak an Italian dialect very similar to Tuscan (Pisan)). And when listing Italy's historic linguistic minority-groups ("plus German-speakers in Trento-Alto Adige and French-speaking minority of Val D'Aosta") you should add the historic Griko/Grecanic (Greek-speaking) and Arberesh (Albanian-speaking) enclaves of Southern Italy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griko_language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arb%C3%ABresh%C3%AB Thanks! (Lisa from Rome) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.27.198.221 (talk) 05:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. re "limits of Europe" and inclusion/exclusion of Armenians, Turks, Georgians and Azeris: the traditional borders cut through Georgia and Azerbaijan and only-just exclude Armenia, but for ethnocultural, linguistic and historic reasons I agree with the previous poster from Argentina: Georgians and Armenians "in", Turks and Azeris "out". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.27.198.221 (talk) 05:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The percentage of foreign-born in Sweden at 20% is said to be the highest in the European Union, followed by Germany at 17%. Italians are a represented group of foreign-born in Sweden along with Greek, Moroccan, Pakistani, Turkish and Yugoslav (the former republic: now Serbian, Bosnian, Croatian, Albanian and Slovenian). + 71.102.27.81 (talk) 07:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom
The UK section makes no sense and is full of errors. 'Visible ethnic minorities make up 14%' - when in fact the white population is 92% so how can this be the case? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.110.25 (talk) 10:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Ethno-linguistic map dispute
I note that during an ongoing dispute, the simplified language map shown on the left was replaced by the map shown on the right. I do not agree with this, as this map has several flaws.
 * It exaggerates the Celtic languages, particularly Irish. While there are predominantly Gaelic speaking areas in the west of Ireland, most of the country is English-speaking (sadly, but...).
 * It shows German being spoke in areas of the Czech republic where it is no longer spoken.
 * It shows French and German speaking areas in northwestern Italy in areas where these languages are not spoken. To my knowledge, French is only spoken in the Val D'aoste, a much smaller area than shown in the map.
 * It greatly exaggerates the areas where Catalan is being spoken in southern France.
 * It shows Albanian being spoken in Greece in areas where it is either endangered or no longer spoken.
 * It greatly exaggerates the area where Saami is spoken.

In general, the detailed map tends to overemphasize minority languages and is in many instances anachronistic. The simplified map, while not perfect, is free from many of these flaws. I thus propose restoring it. Athenean (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree because:

-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 12:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Scots is spoken even in southern Scotland, while the previous map shows it is spoken only in remote northern locations.
 * 2) Irish is spoken in all parts of Ireland, while that map shows it is spoken only in some remote nothern locations
 * 3) Macedonian Slavic which is still spoken in northern Greece is not shown in that map
 * 4) Breton is still spoken and in fact schools have been opened recently
 * 5) German is the predominant language in Alsace, while that map shows that French is spoken at that region.
 * 6) Arvanitika which is still spoken in Greece is not shown in that map
 * 7) The current map has more details about the areas where Russian is spoken in Ukraine
 * 8) Aromanian is completely ommited in the previous map, while the current map shows where it is spoken in Albania, Greece and Macedonia.
 * 9) Khanty-language areas in Russia are completely ommited in the previous map.

Add Montenegrin on the left map. Rave92 (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Both maps (like most maps) don't include Montenegrin because most scholars consider it a dialect not a separate language. -- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 13:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. All the languages you mention are spoken by very few people and are considered endangered.  In all those regions, the majority language is predominant. The map on the left greatly exaggerates the range and intensity of minority languages.  Scottish is NOT spoken in southern Scotland (and Scots is something completely different, it's a dialect of English) and it is only spoken by 50,000 people, Irish is only spoken in the far west of Ireland by fewer than 70,000 people, not everywhere in Ireland, Macedonian Slavic is spoken by very few people in Greece these days, as is Arvanitika, which is considered endangered.  Aromanian and Khanty-Mansy are also endangered.  Athenean (talk) 16:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Please keep in mind that Russian usage is confined to the cities and large towns in Eastern Ukraine. The villages and small towns are still Ukrainian speaking. Even cities like Kharkiv - as soon as you leave the city centre the percentage of Ukrainian use goes up. By the time you get 5 to 7 kms out of the centre the language is almost exclusively Ukrainian. Having Russian blanketed in eastern Ukraine is problematic. In Weste bank Ukraine Russian, although used is not the predominant language in towns at all, and indeed is rarely encountered although widely understood.--Bandurist (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Disagree with the removal of the detailed map and the return to the simplified version: I find that the new map is clearly more precise and detailed than the old one and see no reason to go back to the old map. For instance Gaelic is more clearly represented: Now it's much more spoken than 40 years ago as it's been taught in schools for years. See Irish language: the numbers go from 300k native speakers in 1983 to almost double in 2006. The same thing is happening to Aromanian language which is spoken by ~300k people in three countries (Albania, Macedonia, and Greece): for instance it is recognized as a minority language in the Republic of Macedonia and Albania, whereas before 1991 it wasn't. Aromanian schools have opened after the fall of the communist regimes in these two countries, so paradoxically it is far less endangered than it used to be 20 years ago, to which the first map refers. --sulmues talk contributions 17:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: Users ZjarriRrethues are hardcore Albanian nationalists who follow my every move and join in every dispute where they see a chance of spiting me.  Inane comments such as "Gaelic is more clearly represented" are a case in point. Athenean (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * From what I've read - and I'm specifically avoiding this particular issue - you, Athenean, are more 'hardcore' than he is. ZjarriRrethues didn't even make any comments about Gaelic. And don't assume that everyone's actions are focused on you specifically: he's involved in issues pertaining to the Albanian language because he's Albanian. DS (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I suppose it was just sheer coincidence that he joined this discussion right after I started it. As far as being "hardcore" I'm not the one who follows others around.  Don't believe everything you hear on IRC.  And by the way, I was referring to Sulmues about the comments on Gaelic.  Athenean (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually you have been warned by admin juliancolton not to follow me around and revert my edits . And if you're referring to Sulmues, then use his username not mine.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What on earth are you talking about? You are the one who followed me here. Athenean (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't intend to reply to your accusations, I'm just adding a link where you are warned by an admin not to follow me, because you said above that you have never followed other users around. Now please don't disrupt any more the discussion with personal attacks.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Telling you to stop following me around is not a personal attack. You did follow me around, and now you are trying to turn this around and have the last word.  So go ahead, I'm done here.  Athenean (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't like personal arguments, so I'll just stop commenting on this. I said what I wanted to say about the discussion itself and about your note and I don't want to get into personal arguments, so for me that's the end of this discussion.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I substituted this map because a user was systematically removing it because of complaints about Catalan vs Spanish. I was happier with the other simplified map. However I do not at all agree with having no map. That is what a WP:POINTy nationalist editor might want but it's useless for wikipedia. So in the end I vote for the simplified map. A footnote in the caption could clarify any ambiguity there might be for smaller language groups. Mathsci (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Absolutely agree that a map is necessary, and that the simplified map is preferrable. Athenean (talk) 19:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

@ZjarriRrethues It's not a dialect. It's language. Rave92 (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like some clarity: If the purpose of the map in this article is to illustrate ethnicity, then how would limiting the map to illustrate majority speakers be helpful? For instance: Showing that English is spoken by the majority in Ireland doesn't demonstrate Irish ethnicity on that island, and I can't believe the intent is to demonstrate that the Irish are actually English becaause they speak that language. The fact that this debate even occurs indicates to me there is limited value at all to a linguistics map when trying to illustrate ethnicity and, given the prominent place the map has held in this article, gives a skewed impression to the casual reader of actual ethnic distribution. Shoreranger (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The same is true in Ukraine. Russian ethnics are more numerous in the cities in eastern Ukraine but not in the countryside. Ukrainian ethnics are also in the majority in the southern third of the Voronezh, Belgorod and Kursk oblasts, and also a mojority in the Kuban. Crimea, although primarilly Russian speaking does not have a Russian ethinc --Bandurist (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)majority.

Atheism
Can someone make a new map mentioning the percentage of atheists in the map?-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 12:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stop making WP:POINTy edits here. Mathsci (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm just asking if someone could make a map for the atheist percentage.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I seriously fail to see what's so wrong about Zjarri's request, and frankly, I'd like to voice the same concern. Namely, that some countries- like Czechia, Albania and Estonia- are if anything, primarily atheistic, and yet this is not noted clearly in the section and the map can thus be misleading. I know that it is noted elsewhere, but the view, for example, of Albania as a "Muslim country" is incorrect (even if you're going to say "historically Muslim" its wrong, Albania was mostly Catholic for a long time and Catholicism's roots go much deeper), and it, as well as others, are advanced by such a map. --Yalens (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No, Albania is a mostly Muslim country, and a historically Muslim country. Not atheist.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.207.245 (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong, except that this isn't the place to request maps. The proper place is at Graphic_Lab/Map_workshop. --dab (𒁳) 13:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The map is a hoax and it is not (and has not been for years) backed up by any data source. Requests to fix the many many mistakes (refer the talk page of this map) have been left unanswered. In several cases for years now (2012). In my view this is a nice example of a very successful attempt to get a hoax accepted by the wikipedia community. Grsd (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Strange to call a map a HOAX, but nevertheless this map does not have any sources linked to it, so why is this map not removed ?

Linguistic map
I've removed that map because it is inaccurate in many places and especially because, for some reason, it shows the regional languages of Spain but doesn't show the regional languages of Italy, Germany or France, like if those languages were less important than Spain's. --Belchman (talk) 14:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have changed the map for a better one. It's still not perfect, but this one's far better. I'll improve it later. --Belchman (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No, the one you replaced it with is not better, the original simplified map was preferred by most users who participated in the discussion in good faith. Athenean (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I wonder why you say "in good faith", are you implying that I'm not acting in good faith? The "simplified one" is ridiculous. According to the "simplified" one Spanish is only spoken near Madrid and in Andalusia, when actually it's by far the most common language throughout Spain. Obviously, regional languages exist there too, but they exist in Italy, Germany and France (actually Spain is far more homogeneous than those countries, linguistically speaking) as well, and that map simply misleads the reader. It makes you think that Spain has four equally spoken languages, whereas France, for example, only has one. That's not the case, both countries have their national language (Spanish and French, respectively) and their regional languages (Catalan, Occitan, Breton, Basque, etc.). I hope you understand my point. --Belchman (talk) 23:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Your point makes absolutely no sense. Whereas France does have regional languages, standard French dominates throughout France.  That is not the case in Spain.  In Catalonia and the Basque country, it is Catalan and Basque that predominate, not Spanish.  The other map has serious flaws, which I have outlined above.  Btw, when I said good faith, I didn't have you in mind but rather my two Albanian wikistalkers.  Athenean (talk) 00:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you going to teach me what language predominates in Catalonia and in the Basque country? Seriously? (I am Catalan of Basque descent). Catalan is spoken and understood (mainly because it's almost a dialect of Spanish, it is so similar) but Basque's situation is similar to the one of Irish, taught at school but only spoken commonly in remote areas. If you want further proof, check this referenced statement from the Spanish Wikipedia (article Cataluña): El castellano es la lengua más hablada de Cataluña, superando al catalán no sólo como lengua habitual,20 sino también como lengua materna18 y de identificación,19 tanto en cifras relativas como absolutas.. --Belchman (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Belchman is completely right here. Spanish is the most widely used language in Catalonia, Pais Vasco and Galicia and it makes sense, because it is the only official language in Spain, while Catalan, Basque and Galician are co-official only in their own regions. And despite the aggressive policy of the Catalan and Basque regional governments against Spanish language, they still haven't managed to make it less important than Catalan and Basque. In fact, I wonder why the Spanish government doesn't take some measures against that policy... --Gligan (talk) 11:43,


 * I suggest we avoid personal attacks and experience. As I see this map has several unsolved wp:or issues and overestimates several minority languages and dialects.Alexikoua (talk) 12:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing here as personal attacks and experience. On a state level, Spanish and French for example are on the same position - both are the only official languages in the countries. And despite the fact that Catalan is more widely spoken than Occitan, it doesn't mean that it is the predominant language in Catalonia (not to mention in the eastern municipalities of Aragon, or in Comunidad Valenciana where it is still disputed whether Valenciano should be a dialect or a language). The predominant language in all over Spain is Spanish. That is both by constitution and statistics. --Gligan (talk) 12:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

These debates over language maps are mostly WP:POINT. Of course the map needs to be simplified, and of course you cannot catch every linguistic detail on a map of Europe, least of all on a thumbnailed one. Editorial decisions (gasp) will need to be made. Of course languages are spoken by people, not by territories, so that an accurate map would consist of 700 million moving pixels, most of them commuting in and out of city centers each day. But of course the information value of a thumbnail of a map of 700 million moving pixels would be zero even if there was any chance of drawing it. --dab (𒁳) 13:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Basques
Basques are 200.000 in Iparralde, more than 2.000.000 in the Autonomous Basque Community and adding Navarre, there are like 3 million Basques in Europe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.141.11.4 (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The Basque are Spanish, they along with all the other people claiming a fake ethnic identity in Spain aren't a separate ethnicity anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.207.245 (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Sardinia
here, i have read that sardinia was invaded by the Arabs! well i study history of sardinia at the university, someone could tell me when did the arabs invade sardinia??? no, because it is new for me! i know the attempts by the saracens to conquer sardinia, but they have never invaded it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daygum (talk • contribs) 20:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see History of Sardinia. Mathsci (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

please read better that article (written in part by me), it's written about the RAIDS and the ATTACKS of saracens against sardinian population who lived along the coasts, it's not written that the arabs conquered sardinia. futher it's written about a saracen colony in the north of sardinia, it is referred to the little pirate cove on the inhabited Asinara's isle, where the pirates organized attacks against the island of sardinia (the asinara isn't sardinia but an other isle). well i'm curious to understand where are in sardinia located traces of an arab colonization?

read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Islam_in_southern_Italy also there it's written about the ATTACKS of arab fleets aganist Sardinia (and Corsica)!

read also this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giudicati (The giudicati (singular giudicato) were the indigenous kingdoms of Sardinia from about 900 until 1410)

Daygum (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There were many Arab raids on Sardinia. According to Salvatore Cosentino, it is probable that following the raids in 752 there were some Arab settlements. There was a period of settlement in the early 11th century. Cosentino discusses the military operation of Mugiahid al-Amiri [referred to in Italian as Mugeto, Mugetto or Musetto] in 1014-1015 (page 353-354), when he established a settlement at Torres and later occupied the whole island for a few months. I have modified that in the article. Mathsci (talk) 06:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

probably you some problems in this article is written ETHNIC GROUP OF EUROPE, OK??? sardinia was invaded for some months also by the french, for 15 years by the austrians, the english fleet guided by Lord Nelson settled for months in a bay of the archipelago of la maddalena, this is not means that sardinians are ethnically austrians, english, french or arabs, because 11 months of uncertain arab presence in the inhabited ex roman colony of Turrys lybissonis (not far from asinara), not means that there is arab culture or arab ethnic groups in sardinia, as happened in sicily or spain, where arab colonization lasted centuries, and influenced culture, architecture and society! you can't mystificate history, because in the other case, i will send a violation! Daygum (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Era da tanto tempo che non ridevo così, ma quando mai gli Arabi avrebbero conquistato la Sardegna o parti di essa. Forse nel mondo dei vostri sogni. Ho voluto leggermi le pagine di Cosentino non parla proprio di conquista araba della Sardegna neanche di parti di essa, parla di numerose incursioni che non hanno mai portato ad una conquista, infatti gli arabi non hanno mai conquistato il territorio ne governato sui sardi o su parte di essi. Per conquista e dominio si intende il governare sul popolo che risiede in quelle terre, non si intende fare incursioni perchè di questo tipo di incursioni ne venivano fatte anche nel sud della Francia ed in altre parti dell'Italia del centro-nord. Se gli anglofoni si accorgono che gli arabi facevano incursioni attaccando anche le coste della Toscana e della Liguria e spingendosi all'interno per depredare qualche piccolo villaggio aggiungono subito anche queste due regioni alla lista. Quando gli Arabi hanno cercato di conquistarla (non incursioni ma vero e proprio attacco di conquista) hanno perso militarmente e se ne sono tornati a casa. Infatti i mesi in cui Mugiahid al-Amiri era sbarcato in Sardegna per conquistrala non si possono conteggiare come mesi di una conquista effettuata perchè erano mesi di battaglie ed esso non aveva il controllo dell'isola ne il governo sui suoi abitanti. Esso perse miseramente grazie anche all'intervento d'aiuto di Pisa e Genova che avevano una fortissima flotta. Addirittura il capitolo in cui viene citata la conquista si intitola immigrazione storica come se ci fosse stata un'immigrazione storica degli Arabi in Sardegna questo è vergognoso e non è rispettoso per il popolo sardo che ha sempre combattuto ed ha versato sangue per far si che la Sardegna non fosse mai conquistata dagli Arabi. E come se scrivessimo che c'è stato un storica immigrazione Olandese in Inghilterra perchè nel 1667 ci fu il raid on the Medway, dove gli Olandesi entrarono in porto e distrussero tutta la flotta inglese. Non capisco invece perchè nel capitolo immigrazione storica non è presente invece il flusso migratorio dei Romani che si stanziarono nell'Inghilterra (Britannia) quando la conquistarono e dominarono per secoli. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.22.214.85 (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

i have read these two references, they speak about arab incursions in sardinia not about a conquest! ^ Vauchez, André; Dobson, Richard Barrie; Walford, Adrian; Lapidge, Michael (2000), Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages, Volume 2, Routledge, p. 1306, ISBN 1579582826

^ Vauchez, André; Dobson, Richard Barrie; Walford, Adrian; Lapidge, Michael (2000), Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages, Volume 2, Routledge, p. 1306, ISBN 1579582826  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.245.165 (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Immigrazione storica degli arabi in Sardegna ma qui siamo alle comiche! Non c'è mai stato nessun flusso migratorio di arabi in Sardegna. Quando Mugiahid al-Amiri cerco di conquistare la Sardegna venne sconfitto e gli arabi che erano con lui, che non riuscirono a scappare e tornare al loro luogo d'origine, vennero massacrati e fatti a pezzi. L'insediamento di cui si parla è l'insediamento militare fatto costruire da Mugiahid al-Amiri nella zona di Porto Torres esso era un accampamento militare fatto di tende militari ed è normale che venisse costruito, mica i suoi soldati potevano dormire all'aria aperta, e tutti gli eserciti anche quelli odierni ne costruiscono uno. I pochi mesi in cui Mugiahid al-Amiri fu in Sardegna furono mesi di guerra non mesi di possesso e di governo del territorio. I Sardi dal punto di vista genetico fanno parte per la stragrande maggioranza dell'aplogruppo I http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aplogruppo_I_(Y-DNA) che non ha niente in comune con gli arabi ma è lo stesso aplogruppo delle popolazioni del nord europa (scandinavia e germania del nord) e dei baschi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.238.80.243 (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sono d'accordissimo con te. A questo punto cari anglofoni perchè non mettete che c'è stata un'immigrazione tedesca in Francia durante la seconda guerra mondiale visto che l'occuparono completamemte per anni!!! Oppure potete mettere che Luni in Liguria fu occupata per un breve periodo dagli arabi, chissà magari in quel brevessimo periodo riuscirono a far emigrare a Luni in piena guerra qualche milione di arabi!!!!! In questa voce si afferma che qualche mese di occupazione di una minuscola particina della Sardegna durante il 1015 in piena guerra contro gli arabi giustificherebbe un'immigrazione storica di Arabi in Sardegna. Vi dovreste vergognare a scrivere una cosa del genere in un'enciclopedia! Leggetevi questa pagina sulla storia della Sardegna http://www.provinciadelsole.it/giudicale.html metto anche la versione in lingua inglese così non hanno la scusante di non capire la lingua http://www.provinciadelsole.it/eng/giudicale.html --95.250.82.249 (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * On the English wikipedia, please make your contributions in English if you expect anybody to take any notice of your comments. Mathsci (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Sardinia was never conquered by arabs! it's unacceptable this form of historic revisionism! the reference speaks about a "limited settlement", it speaks about a military campsite located around the ex roman colony of torres, according your strange way to see the reality well france conquered belgium because in Waterloo Napoleon settled a military campsite, before the famous battle!

moreover in this senseless article is written that "the Arabs conquered parts of Sardinia" (explain me which parts??? where were located your improbable arab settlements in sardinia, if sardinia at the time was an indipendent state subdivided in 4 giudicati, under protection of maritime republics of genoa and pisa? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giudicati Sardinia is the 49th largest island in the world,  does a limited military saracen settlement mean that "parts of sardinia were conquered by arabs"????????? where are traces of arab colonization in sardinia, like in sicily or spain?? explain me? Daygum (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 17:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC).

Source falsification
This edit is a clear instance of source falsification. Both sources (Jeffries and Pettifer) give a figure of ~200,000, or 6% of the population. Jeffries' source is even viewable online, so even incompetence is not an excuse here. With a figure of 2% for the other minorities, we have 100%-6%-2%=92%. Deliberate falsification of sources is extremely disruptive and dishonest. I am making a note of this should it come in handy during a future AE request or RfC/U. Athenean (talk) 19:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Athenean apart from making personal attacks against me conveniently chose to ignore all the other figures of the source but focus on a particular one. Per MOS updated sources should be used before older ones i.e the 95% figure of the CIA Factbook is the one that should be used. Btw that source also states that 98% are Albanians and 1,7% Greeks so why should that be left off the article? The 92% figure is from 1937 while there are many figures below.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Which source says 1.7%? Jeffries states quite clearly (p. 69):  "Most Western estimates are ~200,000".  That's what we go with. Do the math.  Athenean (talk) 20:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

EUPEDIA MAP
I believe the Eupedia maps are very high quality and positively improve Wikipedia. Retroqqq (talk) 14:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Also we should consider adding these valuable information someway. http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25106 Retroqqq (talk) 14:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Predomanant Ethnic groups map
The large map at the top of the page is ridiculous. There is no evidence of Greco-Slavs existing. There is no proof of Slavo-Germanic people existing or Finno-germanic or so on. This is not to mention that there are no celts in the Alphs anymore. In the east all the anatolian languages are gone and they have been replaced by the turkish migrations around 1000 AD. The Turkic language has its origion in Siberia. Also there are no such things as Gauls anymore, but there are the French. When did the Syrians become a race, they are Arabs? I do not need to go on about this ridiculous map. We can analyze human populations in a thousand ways, ethnic groups interbreed, are destroyed, transformed, but this map is ridiculouse. In the days of Gauls there were no Russians. This map must be removed if not destroyed completely, it is inacurate by chrolology and Anthropology.--Zaharous (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you read the description?

This map was created based on the latest Y-DNA data combined with physical and historical evidence. Names on the map are not necessarily ethnic groups but culturo-linguistic or historical ones. Colours are more indicative of the ethnic similarities and differences between regions.

Also check this please: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25106 it explains everything. Retroqqq (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

This map is revelent to the 18th century but not the end of the 20th century. There has been a lot of migration, especially in west of europe. UK and France people are descended from immigrants from every country in Eruope and Middle east. French and British are just as slavic or arab as Russians and Middle easterns. Most British poeple look Italian, Greek, Spanish, Turking and Arab. The blond people look Polish and Russian, not German. This is immigration in late 19th to 20th centukry. UK is the lifeboat of europe, we are a land of immigrants like america, and we are pround of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.80.154 (talk) 12:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Hungarians are not Slavo-Germanic or Greco-Slavic
To whoever made the map, fix that. Thanks. 184.96.206.16 (talk) 03:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Genetic make-up of Europe
...and why should this section be kept/removed? Please state reasons... Dinky town  talk  16:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * For anthropologists, ethnic groups and genetic populations are conceptually separate. Some ethnic groups claim biological closeness, but some anthropological studies suggest that ethnic boundaries produce genetic differences rather than are produced by genetic differences -if for example different ethnic groups have different languages or religions, discouraging marriagies between members of different ethnic groups.  In fact, religion and language is often the critical marker for ethnicity, not genetics.  So maps of linguistic and religious differences will be more revealing about ethnic groups than genetic differences. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Membership in ethnic groups isn't defined by genetics. You can study the genetic buildup of ethnic groups, but that will tell you something about the genetic heritage of those groups - not about the ethnicity itself. The section confuses ideas of genetic heritage and ethnicity it would have to be rewritten from a point of view that correlates genetic markers with ethnicities - not as it is now where it attempts to define ethnic groups based on genetic markers.·Maunus· ƛ · 17:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I would agree with both of you and both stated it well. I would vote to move/remove it, but would like CreativeSoul7981 to comment first.  Maunus, I went through the trouble in tagging the section to avoid an edit war.  Please re-post it, since there is no consensus yet. Dinky town   talk  17:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the trouble you did of tagging it. But, it works the other way round. Per WP:BRD, when there is consensus to include it can be included. This is by the way a discussion that we have had on these pages many many times before (as you can see in the archives) and previous consensus has always excluded genetic studies from the article on ethnic groups. That was the original reason for the creation fo the article on Genetic history of Europe. ·Maunus· ƛ · 17:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I read the archives, and WP:BRD, and you are correct. In fact, I agree everyone's argument here and the reason why it should be nixed.  However, from now on can everyone please state the reasons for their revert in the future.  Two people wanted to put it in and I only did this to avoid a pending edit war and went through protocol to avoid one.  Take care... Dinky town   talk  20:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You did well. Thanks.·Maunus· ƛ · 23:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I want the map to stay, you are not going to hide the truth.Retroqqq (talk) 11:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Retroqqq, almost before you do anything else, you should probably read OWN, which will show you the necessity of not saying things like that. What you want isn't necessarily what you get.  We use something called consensus in editing...you may have heard of it.  Cheers, LindsayHi 11:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * i dont see any consensus? who makes the majority vote here? you go and delete my map like you are god or something? what ever im doing im doing it to improve wikipedia and further knowledge. i add something improtant you delete vital information. the more you know is better.Retroqqq (talk) 12:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

WHY YOU HAVE PROBLEM WITH THE GENETIC MAP, ITS BASED ON SCIENTIFIC DATA WITH ALL SOURCES AND PERFECT DESCRIPTION! you delete it just cause you dont like it for no reason?

EXPLAIN WHY YOU DELETE IT WITH JUST CLAIMING CONSENSUS AND HIDING THE TRUTH FROM THE PUBLIC? WHO ARE YOU? YOU WILL NOT HIDE THE TRUTH!Retroqqq (talk) 12:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The information you add is not a holy truth it is a misunderstanding. "german ethnicity" has nothing to do with any haplogroups - it has to do with identifying with the country Germany. Ethnicity of Romans and Greeks likewise has nothing to do with genetics. You are misunderstanding what this article is about - it is about ethnicity not Race and genetics. The material you made might fit in better at the article Genetic history of Europe.·Maunus· ƛ · 12:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also Wikipedia is not about truth·Maunus· ƛ · 12:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

DID YOU READ THE DESCRIPTION OR ARE YOU JUST MAKING STUFF UP:

This map was created based on the latest Y-DNA data combined with physical and historical evidence. Names on the map are not necessarily ethnic groups but culturo-linguistic or historical ones. Colours are more indicative of the ethnic similarities and differences between regions.

ITS A GENETIC MAP ITS NOT A CULTURAL MAP.Retroqqq (talk) 12:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And that is why it doesn't belong in this article which is about ethnic/cultural groups, not genetic ones.·Maunus· ƛ · 12:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * WIkipedia is not about shouting. Retroqq seems to have no interest in a calm reasoned conversation about how to improve the article.  She has not responded in a substantive way to any of the comments, and now seems only intent on imposing her will on the page.  Not the best way to collaborate. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ok i will talk calmly, i want the specific reason you delete the map all the time and hide this very valuable information from the public?Retroqqq (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We have trtied to explain that this article is not about genetic divisions but about ethno-cultural ones. The right place for a genetic map of Europe is at Genetic history of Europe, not here.·Maunus· ƛ · 12:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (Please note, Retroqqq, that as of right now, you've gone over three reverts in much less than twentyfour hours; please, please stay away from putting the map back till this discussion is finished, or you may be blocked for edit warring. Cheers, LindsayHi 12:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC))
 * to tell you the truth the articles title is Ethnic groups in Europe, it never mentions anywhere that its only about culture.Retroqqq (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That is what ethnic group means which will be clear to you if you read our article on ethnicity. Ethnic groups ar not based on genetic ancestry, but on shared culture and history.·Maunus· ƛ · 13:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

ok the, Tell me where exactly is the right place for the map and all the related data and i will do all the work alone. Retroqqq (talk) 13:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've answered on my tal page about what you can do to include it. Best.·Maunus· ƛ · 13:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Retroqqq, are you a geneticist? If not, you probably cannot help us, because we have too much raw material on human genetics. We are in need of expert editors making sense of this raw material. We have no use for non-expert editors who heap up yet more raw material.

Your map is a rip off "eupedia.com" which is --dab (𒁳) 13:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) not a quotable source, see WP:RS
 * 2) subject to copyright ("Copyright © 2004-2009 Eupedia All Rights Reserved"), see WP:COPYVIO
 * Eupedia is a very serious website.Retroqqq (talk) 14:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's serious in a way, for the people who make it. They obviously put some work into maps and things. But is it serious in the way that we can call it part of the mainstream (or even a source for well known minority theories)? That's what we need on WP. So putting aside your personal opinion, can you show a reference (outside of Wikipedia or Eupedia) which treats eupedia as a reliable source in a relevant field? Eupedia is obviously a place where people write up their personal speculations. But what is the reputation of those speculations amongst people who know that field? You'll need to find evidence of a reputation for fact checking. Personally I'd say Eupedia is for a type of work which does not fit on Wikipedia. They have different aims. Wikipedia aims to summarize the mainstream on subjects. Eupedia is for original thinking. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Also see discussion at Talk:Genetic history of Europe--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

General remark.
 * We'll never get rid of attempts to link genetics with ethnic identity, because it is mainstream to some extent. So we all need to admit that this is something people write about and not all people who write about it have bad reasons. There are some places on Wikipedia where it should be reported, and so let's try to at least make sure those are half-decent.
 * Also, cases like this one are very often involving newbies who simply don't yet understand the WP way. Let's be careful about what assumptions we make.
 * @Retroqqq. Basically your material is about genetics, and does not fit well in this article anyway. As per discussion on Talk:Genetic history of Europe in its current form it really does not seem to fit anywhere. However, you say it is based on scientific studies, which to some extent is correct. So you CAN help Wikipedia if you can focus more on identifying those studies and helping bring that material into what we report here. You'll find that there are already many articles that have attempted to do this, and many could certainly do with improvement!
 * Also please do not forget the Copyright issue.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The genetic approach to ethnicity is not mainstream, it is just popular among a few Wp editors who do not know the mainstram scholarship on ethnicity. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 14:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * To say that it is only "popular" amongst a few WP editors is frankly nonsense. For better or worse people like Cavalli-Sforza, and even Stephen Oppenheimer and Brian Sykes, are widely cited in both the popular press, TV, and also academic literature, no matter which discipline you are into. They also tend to sell more books than most people writing about anything to do with ethnicity. That does not mean that it is without problems of course, only that claiming no WP:notability or WP:fringe status is an argument that is not going to get anywhere, and not only on Wikipedia. But I do not see an enormous problem. Mainstream genetic study of ethnicities is normally very cautious, and just adding a comment here or there. The discussion above, which was some months ago, was not about mainstream material either way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

This might have been the situation until the mid-18th century but there has been a lot of migration that, especially in western europe like UK and France, people there are descended from immigrants from every part of Europe, Russia and the middle east. Everybody in UK and France is a mixture of all nationalities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.80.154 (talk) 12:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Daco-romanians and moldovans?
That's the most bs descriptions I've ever seen,dacians were just a thracian tribe that covered only a part of ancient Romania,there were many more Thracian tribes,if anything it should be called Thraco-romans=romanians!! not "daco-romanians" or whatever,and moldovans?? that's the same as romanians,why don't you put 'slavic transnistrians' as separate "ethnic group" from other slavs and 'latin transnistrians' as separate group from romanians and other latins if you're into such communist bs! Culturally,linguistically,historically the 'moldovans' are the same as any other romanians! there is no difference!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike88n (talk • contribs) 07:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * These strike me as the type of opinions where there might be disagreements, and where WP might eventually need to explain several different sources. At this stage however, you are not giving any sources for your preferred descriptions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Vocabulary
Why persisting using the term "ethnic" (titles and text), while the only criterion is linguistic. Let's change this term once for all and stop speaking about ethnicity without any real sense.--Alpeagle (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Bulgarian number exagerated
Something is clearly wrong (exagerated) with the number of Bulgarian language speakers presented in the Linguistic classifications table being 12 million. I saw the 5 (!) listed sources and I undestand what is going on. If we look at the total population of Bulgaria (near 8 million) and thge suposed total of 10 million Bulgarians around the world in total (as seen in the article Bulgarians) how do we get the number 12 million? Simple, I suspect that the Bulgarian sources count as "Bulgarian" the 2 million inhabitants of the Republic of Macedonia, which are separatedly listed in the table thus counting twice! The websites listed as sources (some non notable) simply followed the trend. If not, is there any other explanation how does 4 million people speak Bulgarian as mother tongue outside Bulgaria? I doubt... Can we fix this? The Bulgarians article says that thyere are 10 million Bulgarians around the world, and even that number seems to be higher than reality if we look at the table presented at the article, so a 2 million (or more) difference is quite big to have it here. FkpCascais (talk) 01:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The figure of 12 million indeed can only be reached if the Macedonian language is included. I will try to fix this.


 * Many thanks. I didn´t wanted to do it unilaterally without opening this sectio here for discussion just to see what other editors see.
 * Also, I just finished wikilinking all national minorities found on the table in By country seaction. I used the Category:Ethnic groups in Europe by country as reference for the existing articles. I made the links allways having in mind the minority in mentioned country, exemple [Poles in Lithuania|Poles] and never linking simply [Poles] when listed under minority of some country. Obviously some minorities have no country, so they can be listed simply as [Vlachs] for exemple, but even those, like Roma, when aving a separate article for each nation it is the last ones that should be used. Some obviously have no article, so they were left unlinked, and that is better than linking it simply to the ethnicity article (Exemple, if [Russians in Azerbaijan] doesn´t have an article, is better to leave it unlinked rather than linking it to [Russians]. I am just saying this generally for people in the future to understand why some have and other don´t links to articles. FkpCascais (talk) 07:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Protestant Ireland, but not Protestant Hungary and Slovakia?
Is there any reason for that silly claim (i.e. Germanic nations and Ireland)? First, there are fewer Protestants in Ireland than in either Hungary or Slovakia and second it is a kind of racist.

there are 110 million russians not 90
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Russia edited it the article clearly states 110 million russians, if you go by enthic and only count the ethnic russians you have to do the same for uk and remove the pakistani and black population from the list, the same goes for french of which is only 84% of the population french, the same goes for germany which has a 4% turkish population. Also its kind of funny since british obviously is no ethnic. --Karesu12340 (talk) 16:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

perhaps you should read the entire article, including the caveats discussed in prose, instead of just obsessing over digits in tables. --dab (𒁳) 11:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Karule7, 15 July 2011
Poles in Europe - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poles 43mln, no 38...

Karule7 (talk) 10:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jnorton7558 (talk) 05:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Ethnic Jews residing in Europe
The article mentions Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardic Jews, and Mizrahi Jews. After each of those Jewish ethnicities, there are countries mentioned (probably the countries where most of each Jew ethnicity is located currently). However, it is not accurate that those countries link to 'native' ethnic groups of that country. I suggest replacing that with the link to the wiki article of the country. Thank you.69Lalala69 (talk) 03:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not understand what you are saying. Please try to be clearer. Are you somehow saying that the Jews are less 'native' to their respective homelands than other groups? In that case you are sorely mistaken. The Jews migrating to Western Europe after AD 70 have a longer presence in these parts than, say the Swabians in Swabia, or the English in England, etc. --dab (𒁳) 11:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess one way of reading the post is that it is questioning the accuracy of the particular one or two countries selected. I had a look, trying to understand, and I notice for example that it says most Ashkenazi Jews in Europe are in France and Germany. I wonder if that is correct. I suppose there are still many in the Ukraine for example.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a reasonable concern. They lived in Europe longer than some other groups, but that doesn't change the fact that they are a Middle Eastern group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evildoer187 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Number of Serbs?
The number of Serbian-speaking people is too high, when you say it's 10 million. If it is just in south of Europe, then number is around 8.5 million. Worldwide, 9 million.

The number of Croatian-speaking people is, if we use same logic, too low. 5 million IS number in South Europe, but when add Croatians in Germany, Austria, Chile, USA, Australia, etc, number is around 6.5 million. In the end, if that section is about number of Croats, then right number is around 8 million, and for Serbs around 11 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.84.53 (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Wait a sec. You start complaining about the number of Serbs being too high, but you propose as solution putting the number of Serbs and Croats even higher? FkpCascais (talk) 10:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * ...anyway, most important is that we need sourcing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Why are some Croatian Ultra-Nationalist bothers about number of Serbs? Why don't you bother the fact that on this page, you write people of Bunjevci nationality as croatian even if it is not case, and you deny them there own identity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.136.179.11 (talk) 11:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Turkey is not Europe
Turkey is not Europe and any references must be deleted from the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.34.1.21 (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is useless to propose things like this on WP. Not only is this remark apparently based on some kind of personal opinion, but also one of the clearest and most agreed upon aims of WP is neutrality, and when we have to choose between including or not including mention of something like this inclusion is always the most neutral way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have changed it to European Turkey, like how it was done with Russia. This should leave no room for further argument on this.NeoRetro (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

According to European Council Turkey is in Europe. It's really meaningless to argue if Turkey is in Europe or not, when the European Council decleares it as in Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.96.39.58 (talk) 16:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

ethnic composition of turkey incorrect ,Ethnic composition of Turkey: Turks are 78-81% ,kurdish-zaza 12-15% ,5-6% of the other groups — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.160.41.100 (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

"the Turks"
This is deeply wrong. The various Turkic peoples do not form a single ethnicity. The claim that they are "very closely related to each other" is OR and wrong. The only unifying thread is the language family, nothing else. The Tatars of Tatarstan have been living under Russian rule for centuries and are very different from the Turks of Turkey. Even religion differs among them: Azerbaijanis are largely Shiite and secular, while the Gagauz are Orthodox Christians. By this logic, we should lump all the Slavic speakers into one group, and also the speakers of Germanic languages and Romance languages. Each group mentioned in this section is a distinct ethnic group, not a linguistic family. Yet, an exception is made for the Turks, for no reason. Even the phrasing is wrong: "Turks" is generally taken to mean the "Turkish people", not the "Turkic peoples". In Wikipedia, "Turks" redirects to Turkish people, not Turkic peoples. We should anyway be consistent. Either we refer to distinct ethnic groups, or linguistic families. Since we are currently dealing with distinct ethnic groups, "the Turks" should refer to the Turkish people, of which there are approximately 19 million in Europe, not 35. Athenean (talk) 21:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As a Turk of Pontic Greek descent I must object to this line of reasoning. Pontic Greeks have lived for thousands of years in diffrent countries in Eurasia and had in general very little to do with Greece. So why are they lumped together with the Greeks? (See 13 million "total worldwide")? Many Turks are of Tatar descent, who fled to Anatolia during the many wars with Russia. Parts of Turkey have also been under long Russian occupation, but I don't see all of this relevant. According to linguists the Turkic languages are so close they are dialects. And then we have the Oghuz dialect to wich Azeri also belongs. Azeri is basicaly just Ottoman Turkish. The Azeri and Turkish culture are so simillar they are virtualy identical (religion doesn't realy matter here since there are also many Shiite Turks and many Sunni Azeri). So if we take this into account there are around 30 million Oghuz speakers or TURKS as we call them (after Turkce, Turkmence, Azeri Turkce, etc) in Europe.NeoRetro (talk) 13:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I really don't see Pontic Greeks mentioned in this article, nor does it have anything to do with the discussion at hand. Are you saying that all the various Turkic peoples in Europe are part of a single ethnic group? That is pan-Turkism. I'm sorry but your post reads like WP:OR ("who fled to Anatolia...", "are virtually identical"...). Sure these people are related, but they have distinct identities, and that's what matters. By your logic we should class all Slavic speakers as a single ethnic group. Athenean (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You are right they have diffrent identities. But they also have an encapsuling identiy as being a "Turk" in Europe (note that Turk and Tatar used to be interchangable in European literature). And it's no origional research; it's a fact that millions of Turks, Tatars, Pomaks, Bosnians, Georgians, Tsjetsjens etc. migrated towards Anatolia during the Balkan wars and the wars with Russia. There is also a strong cultural bond dating back to, indeed, the Young-Turk era, in wich many Turkic secular democratic countries were formed for instance the Democratic republics of Crimea, Azerbaijan and Idel-Ural. Most of these Turkic peoples also took simillar measures like introducing latin uniform turkic script. So the cultural bond between Tatars, Turks and Azeri is very strong, even when we take into acount the influence of Russia. I can understand your position, and I do know the one I am taking here might seem controvertial, or even "nationalist". But this is not my intention, I'm only fighting for what I see as rightfull recognition of the Turks as a distinct ethnic group throughout the whole of Europe. It's an uphill struggle in an EU where Turkish is not seen as a official language eventhough it's one of the 10 most spoken languages inside the union.NeoRetro (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Turks in Europe : Turks in Germany, Turks in Netherlands, Turks in France,Turks in Belgium,Turks in United Kingdom,Turks in Bulgaria,Turks in Greece, Turks in the Republic of Macedonia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.160.41.100 (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Athenean is although fundementally wrong about Turk=Turkish, He has a point. Turkish people in Turkey are direct descendents of Ancient Anatolians, Greeks, Iranians, Armenians, Semites and many others as well as Turks. Take this as an example, A Turkish citizen of Circassian descent migrated to Germany in 1960s his ofspring has German nationality, What shall we call him? He is genetically and ethnically Circassian (Adyge), German citizen and has no ties to Turkey. Also on the assumption of NeoRetro that Turkic Languages are so close. Most turkic languages are not mutually understood. A Turk from Balkans can grasp a few words of Uygur but that's all. Likewise German has many same words with English can we consider them to be dialects?

Turks in europe : Turkey % 75-80 - 57-61 mil,Germany % 4-5 - 3.2-4.1 mil,Bulgaria % 8-10 - 588-766.000 ,United Kingdom 500.000, France 400-500.000,Netherlands 400.000,Austria 350.000,Cyprus Turks 300.000,Belgium 250.000,Greece 120-150.000,Russia 120.150.000,Sweden 100-150.000,Switzerland 120.000,Macedonia 77-200.000,Romania 28.000-80.000,Denmark 70.000,Kosovo 18.000-50.000,Bosnia and herzegovina 50.000.

Another offensive anticatalan article
This article forgets expressly the catalans among other groups. You can be so much spanish nationalist as you want, even a fascist, you can want to kill all catalans. But catalans still exist and of course catalans are an ethnic group. We even don't need to tell it, it's something very obvious. We have our language, our identity, our culture, our cuisine, our folklore... damaged, right, but we still exist. Wikipedia should be objective, this article isn't about politics. Just because Spain says so catalan people don't exist?

You all can find a thousand of proofs about the catalan language exists and it's a real language, not a spanish dialect. The own Wikipedia says so in another article! I won't speak about our culture and identity because it would take too long but again some informations can be found.

A japanese or a canadian who reads this article is going to think we catalans don't exist. They will think we are just 100% spaniards with a slighly different dialect. Even catalans from Northern Catalonia (French Republic) are spaniards? What about andorrans? They are spaniards too?

Why am I an ethnic spaniard? Only because you all great an "no-politized" (irony) Wikipedia users say so? I don't even have spanish names or surnames. You wouldn't never know I am spanish without read my ID card. And if the ID card is an enough reason for divide ethnic groups then you can erase this whole article and have only the "official countries" ones.

So this is my claim. I hope some users will read me. Be reasonable and polite, repair this article. Add catalans in the Linguistic classifications and add catalans with our approx. number and add us in regional minorities or other minorities in the "by country classification".

--193.153.82.220 (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow, this article isn't fair and objective. Why do you include Welsh, Scottish, and Basque, what about the Catalan people? Where are they?? 85.56.135.225 (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Who deleted the "Catalan-speaking Europe" (Andorra, Spain, France and Italy)? The size of Catalan people, an ethno-linguistic group of Europe, should be added to the table!! 85.56.135.225 (talk) 00:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Catalan-speaking Europe (over 10 million speakers)
Shouldn't this article mention the Catalan people is an ethnolinguistic group? Shouldn't you say the size of Catalan speakers (Catalan ethnolinguistic group) is greater than Albanian, Bulgarian, Belarussian, Danish, Estonian, Finnish, Latvian, Lithuanian, Norwegian, and Swedish speakers?

If we have German-speaking Europe, French-speaking Europe, and Italian-speaking Europe, we could also have Catalan-speaking Europe, since the Catalan is official in one European nation (Andorra), and co-official in several European territories/regions, within three European nations (Spain, France and Italy). Most of the Catalan-speakers reside in Spain, and have Spanish nationality, while others reside in Andorra, France and Italy, and have Andorran, French and Italian nationalities, respectively. The size of the Catalans (Spanish (Catalans + Balearic + Valencians + some Aragonese + few Murcians) + Andorrans + French (Northern Catalans) + Italians (Algherese)) is comparable to the Hungarians, Greeks, Portuguese, Czech-Slovaks (Czech + Slovaks), Serbo-Croatians (Serbians + Bosnians + Montenegrins + Croats). 85.56.135.225 (talk) 00:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * There are no reference in France to Roseillon (Rosselló). The Catalans are also Connected to Occitans (amongst other groups), but they are original Catalans (and today in great part - as the Catalan was the language spoken in Roussillon, and it is, at least in part). Catalan territory annexed in 1643 to France. I tried to put on, but the article is semi-protected ((I agree and understand its protection due to vandalism and exaggerated nationalism, if those are the reasons). But it is missing in France, in the section By Country. --LuzoGraal (talk) 20:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Gaeltacht isn't a subgroup, nor is the Scottish one that I cannot spell.
Um, yeah, it's not a people, it's an area. The Gaeltachtaí are those _regions_ in which Irish is spoken. Same with the Scots one that I still cannot spell. I know there's a ton of contentious stuff apparently going on with this page, but this one is an easy fix, and totally not controversial. Someone just delete those two words, please. Oh, and someone give the Catalans some love. Solidaritat, lads! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.163.231 (talk) 03:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews
I'm personally more inclined to stick these two groups under the "Ethnic Minorities of Non-European origin" section, under West Asia, rather than treating them as indigenous Europeans. They did not originate in Europe, but in the Levant in South West Asia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evildoer187 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hungarians
To the " Linguistic classifications" notes section must be add these fact to line "Hungarians":

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarians

Regions with significant populations Hungary Hungary 9,979,000[1] Neighbours of Hungary 	c. 2.2 million Romania 	1,237,746 (2011) 	[2] Slovakia 	458,467 (2011) 	[3] Serbia 	293,299  (2002) 	[4] Ukraine 	156,566 (2001) 	[5] Austria 	40,583 (2001) 	[6] Croatia 	16,595 (2001) 	[7] Slovenia 	6,243 (2002) 	[8] Rest of Europe 	c. 0.3-0.5 million Germany 	120,000 (2004) 	[9] United Kingdom 	80,135 (2001) Sweden 	40,000-70,000 Czech Republic 	14,672 (2001) 	[10] Turkey 	6,800 (2001) 	[11] Russia 	3,768 (2002) 	[12] Ireland 	3,328 (2006) 	[13] Macedonia 	2,003 (2002) 	[14] North America 	c. 2 million United States 	1,563,081 (2006) 	[11] Puerto Rico 	1,050 Canada 	315,510 (2006) 	[15] South America 	0.2 - 1 million 	[11] Brazil 	80,000 	[16] Argentina 	40,000-50,000 	[17] Oceania (AUS / NZL) 	70,000 	[11] Australia 	67,616 	[18] New Zealand 	1,476 Asia 	c. 10,000 	 Thailand 	3,029 Philippines 	1,114 Africa 	10,000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szkitosz (talk • contribs) 19:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

sweden
Sweden 	Swedes 	88% 	Finns (Tornedalians), Sami people foreign-born or first-generation immigrants: Finns  (Sweden-Finns) , Yugoslavs, Danes, Norwegians, Russians, Syriacs, Greeks, Turks, Iranians, Iraqis, Pakistanis, Thais, Koreans and Chileans.[54][55]

that's inaccurate.

I don't know were the that number is from(?) Last i checked, sweden had 91% of which were "nordic" swedes, ahm homogenus swedes, while the rest were of forgein origin/immigrants.

It should be like this: Yugoslavs/Somali,Iraqis,Iranians,Danes,Norwegians,Poles and others.

Koreans(seriously?) chileans, thai , russians, "syriacs" turks & greeks aren't large enough to be mentioned, perhapes greeks, but that's it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.58.176.238 (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect numbers for Sweden according to the source, real number was 83% according to the one source that works. Also it's an old and outdated source from 2006 and an updated count from 2014 is at 78,5%. 78.69.116.60 (talk) 01:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Khazars
I hold a question on whether the Khazars should be considered immigrants, since it is a dispute on whether they actually are Turkic people or that they are in fact, NE Caucasians. http://www.proza.ru/2009/06/20/608 Another question stand is by why is this information from this link often ignored in favor of Khazars as Turks rather than as Chechens? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.70.176 (talk) 06:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The Nakh theory for Khazars is considered fringe. It is well-known that, at least linguistically, they were Turkic, though there was probably a heavy Iranic (Scythian) influence too, as with most Turkic groups invading Europe in that era. --Yalens (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Source
I was asked for a source for one of my recent edits, so here it is. In fact, this same source is already used on this article. Discuss. http://www.myjewishlearning.com/history/Ancient_and_Medieval_History/632-1650/Christendom/European_Jewish_Settlement.shtml

Evildoer187 (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * How about telling us what you used it to source? Not that it matters much - it doesn't look remotely like a reliable source for material relating to ethnic groups in Europe to me, considering that (a) it gives no indication of any academic credibility (who wrote it? what are their qualifications in regard to the subject it is being cited for?), and it seems to have been written for children. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * On my talk page, Evildoer187 suggested using Ashkenazi Jews as a source for this article. That of course shows a complete misunderstanding of wikipedia sourcing policy. If he wishes to edit this or any other article, I would suggest he starts looking for sources such as academic books (in this case devoted to ethnic groups). I watched this article take shape under Dbachmann, transformed from the appalling European people to an anodyne and neutral article. There is no need to push it back to the bad old days by trying to insert a non-neutral point of view. Mathsci (talk) 15:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to use that as a source. The purpose was to show you that my edits weren't unjustified, as there are plenty of sources on that article that back up what I'm saying. However, I took the lazy way out when I shouldn't have. That is my fault.Evildoer187 (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Classification by language
Currently, the page has a chart classifying all ethnic groups by language. This isn't necessarily bad: indeed, many people acknowledge that language often corresponds with culture and sometimes other aspects of ethnicity. But there are instances where the system causes issues, especially when we're classifying ethnic groups into "Slavic Europeans", "Celtic Europeans", etc... Previously, there had been a note in the Maltese column about how the Maltese people are actually a mix of various origins (of peoples who spoke languages in different families). I deleted it, because that could really apply to at least half the ethnic groups listed. There are a number of other ambiguous cases too, where it doesn't see to be clear how "the rules" are applied: ...and so on. Perhaps we should either use a different system or (preferably in my opinion) make a little note explaining why that system is used on the page and that it isn't necessarily a perfect representation of "ethnicity". Or we could put disclaimers at every iffy instance, but that could cause issues. --Yalens (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Various peoples on the chart once spoke languages of other families before they were linguistically assimilated, and they are usually counted under the languages they currently speak. However, the chart makes exceptions. The rule isn't applied to Jews on the chart, who stopped using Hebrew for everyday purposes ages ago (now it is revived, but only in Israel, outside of Europe). Another case would be Manx, which is dead, so its speakers would technically be counted under English if the rule was applied evenly there.
 * Scots have, for many centuries, spoken both Gaelic and English (depending on region), yet they are solely counted under Celtic, and no reason is given for this. We could at least leave a little note with a citation.

Then cite your sources for your preferred different system. The system used on the page is used because it is the one used in the sources cited. See also WP:CITE. Also the concept of ethnic group is universally defined as a conglomerate of (a) language, (b) culture and (c) common descent. The three usually overlap to an overwhelming degree. Exceptions are, well, exceptions, to be noted in some footnote. Yes, the Jews are the notable exception, and a 1000 years of European history are basically structured around that single exception to the rule. There is indeed a reason why the Scots are listed under "Celtic", and the reason is that the cited source does list them in this way. You are perfectly free to cite a competing source, and then we will be able to portray how "mileage may vary". If there is no source, there is no case to be made. Also, the source obviously needs to be academically published, you cannot just use random websites, as many people who come here (especially the ones, for reasons best known to themselves, intent on Armenians being "European") do not seem to be able to grasp, sorry if I am stating the obvious.

Obsessing over details and exceptions is a good thing, but losing sight of the larger patterns over it is not. See also ethnolinguistic group. --dab (𒁳) 17:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Ethnic minorities of non-european origin
I disagree with some of this category. The Romani are absolutely an European people - the majority of Romani live in Europe and there is no national territory outside of Europe with a significant population. Their Asian origins are established by language analysis mostly (having a distant relationship to hindu) not a historical record of their migration. Their probable migration date (loosely predicted) is also placed in the medieval period when many such east-west migrations took place such as those that brought the hungarians, the slavs and other eastern people to Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire. Singling them out as non-euorpean over say the hungarians or the bulgarians seems mostly based on the fact that they're a non-assimilated "visible minority" rather than any unique history. Can't help but notice that the subcategory says "South Asians (many ethnicities, not including Romani)" with someone having added them just below. --Helixdq (talk) 05:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

well, I agree of course that the majority of them lives in Europe, but what you say about "not a historical record" isn't entirely true. There are perfectly reliable historical records about their first arrival in Europe in the 15th century. Also, they aren't just traced "to hindu", they are related to the Dom people of the Middle East (or if you like, they are just the western branch of the Rom-Dom, forming a single group with them). Be that as it may, they arrived in the 15th century and are in Europe now. Just as the Hungarians arrived in the 9th century. Also, the most annoying thing on this page is that people keep changing things around just because "they know", when in fact the page is supposed to be based on sources. The 2004 source cited of course does include both the Romani and the Hungarians. If people disagree with the 2004 source cited, the burden is on them to cite an alternative source that can used alongside it. --dab (𒁳) 17:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with Helixdq's central point. "Ethnic minorities of non-European origin" is clearly drawing a line somewhere, not that the article notes this. Something apparently makes them different from the "Historical immigration" section above it. No sources given about the non-European origin in that section, just sources on immigration of certain ethnic groups to certain countries. CMD (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Armenia
As explained in the qualifying sentences in the article and discussed fairly extensively in the article Europe and its talk page (and its archives), Armenia lies geographically outside Europe but culturally and historically is considered to be European. Edits to the article to make a WP:POINT about the claimed special status of Armenia are not helpful and hardly the point of the article. There is ambiguity for many ethnic groups: the article is written sufficiently neutrally to make that clear. Please do not edit war to make a WP:POINT. Some of these editing issues are covered by WP:ARBAA2. Mathsci (talk) 09:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Indigenous peoples of the world by continent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Indigenous_peoples_by_continent

the continents articles of the tablet have all indigenous stated in their article name except for the european article. It should be changed to indigenous people of Europe in name too instead just ethnic groups in Europe. Its kind if racist in my opinion.--Quandapanda (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. There is a huge difference between an article about ethnic Europeans (the indigenous people of Europe) and ethnic groups in Europe (which are not necessarily ethnic Europeans). 84.151.195.63 (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Mistakes about Estonia in table in 'by country' section
There is a mess with Estonian minorities in table:
 * Baltic Russians should be moved from 'Other minorities' to 'Regional majorities' column (sources in same article)
 * Estonian Swedes should be moved from 'Regional majorities' to 'Other minorities' column or actually deleted because of very low number (more also in same article) Minnekon (talk) 02:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2014
On the "by country" entry for Greece, please remove the term "Macedonians", because, as the linked Wikipedia page indicates, it refers to a regional and historical population group of ethnic Greeks that does not consist an ethnic minority.

96.240.21.221 (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. I'm not an expert in this area, but Minorities in Greece discusses Macedonians.   Anon 126   (talk - contribs) 01:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Native Americans in Europe
There is in fact, as stated by the article, an association of Native North Americans in Germany. http://www.naaog.de/ They mostly came from the U.S. armed forces stationed in Germany. 71.102.1.95 (talk) 13:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Albanians
Why are not added Arvanite's and Arbresh's ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbertBikaj (talk • contribs) 13:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Ethnic errata. Removal of second paragraph till rewritten.
It is a severe errata to start on the level of homo conglomeration through languages. Russia is a language, however there are quite a few localized groups with specifics in climatic environmental conditions and these climatic environmental conditions in interaction, create distinctions in social-cultural and language ´dialect´ specifics.

That same FAST error, is an error that spanish/portuguese latin america has attempted to apply, a homo conglomeration due a ´one god´ overlord system that does not take into account specifics of species factors due climatic environmental conditions.

The first paragraph after the introduction is a supreme fascist classification, especially when in relation to a nation such as france, which has no fast homo conglomeration at all, but a fast number of minor differenciations over a very broad spectrum of racial characteristic intermarriages. France is overfull with all types and forms of minority instances due their migratory location, spanish france, italian-france, belgium france, german-france, and the well known swizz-france, to name a few. (And there is still a briton-france here and there. Each of these language interactions, cause the formation of a ethnic group, where social cultural norms in interaction are conditioned by and through the interaction of both.

The UK is similar, welsh, scot´s, south-west england, and if you go further with that foolishness, could classify the whole of ireland in language.

Language, is not an ethnicity definition in anthropology, social-cultural climatic factors interactions are. Language by itself, is used as a best guess first model agrupation that does not take into account succesive approximations and succesive differences in approximations.

Groups of individuals whom migrate, take with them aspects of their originating social cultural interactions, and these by and off themselves form the inceptive ethnic relationships.

I´m erasing the second paragraph, FASTLY misleading as IF that has attached with it some instance of the supreme phase schysm or some form of severe common ´is it!?´ schysm.

Remove till rewritten, or rewrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.208.189.225 (talk) 11:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Note:
Ethnicity is usually used for political propaganda, in the same form and manner that ´democracy´ is used to count votes and call oneself, ´the supremus of supremus´. A bit more expertise is required, if you please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.208.189.225 (talk) 11:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Ashkenazi Jews - origin
This is regarding my commit from 23:00, 16 August 2015. From the sentence "They are of ancestral South West Asian (Middle East) and European origin," I deleted "and European." It was reverted by LuzoGraal, restored by Jeffgr9, and reverted again by Guy355. It looks pretty hot! Let's cool off the edit war and discuss it here.

My reasoning for the delete is that the statement regarding Ashkenazi "ancestral European origin" is excessive and inaccurate. It's a given that populations that move from place to place will absorb some new genes, and this is true of every population. There is no reason to single out the Jews, and no one else, for that here. I would have objected even if it just mentioned Europeans mixing in, since that is beyond the scope of such a list, and again, gives unequal and unwarranted emphasis. That is what I mean by "excessive." But the wording goes beyond that and outrageously claims, without a clear citation, that the Ashkenazim are European "in origin," as a people, which is totally false. It's just as false as saying, for example, that the Romani are of ancestral European origin, notwithstanding clear accounts of absorbing Europeans into their population. Just as the Romani remain Middle Eastern[Indian --Musashiaharon (talk)] and not European in ancestral origin, so do the Ashkenazim. Musashiaharon (talk) 05:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The reason AJs are mentioned is because there are several sources for their European admixture which isn't as small as some would like to suggest and therefore can't just be ignored. In contrast, there are no such sources for the Romani, it's that simple. Guy355 (talk) 05:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

With respect to your opinion, Wikipedia isn't about POV, it's about sources, and the sources suggest European admixture that can't just be ignored, and these sources do not exist for Gypsies. And in truth, just like the different Jewish ethnic divisions, it would be wrong to generalise all Gypsies as homogenous. Guy355 (talk) 06:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Everyone. I looked up "Romani genes" in Google and it took "0.41 seconds" to find a scientific study on European founder populations for the Romani, not only for their genes, but also for their evolving culture. Here it is: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC31389/. That said, yes, both the Jews and Romani are diverse Peoples——culturally and genetically——therefore you should either include this ancestral European information for the Romani, or exclude it from the Jews. Because in the end, the overall influence of the People's origins matters, not the forced (or otherwise) admixture of genes and culture alone. In fact, the above study actually compares Romani to Jews in MANY ways. P.S.: Race AND Wikipedia both are about Point Of View——because they are literally SOCIAL constructs——it is our job to BALANCE these points of views to optimize an inclusive, but objective and scientific, data point in an ocean of data points. (Jeffgr9 (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC))

User:Slavapartiyatrotskiya{ it is redundant to list "European origins" for ethnic minorities in Europe, because the list is about *origins*, not admixture. admixture isn't the same as ethnic origins, which for Jews (Ashkenazi or otherwise) is outside of EuropeSlavapartiyatrotskiya (talk) 06:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Slava I reckon the Sabbotniks or any convert Jewish group would beg to defer. Besides the origin of all humans is in east Africa, that's our ultimate origin if you want to go back and back and back. Guy355 (talk) 06:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

"Conversion" for Jews does not mean what it does for other groups. Jews are an Ethnocultural Tribe——the social aspect of who can become a Jew is dependent on Jews already in the Tribe. Judaism is not just a philosophy and it is not just a religion. Not just ANYONE can become a Jew.Jeffgr9 (talk) 07:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC) Furthermore, the root of Judaism is from the Middle East, that is the "ancestral origin"——so anyone who joins the Tribe adopts the Middle Eastern cultural beliefs, customs, language, etc. of ethnically-born Jews.Jeffgr9 (talk) 07:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

But that doesn't necessarily make them full Levantines, take the Ethiopian Jews, you're saying that they're more closely related to AJs than to non Jewish Ethiopians just because they practice Judaism? Guy355 (talk) 07:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

They ARE more closely related, not JUST because they practice Judaism——but because they genetically derive from the same ancestors. The union of King Solomon (Israel) and Queen of Sheba (Ethiopia) begat the People known today as Beta Israel. The Lemba hail their Middle Eastern roots by connecting their genes, culture, language, and ancient sculptures with those of other Jews, particularly those in Yemen. Igbo Jews as well. These people——as well as those who married into or joined otherwise——admixtures and all, identify with their Jewish heritage most, thus they are of Middle Eastern ancestral origin.Jeffgr9 (talk) 07:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

That middle eastern ancestry of Ethiopian Jews is very VERY small, it can barely be found and distinguished, in reality Ethiopian Jews are genetically indistinguishable from non Jewish Ethiopians. As for Yemenite Jews, genetically they're most similar to Saudis and Bedouins, considering the fact that there was a Jewish kingdom in what is now Yemen before the rise of Islam (Himyar) and many Jewish clans that inhabited Arabia before Islam (many of them are mentioned in the Koran), it's very likely there were many converts there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy355 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, this sort of admixture is the rule rather than the exception for populations moving from place to place. It's not useful to label every single group as having European genes, since they all have European genes mixed in. Rather, it would be remarkable if they didn't have any admixtures! (Try naming one!) The fact that they are in Europe already implies that there is some mixture. You might note it on that culture's own page, but this is just a list, and this information is out of scope and redundant here. Further, it in no way affects their ethnic origins. It is a chapter in their history, but their origin can never change. Musashiaharon (talk) 16:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I understand your point, but at least in the case of Ashkenazis the admixture is very very high, around 46-50% on average, and I just find it strange to ignore that. AJs in this article are already listed under "west Asians" BTW. Guy355 (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I also understand your point about ratios, but ratios are still irrelevant to this list.

Suppose we were talking about the Romani, and how European their genes were. The genetic information is only one narrow part of their rich history. There are much more important cultural factors that form the Romani ethnicity. Because of this, I wouldn't care whether the genetic ratio was 1%, 50%, or 90% European. It doesn't matter. No matter what the percentage is, it's just an admixture, and the Romani still hail from India.

Rather than helping to characterize and distinguish the Romani ethnicity, quoting percentages of European genes would only muddle the waters. It erodes and denies the unique qualities of the Romani ethnic identity. This in effect is what you are doing to the Ashkenazi Jews. If you put such percentages on every group in the list, it wouldn't help matters, and would actually make things worse. In a very equal way, to be sure, you would be adding irrelevant noise everywhere; and worse, eroding, insulting and the denying the ethnic heritages of every group here. Leaving the numbers only on certain groups is unequal on top of that.

Please remove, or allow us to remove, your edits. If you wish to move your figures to the appropriate in-depth articles, where they will appear in context with all the other qualities of the ethnicity large and small, you are welcome to do so. Musashiaharon (talk) 18:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

In my latest edit, I have put an example of the sort of information that I think makes more sense in the context of this list. What do you guys think? Musashiaharon (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I suppose it's okay as compromises go. Guy355 (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)