Talk:Ethnic groups in Europe

• Talk partially retrieved from European

The article seems...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The European people?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"An ethnic group or ethnicity is a population of human beings whose members identify with each other, either on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry[1], or recognition by others as a distinct group[2], or by common cultural, linguistic, religious, or territorial traits.[1] "

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

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

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

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

"Recently published research in the field of molecular genetics -- the study of DNA sequences -- indicates that Jewish populations of the various Diaspora communities have retained their genetic identity throughout the exile. Despite large geographic distances between the communities and the passage of thousands of years, far removed Jewish communities share a similar genetic profile. This research confirms the common ancestry and common geographical origin of world Jewry." [1]

Jews and Arabs are 'genetic brothers'....They may have their differences but Jews and Arabs share a common genetic heritage that stretches back thousands of years......The comparison also showed that Jews have successfully resisted having their gene pool diluted, despite having lived among non-Jews for thousands of years in what is commonly known as the Diaspora - the time since 556 BC when Jews migrated out of Palestine.[2] KarenAER 17:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggested merge

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

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

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

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

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

[Removed inapropriate title]

From a real online site:

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

*Answer: It seems to have helped white people.

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

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

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

Identity and culture section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Physical appearance and genetics section

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

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

This is moronic. Even Encyclopaedia Britannica discusses these:

"The vast majority of Europe's inhabitants are of the European (or Caucasoid) geographic race, characterized by white or lightly pigmented skins and variability in eye and hair colour and by a number of biochemical similarities;" [3] KarenAER 14:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead

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

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

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

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

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