Talk:Ethnic groups in Europe

Small changes

I have copy-edited one paragraph. Please note, I am using "colonised" rather than "colonized", this being the European spelling, and this is to policy. I have put "French Fries" into brackets, along with frites, which is the word widely used in Europe for chips. PR^talk 08:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

-ise being "more European" than -ize is a myth. It depends on where you look. See -ize. frites isn't English, be reasonable. --dab (𒁳) 21:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Malta

I made a change in the historical populations list to reflect Maltese' uniquely Semitic European heritage: this has been made to refer to 'creoloid' mixing. While I don't have a problem with this as such, it backs up an (erroneous?) similar claim on the Maltese language talkpage. Which prompted my doubts. Feedback? Cheers, The roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This just looks like an attempt to turn Maltese into a non-Semitic language. I've seen several attemps like these, namely in Maltese people. The Ogre (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed it. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks The roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 18:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ethnicity and genetics

Someone keeps returning a huge chunk of genetics-related text which was removed by consensus, with the explanation: ethnicity IS based on common descent, presumed or observed; genetics is related. While ethnicity is partly based on common descent (which can be real or mythical), the fact that genetics has some relation to descent has no import. Deducing from this that a section about genetics is germane to a text which is strictly about the ethno-linguistic classification of groups is pure OR. I'd like IP 76.xxx.xxx.xxx to come and discuss this here rather than constantly reverting against consensus.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• I myself have read over the discussions about that section and understand why some have argued to remove it from the article, however, I personally disagree. This is mainly on the basis that the origins of peoples, ancestry and physical apperance are very much part of their ethnicity. Many who trace their common descent do so on the basis of various diacritics including from commonalitites in physical appearance (eg. the long presumption that indigenous Europeans have a common ancestry since all have commonalitites in physical appearance, i.e. being "white" compared to more distant visitors who were not "white", has been confirmed by genetic studies). Even though the common descent of ethnic groups isn't based obviously on genetic studies, the studies nevertheless deal with factors regarding the origins of ethnic groups. On this basis, I don't feel the section should be removed since countless ethnic grousp articles all over Wiki mention genetic studies as modern evidence that discusses ethnic origins. If the Human Genome Diversity Project takes samples from ethnic groups all over the world for information on their origins, I don't see why a section containing related material should be removed here. The article is called 'European ethnic groups', not 'European languages' or 'Culture of Europe'. Epf (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

As you said: the common descent of ethnic groups isn't based obviously on genetic studies. No genetic studies that I know of claim to prove or disprove ethnicity bnased on their results; at most, some studies have looked for correlations beween ethnicity and some genetic markers; sometimes such markers have been found (for some ethnicities) sometimes none have been found. Saying the two are linked is definite OR. Besides, previous consensus has estabnlished that the focus of this article is ethno-linguistic, which doesn't include genetics.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Ramdrake. The correct article to discuss genetics is Genetic history of Europe. Genetic studies of Europeans rarely (and none that I am aware of) claim that any particular genetic markers are associated with any specific ethnic group, mostly they discuss the clinality of the genetics of Europe. Whether single alleles are used, or multi-locus clustering, the distribution of genetic markers is usually discussed in terms of clinal variation rather than discontinuous variation associated with social, cultural or linguistic groups. If there is research that points to the genetic homogeneity of such social, cultural or linguistic groups, then of course it should be included, but the sources previously included make no such claims. Alun (talk) 08:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

For example this quote: "The overall geographic pattern in Fig. 1a fits the theoretical expectation for models in which genetic similarity decays with distance in a two-dimensional habitat, as opposed to expectations for models involving discrete well-differentiated populations. Indeed, in these data genetic correlation between pairs of individuals tends to decay with distance (Fig. 1c). For spatially structured data, theory predicts the top two principal components (PCs 1 and 2) to be correlated with perpendicular geographic axes9, which is what we observe (r²=0.71 for PC1 versus latitude; r²=0.72 for PC2 versus longitude; after rotation, r²=0.77 for ‘north–south’ in PC-space versus latitude, and r²=.78 for ‘east–west’ in PC-space versus longitude). In contrast, when there are K discrete populations sampled, one expects discrete clusters to be separated out along K-1 of the top PCs8. In our analysis, neither the first two PCs, nor subsequent PCs, separate clusters as one would expect for a set of discrete, well differentiated populations (see ref. 8 for examples)." So this recent paper provides evidence that European people are not distributed into discrete genetic clusters, but are isolated by distance, with geographic distance predicting genetic difference better than membership of any discrete well differentiated group. "Genes mirror geography within Europe" (2008) Nature doi:10.1038/nature07331. Alun (talk) 09:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

"The correct article to discuss genetics is Genetic history of Europe. Genetic studies of Europeans rarely (and none that I am aware of) claim that any particular genetic markers are associated with any specific ethnic group, mostly they discuss the clinality of the genetics of Europe." That article may be the main section with which genetics and factors related to it are discussed in more detail, but I do not understand why a sub-section on that topic (and one which is adequately referenced with valid sources) can't be included in this article. For example, this article isn't specifically about Languages of Europe, yet it understandably contains information about the languages spoken by European peoples since language, along with other traits such as history, culture, religion, descent, etc. are a part of what compose ethnic identities. I do not not doubt that there is a clinal nature to genetic variation across Europe but this variation is not perfectly or evenly-distributed in the same pattern, of course not. The nature of the clines or gradients vary. In addition, many genetic studies in fact do claim that particular genetic markers are associated with specific ethnic groups, since certain populations, ethnic or non-ethnic, have higher frequencies of markers than others, or they have a distinct frequency of markers compared to other populations. This is why several (in fact, most) studies use a source ethnic population when discussing genetic variation, specifically when it is regarding the indigenous populations of the region(s) involved. This study mentions specifically Basque, Celtic and Frisian populations or markers to detect the possible presence of Danish Vikings and Anglo-Saxons in certain regions. In Stephen Oppenheimer's book, 'Origins of the British', he even begins the book by his interest at finding out the genetic differences between the 'English' and the presumably 'Celtic' parts of the Isles. The fact that genetic distribution corresponds with geographic distance doesn't exclude its relation to ethnic populations, it actually enforces it since the development of that geographic variation coincides with the distribution of ethnic populations (the development of ethnicities are also intrinsically linked to geography and location). The Human Genome Diversity Project, funded by Stanford University, uses samples from ethnic populations across the globe. Here are two studies which claim that "the genes of a European person can be enough to pinpoint their ancestry down to their home country". Clearly Alun, many studies do acknoledge the predominance of certain genetic markers in specific ethnic groups. No studies claim a marker is only or specifically 'English' or 'Czech' or whatever, but they do acknowledge that various markers have certain distinct frequencies in specific populations and appear 'very predominant' in some, or are 'absent' in others. Using that example again, English have a much higher frequency of the Haplogroup R1b than Czechs, and that same haplogroup is completely absent in indigenous Australians or Japanese people. Epf (talk) 06:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing you say is at all relevant. The fact that genes are shared between different geographic regions is a well known fact, indeed all of the papers you link to support this obseration. The sharing of genes between people from different geographic regions is direct evidence that genetics is not relevant to ethnicity within Europe. Indeed the New Scientist article you link to is reporting on the article I link to above. As I say, I would be more than happy to include research that shows that European ethnic groups represent distinct genetic populations, if any such research exists, but I know of none, all of the papers I have seen clearly show that there is no genetic discontinuity between ethnic groups. Your argument doesn't provide any compelling evidence and seems to be somewhat confused, genetic variation within Europe does not follow ethnic identity, so it is not relevant to this article. I don't think that's anything like a contentious position to take. This article is about the ethnic groups of Europe, these are not genetic populations. Alun (talk) 08:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW neither of the papers discussed in the New Scientist article you link to claim that "the genes of a European person can be enough to pinpoint their ancestry down to their home country", while the New Scientist makes this claim, it does not appear to be supported by the articles themselves. Indeed these articles directly contradict two studies that were conducted about two years ago. Bauchet et al. (2007) and Seldin et al. (2006) both performed clustering analyses on genetic data on people of European origin, and claimed to have identified population clusters in Europe, Bauchet claimed five such clusters and Seldin three. Bauchet et al. claimed that Basque people, Finnish people and Spanish people formed discrete clusters, but that the rest of Europe falls into two clusters, a "northern" cluster and a "southeastern" cluster. Seldin found only three clusters, southern European, northern European and Finnish. This hardly amounts to evidence that the ethnic groups of Europe each form discrete genetic populations. Both of the papers the New Scientist cites ("Correlation between Genetic and Geographic Structure in Europe " and "Genes mirror geography within Europe") make the opposite claim, that the genetics of Europe is isolated by distance, and that geography and not ethnic identity is the primary determinant of genetic difference. This is an important observation, it means that a two individuals living in close proximity either side of the French-German border are likely to be more similar to each other than they are to individuals from their own ethnic group that live a greater distance away. Sampling strategies are not relevant to ethnicity, when population geneticists do these sorts of studies they do need to sample from populations, labelling these samples by the ethnic origin of the person in question is not evidence of the genetic homogeneity of the ethnic group from which they derive. Indeed the practice of sampling by ethnic group, rather than by geography has been highly criticised by many geneticists and anthropologists because this sort of sampling strategy is prone to bias. Your claim that paper "A Y chromosome census of the British Isles" discusses "Basque", "Frisian" and "Celtic" markers is just plain wrong, they do discuss these populations, but don't claim that any markers are unique to these populations. All they claim is that markers that are shared between these populations and British populations derive from a common male line ancestor, there's nothing about that claim that supports the equation that "ethnic group"="genetic population". Let's stick to substantive claims made by the scientific papers themselves as per Wikipedia:Primary_Secondary_and_Tertiary_Sources#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources and not introduce a synthesis of what we believe they are saying. A research paper will inevitably contain primary sources, which we should avoid, what we should be including are the substantive discussion and interpretation of the results that are made by the authors of the paper, and not what we think they mean. Alun (talk) 09:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a note: The page you cited above was written in userspace by one editor and is not policy; please reference the correct WP:V and WP:NOR pages instead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• First of all Alun, my points are very relevant and I am not confused whatsoever. I really don't understand how you can't see how variation between geographic regions (isolation by disance) most oftencorrelates with the geographic distribution of ethnic groups which develop, originate or are indigenous to these regions, something widely acknowledged by most studies in their use of ethnic terms to characterize populations. I already explained quite clearly the relevance of genetics to articles on ethnic groups which are based on aspects of descent, including factors which correlate to markers which can be analyzed in genetic studies. One of the few featured articles on ethnic groups for example, Iranian peoples, includes sections involving genetic studies. I must stress that I am not claiming there are markers wholly unique to only one population, but there is a frequency distribution of markers unique to certain populations (i.e. certain markers are most common or least common in specific populations or ethnic groups). In addition, there are markers which are unique to certain specific numbers of populations (i.e., there are various groups which have markers which are not be found in others). Some of your responses here also exemplify your POV in this matter quite clearly by making claims not mentioned in any studies: "The sharing of genes between people from different geographic regions is direct evidence that genetics is not relevant to ethnicity within Europe." No study I know of, especially those which were just posted above, make any claim of this sort. "All of the papers I have seen clearly show that there is no genetic discontinuity between ethnic groups." What papers are you reading ? Practically all that I have read do mention a degree of discontinuity between various groups and populations, especially between those which are from more distantly separated regions. This is simply because if there was no discontinuity at all, there would not be any of the differences observed between regions, populations or various genetic markers. Let me put it to you this way: all you are focusing on is the similarities (and therefore continuity) between populations. I already provided several examples above which use ethnic terms for populations in their studies and even though these studies don't directly state that the genetic variation correlates with the distribution of ethnic groups, there are none which deny it anywhere. Almost all of the studies, and all the ones posted here, actually show the correlation in geographic distrubution of markers and that of ethnic groups. None mention anything even remotely similar to what you stated about indigenous ethnic French and Germans in relative geographic proximity. Yes, often they will share more similarities to each other than to others within their ethnic groups, but this is not always the case. No study says this rule is uniform and they acknowledge that the distribution of genetic markes is not perfectly or evenly spread out in Europe or elsewhere. The degree of continuity (or discontinuity) between regions varies and it is not uniform. Some neighbouring populations have starker differences than others. An example of this is this map here you yourself created of the ditribution of Y-chromosome markers in England and Wales (from the study "Y-chromosome Census of the British Isles"). Notice that the the NW (Llangefni) and SW (Haverfordwest) populations of Wales have a sharper discontinuty from the eastern/southeastern population of Wales (Llanidloes) than that same population does with neighbouring populations in England (of nearly equal geographic distance). The discontinuity between the NW and SW Welsh samples and the other Welsh sample is also starker than that between any of the English samples. This is mentioned in the study itself and the study also mentions that the population of eastern/southeastern Wales has a large population of people from outside Wales ("The peculiar position of Llanidloes might reflect recent migration in the past two centuries."). The Southwest and Northwest parts of Wales by contrast are the strongest culturally and linguistically Welsh parts of Wales (see here), with the populations overwhlemingly of indigenous origins. This is just one example of how the level of discontinuity or continuity between neighbouring populations is higher or lower in some regions than it is in others. Epf (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not interested in your explanations of "relevance of genetics to articles on ethnic groups which are based on aspects of descent", I'd be much more interested in you citing a source than you giving your personal "explanations". Likewise when you say "there is a frequency distribution of markers unique to certain populations", well let's have a source that says that. But a population is not an "ethnic group". For example the frequency of Y chromosome types in one population of England will be different to that is a different population in England, how is that relevant to ethnicity? Indeed the frequency of a specific set of alleles is probably unique however one defines one's population, a household, a hamlet, a village, a town or a city, I'm not sure how that fact would mean anything substantive, but what we need is a source that says this is something important. I can't be bothered to read all of your response, it's too long and seems to be more of a personal essay than at all relevant to the article. Alun (talk) 09:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• "there's nothing about that claim that supports the equation that "ethnic group"="genetic population". Let's stick to substantive claims made by the scientific papers themselves as per Wikipedia:Primary_Secondary_and_Tertiary_Sources#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources and not introduce WP:SYN|a synthesis of what we believe they are saying". I could not agree with you more but I do not make the claim anywhere that a population based on genetic markers = ethnic group. However, what I am claiming is that the geographic distribution of genetic markers does correlate (to varying degrees) with the geographic distribution of ethnic groups. This is evident in all of the genetic studies mentioned (btw, all of these studies reflect indigenous European ethnic groups or those of claimed indigenous European descent). You mention how the two studies from the New Scientist "make the opposite claim, that the genetics of Europe is isolated by distance, and that geography and not ethnic identity is the primary determinant of genetic difference." Notice they claim it is the primary determinant, not the only one. I also notice they don't deny anywhere whether or not ethnic groups correlate with that variation or whether or not ethnicity is also a determinant. Your claim here is confusing: "Sampling strategies are not relevant to ethnicity, when population geneticists do these sorts of studies they do need to sample from populations, labelling these samples by the ethnic origin of the person in question is not evidence of the genetic homogeneity of the ethnic group from which they derive. Indeed the practice of sampling by ethnic group, rather than by geography has been highly criticised by many geneticists and anthropologists because this sort of sampling strategy is prone to bias." Clearly I provided examples above from various studies, whether it be the Y-chromosome census of the British Isles, the HGDP or other studies which clearly do show the relevance between these populations and ethnicities (ethnic sampling). Showing the predominance of certain genetic markers in an ethnic group indeed does show the relative homogenity of a group, or of that marker in that group. I'm surprised you even disagree with this Alun. Whether or not the practice of sampling by ethnic group is criticized by you or whoever doesn't matter because those studies and opinions are sitll highly valid sources. The researchers who carry out those studies or use ethnic populations for sampling are in turn highly critical of those who have issues with their methods of sampling, most evidently with their (possibly politically influenced) stance against biological factors which may coincide with ethnic groups as well as cultural or linguistic groups. You go on about claiming we need to present material as is mentioned in studies, and not through our interpretation, but in fact that is exactly what you seem to be doing. Clearly ethnic sampling is part of various studies, and for good reason, so I don't see why such a section on the correlation between ethnicity and genetics amongst European groups should not be in place. All of these studies on various populations of Europe didn't collect sampels randomly from regions which may contain many foreign or foreign-descended peoples, but they collected it form people who are inidgneous or claim to be long descended from European ancestors (therefore, a type of ethnic sampling). They also take samples from regions not known to have any significant foreign settlement or cosmopolitan populations. This was mentioned quite clearly for example in the "Y-Chromosome census of the British Isles", especially when using samples to represent so-called "indigenous" samples in Ireland: "To represent the indigenous population of the British Isles, we have selected a site in central Ireland that has had no known history of contact with Anglo-Saxon or Viking invaders". This is a type of ethnic sampling since the sample being chosen is based on historical, cultural, or (claimed) ancestral factors. Epf (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Epf, this is not a chatroom, this is not a forum for your personal opinions. We can't publish OR here. Your ideas are clearly a synthesis and don't represent the published conclusions of the papers you have cited. Find specific reliable sources that support what you are saying. Alun (talk) 09:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

EPF, when you write this, "distribution of ethnic groups. This is evident in all of the genetic studies mentioned (btw, all of these studies reflect indigenous European ethnic groups or those of claimed indigenous European descent)." it sounds like you are drawing on other sources to develop your own interpretation/argument which violates NOR. The question is, is this a significant view among experts on ethnicity? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I admit that I am giving my own point of view on the matter here, just as Alun is giving his, but neither are represented word for word by the sources. Is the goal not to come to a consensus when there is a difference of opinion ? The two studies from the New Scientist don't claim anywhere whether or not ethnicity has anything to do with the distribution of genetic markers in various populations. Since they do mention that geography plays a primary (not unilateral) role and since the ethnic groups correspond to said geographical regions, I don't understand why even those studies can't be included. The researchers didn't simply sample from all sorts of people of all sorts of backgrounds in those regions, otherwise their results would not have made any sense. Clearly, when they are discussing indigenous populations, they sampled groups known to have ancestors who have long inhabited those regions, based on historical, cultural, ancestral or other evidence. I mentioned this from an excerpt in the Brtish Y-chromosome study. Obviously when all these studies discuss groups descending from migrations which happened thousands of years ago, they would have to sample indigenous Europeans. Some of the studies don't even mention specifically who they sampled or how they sampled but clearly if they are looking for 'indigenous' samples they had to do so based on some sort of ethnic and cultural grounds with historical evidence to justify whether or not the population has long inhabted that region. I understand why Alun would argue against their inclusion if they don't specifically mention sampling from ethnic groups, but the studies which have used samples from ethnic groups or used certain populations, markers, etc. to represent an ethnic group should certainly be included. The studies (and I personally belive all of them do) which do use some sort of ethnic sampling like the British Y-chromosome Census] or the Human Genome Diversity Project do so based on the fact that geography plays a role in the formation of ethnic groups and that most base themselves on some sort of common descent, even if presumed.Epf (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that collaborating and reaching a consensus are admirable and certainly would never ever want to discourage an open, thoughtful, mutually respectfu, constructive conversation between you and Alun (or anyone else for that matter). But even if you and Alun reached an opinion that you both agree on, if it violates NOR or SYNTH it cannot go in. Conversation that i great and even important in a chat-room, cafe, or classroom is not necessarily appropriate when writing an encyclopedia article that has to comply with Wikipedia policies. But if you guys can come up with something that is fully compliant with NOR, well, more power to you! Slrubenstein | Talk 18:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually Epf the goal is to include the published conclusions of reliable sources. The studies on genetics that have been published do not claim to have any relevance to an article about the ethnic groups of Europe. I don't see any attempt to reach a consensus on your part, only the repetition of your personal interpretation of genetic studies over and over ad infinitum. Untill you produce something substantive then I don't see what you hope to achieve. Alun (talk) 10:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem with Epf's arguments as I see it is that they are backwards. DNA researchers decided to sample regions with few historical immigrants because they assumed this would give a clearer picture of historical populations and of what were the genetic composition of the earliest ethnic groups to inhabit certain regions. You can't then use the conclusions of those studies to provide genetic definitions of those groups since the groupings were already decided a priori to the study. Further more the studies don't seem to justify a belief that even because certain regions with little historical immigration show greater genetic coherence that that coherence reflect a current ethnic grouping. It might reflect an historical ethnic grouping (like Angles, Picts or Saxons) but those groups don't exist as european ethnicities any more, and arguing that the genetic homogeneity of certain areas reflects a current ethnic group is likely to lift regional groupings like "geordie" to ethnicity status which would be a completely novel idea. ·Maunus·ƛ· 05:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you just said, in a much more eloquent way, what I was trying to say. Indeed the fundamental problem is that the arguments Epf is using are not used by the studies he so often cites, and therefore they constitute OR. The reason these studies do not make these arguments are exactly the same as the ones you have given. Especially the argument that a specific frequency of certain alleles present in a population can be unique, well that's clearly true, but it's true for all populations, however defined, and if we use this as a template for defining ethnicity, then even individuals would be "ethnic groups", because individuals have a unique set of genetic markers, or things like genetic fingerprinting would not work. One of Epf's favourite papers is "A Y chromosome census of the British Isles", but all sampled populations of this study have unique frequencies of Y chromosomes, but no one would claim that the people of York or Llangefni are ethnic groups. Furthermore to study the genetics of an ethnic group one would need to sample by self identity, regardless of the origin of the individual. For example if we wanted to determine the genetic makeup of the English, then we'd have to only sample from people who respond positively to the question "do you consider yourself English?" In that case we may well find that a great many of the respondents have ancestry from places like the Indian subcontinent, the West Indies, Africa etc. None of the studies have used a sampling strategy where ethnic identity was the criterion for inclusion, rather the criterion for inclusion has generally been "was your grandfather born within 30 miles of the region you live in today", I don't think any population geneticist has ever claimed that this is equivalent to ethnic identity. Most of these studies are interested either in the prehistoric movement of peoples (and prehistoric human groups do not conform to modern ones, as you point out) or in determining if some medical interventions will work better for some populations than for others. Studies of the prehistoric movements of peoples has had some success, but there is still a great deal of disagreement regarding the utility of population genetics when it comes to biomedical practice, specifically that there is a great deal of evidence that human genes are far too mixed up between population groups for intelligent diagnosis of medical conditions based exclusively on ethnic identity. Alun (talk) 05:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's an example of genetics and culture being linked: "While the Caucasus Mountains have diverted human traffic to the few lowland regions that provide a gateway from north to south between the Caspian and Black Seas, highland populations have been isolated by their remote geographic location and their practice of patrilocal endogamy. We investigate how these cultural and historical differences between highland and lowland populations have affected patterns of genetic diversity." in "Culture creates genetic structure in the Caucasus: Autosomal, mitochondrial, and Y-chromosomal variation in Daghestan": "Because highland Daghestani populations practice patrilocal endogamy, we would expect that they would exhibit reduced genetic diversity and larger genetic distances when compared to other populations with respect to the NRY but not mtDNA. Our observations are consistent with these predictions." This sort of paper might be more useful to cite in articles about ethnicity that also want to discuss genetics. Alun (talk) 11:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Reversion by Mathsci

This[1] edit by User:Mathsci seems to remove several ethnic groups of Europe such as Assyrians, Persians, Turks, Bangladeshi, South Asians and Vietnamese. I wonder what the reason for reverting this material is? ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I reverted 70.164.195.196's edits. He/she added a number of facts without sources as he/she has done before. He/she has been warned 3 times on his/her talk page and has had his/her edits reverted now by four editors. Please see his/her talk page. To describe the Lebanese diaspora as Arabs is inaccurate. Jews in Europe are considered European as are some of the Turkic peoples. If the changes of 70.164.195.196 are to be allowed, he/she must provide sources. Previous edits were equally problematic [2].

I think, however, you are quite right that certain diasporas have disappeared in the confusion, e.g. the Turkish diaspora, already mentioned in the table, the Vietnamese diaspora in France, and the others that you cite. Anyway sorry for the confusion. The article suffers from a perennial problem of sourcing, which can be corrected bit by bit. Finding sources/statistics for these diasporas shouldn't be too hard, but is quite time consuming. I will try to help myself. Mathsci (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I made a few quick checks. South Asians were lumped together previously, but with a misleading wikilink. Similarly it might be better also to have East Asians, Southwest Asians, Southeast Asians, and Central Asians. There are problems with statistics for the British Latin American population. I am not sure about the use of Persian and Assyrian (as opposed to Iranian, Iraqi, etc), but that should probably be discussed here. Mathsci (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Worst page ever

I wonder if this page is bad beyond repair. It seems to consist of nothing but original research and wild ideas, almost nothing is sourced. I lost count of the population claims it makes without providing references, and obviously its authors are as unfamiliar with WP:WEASEL as they are with WP:OR, we are constantly told by them that something is "assumed", but we never get to know who this mysterious oracle who assumes these things are. I was particularly amused by the claim that the Lebanese are an ethnic European diaspora group in the Middle East. I found absolutely nothing of value here that is not found on many other pages already, perhaps this page should just be deleted but let's wait for some brave and patient person who is willing to rewrite it with sources. JdeJ (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The Lebanese have a diaspora in Europe. Go and look at Lebanese diaspora before making meaningless comments here. You seem to be trolling. Mathsci (talk) 23:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Mathsci, if you would have bothered to read my comments and the page, you would have noticed that I was not commenting on the Lebanese diaspora in Europe, I was commenting on the fact that the Lebanese in Lebanon are mentioned as a Euopean diaspora outside Europe. Please read comments more careful in the future, and stop hurling personal abuse at other users. I would also appreciate if you stop removing fact-tags just because you don't like them JdeJ (talk) 08:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I find it interesting how quick people are to slap "OR" tags on perfectly verifiable information that is already satisfactorily sourced on wiki, just a click away. Transferring references would just be a menial task of copy-paste, but hey, that would mean thankless boring work. It's much more attractive to throw your weight around and complain that the unpaid volunteers haven't done the job for you yet. JdeJ is right that the Lebanese people were unduly listed under "European diasporas". Well, you just blew your chance for a helpful edit by choosing to blank half the article instead of just unobstrusively fixing that item (the rationale appears to be the European genetic markers found among the Lebanese, traced to the time of the Crusades. This makes for historical migration out of Europe, but hardly for a contemporary "diaspora").

It is also true that this is still more of a list article than anything like a coherent account. That's because nobody ever did any constructive work on it. I find it peculiar that nobody seems to be interested in building this article while it does get lots of attention from people trying to deconstruct it. --dab (𒁳) 04:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Dab, I did not "blank half the page", I remove table that was not sourced in any way. In case it was sourced and I missed the source, then I did a mistake and apologise for that. Even without any source, I must admit that it would have been better to discuss the table and other claims with no references here first, and while I've inserted the fact tags that Mathsci removed without providing any other reason than his failure to understand my comment about the Lebanese, I have left the table in as it is possible I may have missed something and it is indeed sourced. Given the persona abuse hurled at me by Mathschi, I am of course grateful that you took the time to write a proper answer. Everybody stands to gain from constructive discussions rather than the sort of personal attacks that Mathschi seems to prefer. JdeJ (talk) 09:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

you did not read my comment. What claim are you contesting in particular? E.g. that the Poles are a Slavic ethnic group of Europe and number approx. 42 million within Europe? This is perfectly undisputed and well-referenced right there, in the Poles article. You are saying we should copy-paste these references into this one? I answer, ideally, yes, and you are free to help. Or alternatively at least forgo wasting editor manpower by raising futile non-issues. I am not quite sure whether you are consciously trolling, but if you are not, it is still the case that your edits are effectively indistinguishable from trolling. --dab (𒁳) 10:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, this tendency to call other editors trolls all the time is a bit disturbing. No, I don't contest the number of Poles in Europe and I don't contest that they are speaking a Slavic language. Whether or not that makes them ethnically Slavic is an interesting topic, but we can return to that later on. Some of the things I am contesting:

• Are the Maltese one of the smallet ethnic groups in Europe? I can easily list 40-50 smaller groups ethnic groups in Europe. You removed the tag, so can you inform me why the Maltese in particular is a small group and according to whom?
• Who is it that assumes that the Basques are directly descended from the populations of the Atlantic Bronze Age?
• Are we sure that the Finnic populations are indigenous to Northern Europe? I can answer that one myself: No, we are not. It's one of many theories, and not the one accepted by most academics.
• Where and in which languages is Europe "widely used as a synonym for the European Union"? I live in the EU myself and this kind of usage is very rare. It might be different in the US or the UK, but at least it should be sourced. Now it's just someone's personal opinion.

There are other vague statements and even plain errors on the page, but I hope this is enough to highlight the types of errors that I've tried to point out.JdeJ (talk) 10:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the table, Dbachmann claims that all the facts in it can easily be found on other Wikipedia pages. Perhaps it's true, and I'm very willing to give him/her the benefit of doubt. I've decided to take one group in particular to focus on, but similar arguments could be made for all groups. I've focused on Baltic group.

• The table claims that there are 5 million Lithuanians in Europe. Where on Wikipedia is this sourced. Not on the page Lithuanians, it speaks about 4-5 millions but this is both unreferenced and around 1 million of these are living outside Europe.
• The table claims that there are 7 million Balts in Europe. The uncertainty of the 5 million Lithuanians are dealt with above, the 1.5 million Latvians include about 100.000 outside Europe. But then Samogitians and Latgalians are added to the total! Is the author not aware of the fact that Samogitians are Lithuanians and Latgalians Lativans - that is to say that they are counted as such in censuses. When including them here, they are counted doubble as they already make up a part of the Lithuanian and Latvian populations.

In other words, the data for the Baltic population is pure guesswork and, with due respect, based on insufficient knowledge. The figure is a mix of unsourced estimates, large populations outside Europe and counting part of the population twice. I guess there's no reason to believe that other population groups are dealt with in a more scientific way. I duly repeat my question: on what is the table based? JdeJ (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, in the two posts above I've outlined the reasons for why I feel tags are needed. They are a tool to help people with knowledge and interest to improve articles and are ultimately very helpful in that way. As no objections have been made to the many errors and ambiguous statements I've pointed out, I take it that there is no disagreement and that I can insert the tags again. I will, however, wait a few hours more before doing so. Even though the users who have removed the tags have been editing actively after I wrote my posts a few hours ago, it is of course entirely possible that they have not had the time to take a look at this page yet. I hope this is helpful in highlighting some errors in the present format of the article and I would hope that some users would be less eager to call fellow Wikipedians names in the future. Cheers JdeJ (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

ok, JdeJ, I am convinced that you contribute in good faith. You raise some valid points. You will note that this article is tagged with {{refimprove}}. This means that we need people (unpaid volunteers) investing time improving the references for this article. I fully endorse that the tag's presence is justified at this point. Calling this "the worst page ever" etc. isn't going to help, we all agree it needs work, ok? I am willing to invest moderate amounts of time to that end. I will be grateful and pleased if you will join me. To start out, we could tag the less obvious items with inline tags, so people will know where to begin. In passing, I note that list of African ethnic groups is in a much poorer state -- but nobody seems to bother to even look at it or comment, while this article here gets an endless stream of people complaining about everything (but only very rarely willing to invest even 15 minutes to help adding a reference or two) --dab (𒁳) 18:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

We're making progress :-) Yes, calling the page the "worst page ever" was silly and it's not surprising that it caused you to question my sincerity. What I try to do by inserting the tags on specific places rather than just the refimprove at the top of the page is to call attention to some particularly problematic claims in the article, for two reasons. One is to make it easier for interested readers to know which claims are particularly uncertain, the other is to make it easier for editors to know where a source is needed. Of course I'm willing to help and I will have a look at the text, but I must admit that I remain sceptic to the table, for the reasons I've listed above. Do we really need the table in the article. I'm not I'm sure we don't, I just want to open up a discussion about the issue. JdeJ (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

in my view, the table is at present the best part we have. It claims to be nothing more (or less) than a list of ethno-linguistic groups in Europe. If it is too controversial to keep a list in an article not explicitly titled "list", it could also reside at list of ethno-linguistic groups in Europe I suppose. It is important to have this list to get an idea of what we are looking at: a hierarchical set of ethno-linguistic identities. I have no opinion if "ethnicity" applies to the level "Slavic", "West Slavic", "Polish" or even subordinate to that. We don't need to decide this. But it is important to come to terms with the major ethno-linguistic structure of European populations, since this is what the article as a whole is supposed to deal with. The main division is "Slavic Europe (Central-Eastern), Germanic Europe (Western-Northern), Latin Europe (Central-Southern), Celtic Europe (West), other". Then there are sub-divisions to these. --dab (𒁳) 19:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It's great if a new editor can help adding sources. That, along with careful checking, is what has been going on bit by bit for some time now. It is an intrinsic problem of the article, since such a large collection of different facts and statistics are gathered here. Dab's table was a helpful addition. When the article was European people, it was indeed one of the worst articles on wikipedia. (See White people for comparison.) Mathsci (talk) 22:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I've chosen to ignore Mathsci at the moment since he is continously attacking me in an uncivil way on many pages. I've left a message at his talk page, and will report him if he continues as I don't think that being a moderator is any excuse for bullying other editors. I'm glad that dab and others have not followed suit despite my unfortunate labeling above; indeed I've never seen a moderator behave like Mathsci during my years on Wikipedia. This is just to explain why I'm not engaging in any content discussions with him at the moment; I've tried, but he only responds with insults about my intelligence, my intentions and my level of English.

Dab, you've convinced me of the advantage of the table, so what we should work on is improving it. By that I mean making sure that it is as accurate as possible. I'm sure you've done this already and all in all you appear to have done a good job, but I hope you don't mind some help :-) To be able to do so, may I ask you how you've arrived at the numbers in the table and how you have defined different ethnic groups. I'm asking this with the Baltic examples that I mentioned above in mind, as there appears to be some uncertainty in the numbers there. I'm sure we'll be able to further improve the article! JdeJ (talk) 10:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hiya, popping in as an uninvolved admin. For best results, could everyone please try to keep discussions focused on the article, instead of on the contributors? And for even better results, it would be nice if folks would consider going back to older comments, and changing them to a somewhat more civil tone (yes, you can always go back and change/delete stuff you've already said). Sometimes changing an older post, and refactoring words said in the heat of the moment, can have an excellent effect on de-escalating disputes. Which helps to get everyone back on track towards our main goal, of high quality articles.  :) Thanks, --Elonka 00:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It is quite hard to know how to refer to the willful blanking of a laboriously prepared table, containing the work of multiple of editors, notably Dbachmann, described by the edit summaries:

Very poor page. Inserted some tags and removed a table that managed to break WP:OR over and over again. Verify your claims, thanks

This page is probably the worst case of WP:OR I've come across in a long time. Most of it should be deleted, but perhaps sources can be found for some of its ideas

Were these edit summaries reasonable? Should most of the article have been deleted as JdeJ suggested (without justification)?

Inserted fact-tags for statements that are unsourced and often very vague. Mathschi already deleted the tags once without providing any reason, I hope he will contribute in a more responsible way.

Was the above response to my reversion and edit summary "restoring blanking by JdeJ - incoherent justification was given on talk page" reasonable? I made one edit to the article, that's all. JdeJ chose not to have noticed this edit [3]. JdeJ admitted later that some of his edit summaries and actions were "silly". His edits to the lede of Aix-en-Provence were also equally "silly" and unhelpful. Remember I made just one edit to this page after JdeJ.

Elonka's comments don't address these edit summaries at all or the fact that well over a third of the article was blanked, prior to tagging. Is her intervention here as an "uninvolved administrator" not encouraging these kinds of actions and edit summaries in mainspace articles? Blanking one third of an article? Surely, Elonka, you cannot be serious? Mathsci (talk) 05:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

As Mathsci knows, I saw the table as problematic due to its lack of sources and the many errors I found in it. With hindsight, yes, it would have been better to discuss it here first, as I have already stated above. I'm waiting for Dab's response before I start working on the table, and a Mathsci has continued to wage his vendetta against me despite warnings from both me and an administrator, I've reported him at WP:ANB. Once again, could we perhaps now focus on improving the article? The table needs sources, and I'll be happy to help with that once I know which sources Dab has used when compiling it. JdeJ (talk) 08:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

What vendetta? I stated my point of view fairly clearly here. I stated there after my restoration of the table blanked by you and and my consternation at your extraordinary edit summaries, I had decided not to engage with you further. I made a statement above agreeing about the recurrent problem of sources, which are slowly being added bit by bit to this article, sometimes by me. I did initially misunderstand the one wrong line of error concerning the Lebanese, which Dbachmann fixed; I apologize that I confused with the Lebanese diaspora in Europe. Mathsci (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

when I compiled the table, I went to the individual articles of the groups linked, all of which have insanely detailed "infoboxes", including insanely detailed population figures, all of them referenced. This is just a matter of copy-pasting the sources given there into this article, if that's what you're into. Take Germans:

---

Germany        67 - 75 million France (mainly Alsace and Moselle) 1.5 million Netherlands 320,000 Italy 290,000 United Kingdom 266,136 Spain 208,349 Switzerland 164,000 Poland 153,000 Austria 74,000 Belgium 70,000 Hungary 62,233-220,000 Romania 60,000 Czech Republic 40,000 Denmark 15-20,000 Ireland 11,797 Slovakia 5-10,000

---

And so on. Now please put your money where your mouth is and start transferring these references into the table. Have fun. The one single source that will get you furthest will probably be the CIA Factbook. --dab (𒁳) 13:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I wonder what the validity of these data are. For example the figure given for Germans in the UK is actually for people born in Germany who live in the UK. That doesn't tell us how many people who identify as ethnically German live in the UK. I tend to agree with you dab, the data are insanely detailed, far too detailed, and I think misleading. They don't tell us about ethnicity, they tell us about demographics. People born in Germany who live in the UK do not all necessarily identify as ethnically German. I'm sceptical of these sorts of data. They may be referenced, but we need to be careful that our references are actually saying the same thing that an article claims. Personally I don't think these sorts of artificial constructs add any value to articles about ethnicity, they should be used in articles about demography. Alun (talk) 16:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

you have a point, but your point boils down to ethnicity being a fuzzy concept that is impossible to measure precisely, which is granted from the outset. I am not entirely happy about how the population breakdown in these infoboxes is handled, but that is a question affecting hundreds of articles, and should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups. dab (𒁳) 16:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Simplified Languages of Europe map.svg

This image should not be so prominent. A more appropriate one should replace it. ʄ!•¿talk? 15:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

we should probably restore Image:Languages of Europe no legend.png -- it is rather better, and if it is good for languages of Europe it should certainly be good enough here. --dab (𒁳) 19:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

To be quite honest, both those maps are bad beyond belief. The map Image:Languages of Europe no legend.png doesn't look right for a single European country. Ireland, Sweden, France, the UK, Spain... They all look hillarious on this map, I honestly cannot imagine anyone with even a modicum of insight into European minority languages thinking that this map has got anything to do on Wikipedia. Sorry for the harsh tone, but the map is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. JdeJ (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

what you call "bad beyond belief" and "hillarious" is a somewhat conservative treatment of minority languages. The distibution of, say, Gaelic or Breton, is that of about a hundred years ago, not that of today. Which makes the map particularly useful for illustrating "ethnicity", because ethnic identity tends to linger on for a generation or two after linguistic identity was lost. --dab (𒁳) 08:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The major problem with either of these maps — especially sans-caption — is that they seem to suggest that, for example, almost the entire popluation of Ireland is ethnically english. And while there is something to be said for norse migration historically having an affect on the populations ethnicity, this would be regarded as a pretty extreme fringe theory. Yet it partically gets presented as fact. Well a unreferenced wikipedia fact, which is about as disreputable as they come. ʄ!•¿talk? 14:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with dab but wishes to apologise for sounding disrespectful of the contributors to the map. Yes, I find it to be very bad but that's not a reason to use such phrases.

The map, however, is not just conservative in its treatment of minorities. At times it's about 800 years wrong (Breton, Estonian) and sometimes it claims areas for languages that never have been spoken there (Catalan, German). Let me list just a few rather obvious errors

• Spain. The Catalan area as indicated on the map has little to do with reality. The map claims that most of southern Aragon is Catalan-speaking, just as part of eastern Castille. Those parts of Spain have never been Catalan-speaking and most certainly aren't now. In contrast, Catalan is still very strong all the way down to Elche, but the whole area between Elche and Gandia is marked as Spanish-speaking here.
• France. The eastern half of Britanny has not been Breton-speaking for the last 800 years, the traditional language there is Gallo. The map is about 200 years wrong when it comes to Dutch in France. As for Alsace-German, the map has little to do with any linguistic reality, it simply outlines the areas annexed to Germany in 1870. These areas are thoroughly French-speaking today and have been so for quite some time. Corsica is listed as Italian-speaking, and although Corse is close related to Italian, it's neither Italian nor the dominating language on Corsica. For ethnic purposes, I can assure you that people in Alsace don't identify as Germans in any way, nor do Corsicans feel Italians.
• Italy. The map overlooks the Sardinian language completely. The French-speaking area of Italy isn't even a third of the area shown on the map, it's restricted to ][Val d'Aosta]} and retreating even there. Just as in France, the German speech-area takes on almost absurd proportions. While Südtirol definitely is German-speaking, Trentino is just as Italian-speaking despite being marked as German on the map. And the relatively large German area in Val d'Aosta is pure fantasy, despite a few settlements having existed there previously.
• Switzerland. German is once again inflated. While only a small part of French-speaking Switerland is coloured as German-speaking, it's strange to see that Bosco Gurin occupies about a fourth of Ticino. The population of is 79 and the majority of them speak Italian these days.
• Belgium. Once again German is extending far beyond Eupen-Malmedy into areas that never were German-speaking
• Scotland. 90% of the areas marked as Gaelic-speaking were still Gaelic-speaking 100 years ago, but are more than 98% English-speaking today. In many of the parts marked as Gaelic-speaking here, there isn't a single Gaelic-speaker left. Gaelic isn't a majority language anywhere on the mainland, only in the Outer Hebrides.
• Ireland. The Irish dialects of Clare, Limerick, Sligo, Tipperary and Eastern Cork have been extinct for more than 50 years now. About 10% of the area coloured on the map here is Irish-speaking.
• Poland and Lithuania. What language is the brown colour meant to represent? Turkish? That area includes Vilnius and last time I checked, people in the Lithuanian capital were speaking Lithuanian and not Turkish. If the creator of the map thought about the Karaites, this is as out of proportion as Bosco Gurin in Switzerland.
• Latvia. There haven't been any Estonian speaking areas of Latvia for the last 600 years.
• Sweden. There are only four municipalities where Sami is official and it's not the majority language anywhere in Sweden, yet one third of the country is claimed as Sami-speaking here.

In short, the map is far from just conservative, it's wrong for almost all European countries. And for ethnic groups, it would be an even bigger disaster. I doubt anyone feels like telling the Scots and Irish that they are English unless they speak Gaelic, tell the Corsicans that they are Italians, tell people in Alsace, Lorraine, Trentino, Val d'Aosta, Ticino, Luxemburg and Luxembourg that they are Germans, tell people in Vilnius that they are Turks and so on. The map has been removed from all other Wikipedia articles and I see no reason why it should reappear here.JdeJ (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

There are two issues here: first, a language map should be used to illustrate language, not ethnicity, unless the source says that in this case the two are isomoprhic. Yes, language is very often an important deictic of ethnicity. But just because it often is does not mean we can assume that it always is, or that because people in an area spoke a particular language 100 years ago the ethnic identity has remained the same. I think this could be true, all I am saying is we need a reliable source that says so or we are violating SYNTH. The second issue JdeJ raises is that even as a language map at a particular time, this mape is a unreliable source. This is an RS issue. Now, I cannot judge which map is or is not a reliable source. But I am sure we all agree we need to comply with our RS policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with those who do not think that this is a good map for illustrating ethnicity. Even if it were correct it would only illustrate languages. Sources specifically on ethnicity would need to be the basis for a map of european ethnicity. ·Maunus·ƛ· 05:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I still think that Image:Languages of Europe no legend.png is useful, precisely because it exaggerates minority languages. But I am not pushing its restoration. The removal of the simplified map is out of the question, however, until a better replacement is suggested. I am very tired of strawman arguments along the lines of just because it often is does not mean we can assume that it always is when nobody has even remotely suggested what is being denied. I have also come to look on certain recurring issues in this field in terms of WP:POINT, as in, let me prove to you that ethnicity doesn't exist by sabotaging discussions of ethnicity by means of a tongue-in-cheek devil's advocate attitude. We have plenty of sources stating that ethnicity is composed of (a) language, (b) culture and (c) ancestry, which means that illustrations of any of a, b or c are fair enough. Of course, if you have a map illustrating all three in one go, I'll be ever so glad to endorse it. --dab (𒁳) 15:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but I fail to see how a map would be more useful because it's wrong. Fair enough, though, nobody suggests its restoration. If dab feels that some user(s) are "sabotaging discussions", it would be more constructive if he would name them and show in what way they are sabotaging.JdeJ (talk) 15:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

dab, I didn't think I was making a straw-man argument. If you are not denying that linguistic groups are not necessarily ethnic group, then we remove the map. This is an article on ethnic groups. Perhaps the map belongs in an article on languages. I am glad you agree that languages are not ethnic groups, this makes removing the map a no-brainer. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above. JdeJ (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

wow. then we'll have to remove the migration period map, the empires map, and the religions map on the same grounds, won't we, after all, they don't show ethnic groups either. Nobody ever claimed they did, but apparently this isn't relevant. We probably need to remove the image of the Saami family because it isn't a map of ethnic groups. A yurt isn't an ethnic group, hence the removal of an image of a yurt is a no-brainer, yes? I am afraid you tend to take the term "no-brainer" a tad too literally, Slrubenstein. --dab (𒁳) 09:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

JdeJ, it seems a little disingenous to claim "The map has been removed from all other Wikipedia articles" on 18:41, 9 December 2008 when the removal has actually taken place at 13:02, 9 December 2008[4]. I realize this is a wiki. It is also unsurprising you defend Slrubenstein's constant shooting of strawmen (he has literally been doing this for years) in the light of I doubt anyone feels like telling the Scots and Irish that they are English unless they speak Gaelic. Wth does this have to do with anything? Nobody ever tried to merge the Scottish or Irish with the English table row, so what you are doing is pure rhetorics, you are attacking a position nobody is defending in the first place. The amount of poor judgement informed by well-intentioned paranoia, the hallmark of Slrubenstein's involvement in this topic, is positively crippling to any sane discussion of the actual issues. --dab (𒁳) 10:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I found two maps showing ethnic groups, Times Atlas (1896) and Ravenstein (1914). We are experiencing the WP:SYNTH/WP:UNFREE dilemma here. Respectable maps will be either unfree or more than 90 years old. Any free map based on respectable maps will be open to attacks on the WP:SYNTH front (which I do not doubt for a second will happen on this page). So we would seem to be stuck with a 1914 map, which moreover does not show most of Scandinavia or European Russia. --dab (𒁳) 10:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that it might be relevant to show several maps each showing the extensions of different correlates of ethnicity, e.g. language, religion, cultural practices etc. However this should be in a section discussing exactly this. I don't find it useful to include the historical maps - since they illustrate the outdated nationalist idea of ethnicity more than they provide useful information about modern european ethnic groups.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

it might be relevant to show several maps each showing the extensions of different correlates of ethnicity, e.g. language, religion, cultural practices etc. -- indeed. This is what I would have expected to be a "no-brainer". I don't find it useful to include the historical maps- since they illustrate the outdated nationalist idea of ethnicity -- well do we want a map or do we not want one? Of course nationalism essentially builds on notions of ethnicity (nation), but to conclude that any discussion of ethnicity must automatically be nationalist is a simple fallacy (affirming the consequent). The 1914 map is perfectly innocent. You are only entering nationalist territory if you begin deriving irredentist claims based on it, but you cannot blame the map for the ideology that ethnic boundaries "should" correspond to state boundaries. If you object to the 1914 map because it is (gah!) German, we can still use the 1896 British one. The near-identity of the two maps, however, should be sufficient to establish that their content isn't controversial (Germany and Britain weren't exactly on the same page in the period 1896-1914). I chose the 1914 map simply because it works better as a thumbnail. --dab (𒁳) 12:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I understand why you dug up the map - basically to show that there are no good maps of ethnic groups available online free. I am exactly not saying that a discussion of ethnicity is automatically nationalist - but I am saying that in 1914 any discussion of ethnicity was nationalist because back then concept of ethnicity was understood in the same way as nation. Ethnicity isn't used like that anymore by most social scientists (except those few ones who ascribe to the essentialist/naturalist primordialist viewpoint). This is why a map from 1914 only gives an idea about what people thought european ethnic groups were in 1914 not what modern scholars who work with european ethnicity think they are. Basically it is only of historical interest. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

dab has demonstrated to us that there are no good maps of ethnic groups available online for free. that is why we need to delete the map. I am glad dab agrees with me, no more strawmen, we just delete the map following dab's reasoning. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I have demonstrated no such thing, and your reasoning is ludicrous. You show once again that your motivation is pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT. What I have demonstrated is that there is consensus as to the distribution of ethnic groups in Europe prior to WWI, and that the maps look the same regardless of whether they were drawn by German, British or Hungarian cartographers. Here is an excellent map drawn by US American cartographers in 1923 (and hence probably not PD). Here is a simplified 1899 version which agrees perfectly with out ethno-linguistic listing. Here is the 1880s ethno-linguistic map of Europe of Meyers Konversationslexikon. Here is another one with the same content (source unidentified). If I have demonstrated anything, it is that it is perfectly straightfoward to show such a map. And what is more, these maps do nothing but illustrate what is already contained in the article anyway. --dab (𒁳) 19:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. You agree that ethnicity and language are not the same, but want to include a map that identifies ethnicity and language. Okay. Of the new links you present, the first one is races, not ethnic groups. As for the map you put in, is "Portuguese" really an ethnic group? White Russian? Where are the Jews (there were millions in Europe before WWII)? Roma? Kashubayans? It seems more like a map that links languages with nations or nationalist (all I mean are, groups aspiring to self-determination or sovereignty, nothing negative) groups in Europe ...Slrubenstein | Talk 20:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I won't answer to that simply because you aren't making any point other than "la, la, I cannot hear what you are saying". If you think "White Russians" were considered a race even in 1923, I would recommend you consult an English dictionary. --dab (𒁳) 20:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

As for Maunus' claim that Ethnicity isn't used like that anymore by most social scientists, it is simply that: a claim. I understand this to mean that you are saying that such maps aren't drawn any more. Normally, it would be up to you to substantiate this, but I will graciously present evidence to the contrary, simply because it is so easy. 1972 ethnographic map of Cambodia, 2001 ethnographic map of Uganda, Ethnographic map of Nigeria (2000), an "excellent" ethnographic map of Yugoslavia of 1981, various ethnolinguistic maps of Asia (2003), China (2005) (Britannica 1983), ethnographic map of Pakistan (CIA 1973). What is more, Wikipedia is using such maps all over the place, without the least sign of controversy, as in Demographics of Iraq. This is the sort of map you see in newspapers all the time. It is perfectly unremarkable. Und you are trying to suggest that such maps are an obsolete asset of scientific racism or 19th century nationalism. Please give me a break and let us stop the games. --dab (𒁳) 20:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

dab, you are not discussing, you are simply contradicting at this stage and trying to make a consensus of one. Of course ethnic maps are still made - but apparently there are no recent ones available for europe however your maps are 100 years old! - Of course the definition of ethnicity has changed since that - those maps could be based on craniometrics for all we know - that was a perfectly respectable way to define ethnic groups when they were made. One thing that would definitely be different in a recent ethnic map would be that also sub-national ethnies such as roma, jews, silesians, frisians, kashubians would figure and not just those ethnies that are currently in charge of a territorial unit. You have previously demonstrated that you aren't exactly on top of modern social studies and that you don't care to be - but please don't make it look like we are the fringe nutters when you are the one who is adamantly holding on to early 20th century notions of monolithic territorial ethnicity over a range of ethnic related articles. ·Maunus·ƛ· 20:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Maunus that a map reflecting a view on ethnicity (/peoples/'races') which was current in early-20th-century scholarship may not be as authoritative nowadays, especially regarding the fluidness of the concept. This particular map seems to equal ethnic groups with linguistic groups. (Note that the Frisians are actually present.) Iblardi (talk) 21:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I am "not discussing"? My maps are "100 years old!" because of the GFDL, ok? If they weren't, they wouldn't be free. It is you who keeps making preposterous claims, and it is me who keeps sticking to the actual references. Your claim that One thing that would definitely be different in a recent ethnic map would be that also sub-national ethnies such as roma, jews, silesians, frisians, kashubians would figure and not just those ethnies that are currently in charge of a territorial unit is silly, because such sub-ethnic groups are present even in some of the old maps I provided. The resolution is limited purely for reasons of space, because you cannot show a map of Europe and label every tiny subgroup. Your conclusion from this that my view of ethnicity is "monolithic" or somehow tied to territorial control is frankly insulting.

What I am trying to discuss here is the ethnic geography of Europe, ok? Here is a definition from a 2002 Encyclopaedia of Teaching of Geography:

ethnic geography is the study of the spatial aspects of ethnicity. It is based on the fact that ethnic groups are highly territorial in organization. ... The beginnings of the academic subdiscipline lie in the period during and just after World War I. ... German cultural geographers in the 1930s continued this interest in ethnic groups, but unfortunately much of their work served the purpose of Nazi propaganda ... it was not until the mid-1960s that ethnic geography began to grow and thrive as a subdiscipline

From this I conclude that

• ethnic geography is a perfectly respectable academic sub-discipline of geography and ethnology
• far from "not discussing", I am the only one here bothering to present actual references, as opposed to sarcastic comments about "craniometrics"
• your insinuations that I am "not on top of modern social studies" are irrelevant, since neither do you need to take my word for anything (nor I yours), nor am I trying to discuss "modern social studies" here.

--dab (𒁳) 21:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

No dab, you are the one playing "nah nah I won't listen to anyone." You said that the map you added represents what people at the time considered ethnic groups. The map you added includes a space for White Russians. I asked if White Russians really were ever considered an ethnicity (I did not use the word "race" in relation to the map you added to the article; I used the word "race" in relation to one of the other maps you provided a link to ... because it is a map of races, not ethnic groups). Your replies to others will make sense when you start reading what you respond to. But I am sure this comment of mine will simply provoke another massive display of AGF that characterizes all your interactions with anyone who does not say "Oh Dieter, such a good boy, we will give you a barnstar." Slrubenstein | Talk 21:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

And dab, please, no more straw man arguments. We all agee that there are ethnic groups and they may be spatially distributed and I for one do not question that geographers study the spatial dimensions of ethnicity (in the United States and UK, there is no academic discipline "ethnology," you may be refering to what we call Social Anthropology or Cultural Anthropology and yes, they too are interested in the spatial distribution of ethnic groups). We are questioning the usefulness of the maps you are inserting. Maps of racial groups or of languages are not appropriate. And your excuse, that these are the only maps available through GFDL, is silly. If no good maps are available, that does not mean we should use bad maps. We use good maps if they are available. If they are unavailable ... we .. do .. not .. use ... maps. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be a good idea for dab to take a break from this article, as both his behaviour and his arguments are less than constructive at the moment. He seems to take any objections to his ideas highly personal and to be either unable or unwilling to take in arguments from other editors. And I agree with slrubenstein, Maunus and Iblardi regarding the maps. JdeJ (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed the map from 1914 as everybody except dab seems to be of that opinion. Perhaps dab would want to take the time to reach a consensus here instead of edit warring? JdeJ (talk) 22:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

you know what -- I'll just cite my sources, and you'll cite your counter-sources. You have failed to establish that the 1914 map is anything other than a straightforward presentation of the ethnic composition of Europe as of 1914, but I'll let that pass. I'll expand the "history" section and place it there. In the meantime, I am building an overview of the current (2000s) ethnography of Europe, based on the Pan and Pfeil Handbook (which is - scandalously - full of maps). Thank you. --dab (𒁳) 15:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic Europe template map

I don't think this map is appropriate either, as it uses population density as a background (which has zero relevance on ethnicity), with the colour patches unexplained, and unrelated to the distribution of ehtnic groups. I would suggest it be removed, as this is not a good illustration of European ethnic groups.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the map is not representative of European ethnicities. In addition to the concerns addressed by Ramdrake, the map suffers from a high degree of original research when it comes to ethnicities. To take only two examples, the map has defined Valencians, Catalans, Andalusians, Basques, Galicians and others as separate ethnicities from Spanish, but does not acknowledge any Breton, Occitan, Alsacian or Corsican ethnicity in France where all people are simple labelled as French. Similar concerns could be made for every other country. There is no consistency in the map, it doesn't represent European ethnicities and it doesn't seem to build on any sources. I support Ramdrake's suggestion that it be removed. JdeJ (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I once again removed the 1914 map that all editors except dab have wanted removed. Among the more bizarre claims made in that map is that all people in Ireland who speak English are English, not Irish. The map display language borders in 1914, not ethnical borders. Regardless of what dab thinks about the maps, his habit of repeatedly ignoring the opinions of everybody else and keep reverting to what he thinks is correct is in sharp violation of WP:OWN. JdeJ (talk) 21:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Please do not misquote what actually happened. It was I who added the image back. Dab then just moved it since I put it in an already compact area. The 1914 map is useful as it shows historical groupings; I would hope an encyclopedia would include information on the past as well as the present. Mingeyqla (talk) 22:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, then it was you who moved the map back. It doesn't alter the fact that the map doesn't represent European ethnic group. It would also be interesting to know why you re-added the other map, despite all the shortcomings mentioned here? And why did you removed the fact tags without providing any sources? JdeJ (talk) 22:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, now I remember why the name Mingeyqla seemed so familiar, it's one of the many accounts that were suspected of being possible sockpuppets of indefinitely blocked User:Fone4My. I came across it in August on the Maltese language page where a couple of disruptive socks where repeatedly making the same bogus-claims that Mingeyqla adopted after they were blocked. Their strategy was to disrupt pages with long arguments on talk pages for fringe views. I recommend we keep it in mind if the same behaviour should move here. I would like to stress that it might just be a coincident and Mingeyqla may be a perfectly honest user with the very best intentions and just the bad luck to start at a time and with a subject that seemed suspicious under the circumstances. Needless to say, Mingeyqla is just as welcome as anyone else to argue her/his case here. JdeJ (talk) 23:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not intend to remove any fact tags. I simply meant to put in the image. I do not understand the issue with it being there - there is a whole section on the linguistic classification of people, so surely a historical linguistic map would be appropriate in there.

In response to your second comment, I will make no attempt to disguise the fact that I did in fact up until recently have online contact with two of the three people behind the Malta-related sockpuppets. You'll see from my edits however, that I have not edited in the same way as them, as the things I have contributed to the Maltese language article have not inflated the idea that Maltese is a mixed language. The closest I have come to that is defining the superstratal effect of Romance languages on it. If of course, my actions alone aren't enough to prove my lack of connection to them, there is always one last option. Mingeyqla (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

the map illustrates the data in the table. It isn't any more or less OR than the table itself. It is perfectly on topic, since it visualizes the size and geographic distribution of the ethnic groups in Europe, which is what this article is all about. Ontological discussions on the term "ethnicity" are not on topic here, they belong on the ethnicity article. It is difficult enough to compile reliable information about a topic as complex as this one, even without the constant WP:DISRUPTion that this article has seen in the past. We should assume that the reader coming to this article wants an overview of the ethnic composition of Europe. Ethnic groups are populations, i.e. they live somewhere. The population density information is thus highly relevant, since, for example, it makes clear that the Sami inhabit a vast territory, but one that is scracely populated, which makes them a tiny group in terms of numbers. What JdeJ calls a "consensus" boils down to him and Slrubenstein trying to prevent all discussion of ethnicity because they don't like the term for reasons best known to themselves, allegedly because "modern social science" has voiced some caveats. The "OR" claims regarding the identification of ethnicities have been met, I have been to the library and taken out a 2002 monograph on "Ethnic groups in Europe". This is a recent and academic source, and I will not stand the constant implication that I am pushing outdated notions unless an academic review of my source is presented which discredits its use. --dab (𒁳) 20:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It's amazing how much whining dab can put out without ever addressing the concerns raised, I'm no longer able to take his melodramas seriously. And it's not just me and Slrubinstein, it's also Maunus, Iblardi and Ramdrake. And nobody is trying to "prevent all discussion on ethnicity". On the contrary, I've addressed multiple problems and dab has never been able to answer a single one, all he ever does is posting long dramas containing "don't like", "strawman argument" and "trying to prevent discussion" all over the place. His behaviour, and constant violations of WP:OWN, start to look increasingly disruptive.JdeJ (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Map on "Ethnic Europe", in or out

Dab is repeatedly inserting a home-made map of his into the article, and to avoid an edit war I suggest editors post their opinion on the map. Personally I think that the map should be deleted, as it violates WP:OR and is not representative of European ethnicities. To take only two examples, the map has defined Valencians, Catalans, Andalusians, Basques, Galicians and others as separate ethnicities from Spanish, but does not acknowledge any Breton, Occitan, Alsacian or Corsican ethnicity in France where all people are simple labelled as French. Similar concerns could be made for every other country. The main problem is that there is no consistency in the map, it doesn't represent European ethnicities and it doesn't seem to build on any sources.JdeJ (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Ethnicity is often said to involve language, culture, religion, and ancestry. I doubt that these four variables are ever isomorphic. Part of me feels it would be very interesting to have four maps (races of Europe, Religions of Europe, Languages of Europe, Cultures of Europe - not sure how that would even be compiled - and juxtapose them precisely to show how the different axes so often do not line up perfectly. The point is not to illustrate ethnic groups but rather the unevenness of criteria for identifying ethnic groups. To do this would require good maps and I do not think they exist. Given what is available, I agree with JdeJ. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)