Talk:Ethnic groups in Europe/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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 the Maltese people's 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)

ok. when will you cite your first source on this topic? I do not call this "discussion", I call this violation of "Wikipedia is WP:NOT a discussion forum". . So I am "whining"? So ou have raised "concerns"? If you want to be involved in this article, cite your sources. No sources, no "concerns" raised. I am not interested in your personal criticism of the sources I use, I want to see citations of academic criticism. Once I reject your academic references you can begin talking of "WP:OWN", but not before --dab (𒁳) 09:47, 19 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)

Agreed too, for the reasons elaborated on above. The current map that dab made up, with all due respect to the work he put in making it, has too many problems to be of encyclopaedic value.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Am I the only one using any WP:RS here? I am committed to citing my sources. I have essentially built about 80% of this article. JdeJ felt compelled to come to my talkpage and accuse me of Wikipedia:Vandalism and Wikipedia:Original Research, stating that my contributions are "not helpful". What are your contributions here, JdeJ? Have you had any hand in helping build this article? Slrubenstein's private musings ("I doubt that these four variables are ever isomorphic. Part of me feels it would be very interesting to have four map" "I do not think they exist" etc.) is supremely irrelevant per WP:TALK, WP:OR. I have been challenged, I have gone to the library, and I have produced academic references. Now let my "critics" do their homework and start citing sources on the article topic, or else stop their WP:POINT. --dab (𒁳) 09:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

No dab, you're the only one using vandalism to make a WP:POINT. Removing most of the page because others don't agree with you is extremely immature. That parts of it were your own contributions is irrelevant, you don't WP:OWN them. Seriously, you need to grop up, you seem to be completely incapable of dealing with situations where others disagree with you. JdeJ (talk) 10:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I do own my contributions, see GFDL. It is true that you are free to publish my contributions under the terms of the GFDL, which you have just opted to do. I find this strange, since you have been trying to shoot down my contributions, you have described them as "vandalism" and "home made original research", and now you have just published them. Especially, you have just restored Image:Simplified Languages of Europe map.svg, the map you have gone out of your way to have removed all along. This is a joke. I require WP:3O at this point, since it has become perfectly obvious that you are not interested in bona fide collaboration as required under WP policy. I am perfectly able to deal with disagreement. What I have told you about a dozen times now is that I am not interested in dealing with your disagreement as long as it isn't more than a personal sentiment not backed up by any WP:RS as required by Wikipedia policy. --dab (𒁳) 10:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Reverting to a very old version of an article just because you've done many edits is not GFDL. And your last action, to remove maps that have not been discussed or disputed and which are not created by you, at least not all, is just silly vandalism. Whether your interested in dealing with disagreement or not is entirely up to you, but it doesn't give you the right to start vandalising the page by extensive content removals. We've mentioned several problems with your maps and if you're not "interested" in discussing that, well, there's not much more we can do. Your attiude of "I'm not interesting in discussing with any of you, I do as I please and ignore you all" is not very helpful. JdeJ (talk) 10:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

my patience has limits. All you have been doing is disrupting my bona fide work on this article. All your contributions are of an "in or out? -- out." kind, none of them are constructive. Wikipedia has means of dealing with this kind of problem, but it's tedious. I am done here for the moment, but I assure you that this article will be built, in an encyclopedic and well-referenced manner, no matter what you do. --dab (𒁳) 11:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I do find myself agreeing with Dab. Nothing he says seems to be being taken into account. A historical linguistic map of europe is perfectly relevant in a section that deals with linguistic divisions in europe.

May I remind the pair of you however, to comment on content, and not contributor.

I agree that a third opinion or mediation may be necessary.

Dab, removing content to make a point doesn't help. The issue is with adding maps - not reverting the article even further back.

JdeJ, if you wish to dispute the reliability of the sources provided, you must present your case informatively of why they should be disguarded, or even better, provide references of your own to counteract them. Until you do, what you are stating is original research. Mingeyqla (talk) 13:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be reading too much into WP:OR. Anyone can certainly make comments without violating OR, just as you are doing yourself. I don't know how familiar you are with academic writing, but the principle is to source every claim that cannot be thought to be general knowledge. When discussing ethnicities of Europe, such things as the existence of Bretons, Corsicans and Basques can safely be assumed to be general knowledge. If we want to make more detailed claims, we definitely need sources. Nothing I've been stating in this discussion is OR, at least not to the best of my perceptions but you're welcome to point out any comment that you'd want sourced. The existence of minorities in France, for instance, is well-known enough for it to go without a source. JdeJ (talk) 14:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:TALK: talkpages are for constructive discussion on how to improve articles. Talkpage comments do not fall under WP:NOR, but the insistence on making claims without willingness to substantiate them is not constructive. Article content, of course, does fall under WP:NOR, but "NOR" is clearly intended to include informed summary of sources cited, and judgements on WP:DUE. Otherwise, it would be impossible to write a single original sentence on all of Wikipedia, and all our articles would need to consist entirely of verbatim quotes. A tongue-in-cheek attitude of making editors working on summarizing cited sources jump through hoops needlessly or out of spite falls under WP:DISRUPT or WP:POINT and is not constructive, especially if these hoops are thrown up idly and without any reference to respectable sources. --dab (𒁳) 15:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

We are going in circles. Now may be a good time for an RfC. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

another great step forward would be your first proffering of any WP:RS on the topic. I am still willing to look at any source presented. I am not willing to prance around as the only party honouring WP:CITE. --dab (𒁳) 18:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

No, you are the only one prancing around saying "look at me, I am the center of attention." RFC is a way to resolve conflicts. You insist you own the article and that any view of yours is consensus no matter how many people disagree. If you reject an RfC how about mediation? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Order, order, please. The problem here has always been with adding citations, which has been done little by little, because it's such a huge topic. I have helped a bit myself. I don't think there's any need for an RfC at this stage. JdeJ has made some valid criticisms and corrections to this page in the past, even if his edit summaries were slightly OTT [5]. The page is a vast improvement on the previous "European people", but unfortunately will never be perfect. Mathsci (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hear hear. And can we please drop accusations of vandalism. WP defines vandalism as"any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia; vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, or the insertion of nonsense into articles." That is not what is going on here and such comments breach WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. dougweller (talk) 08:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism."

I agree with Dougweller in principle, accusations of vandalism should not be thrown around. I'd like to point out, however, that I don't hesitate one second in calling this edit, deleting all contributions made over several months, [6] vandalism.JdeJ (talk) 10:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Surely, in view of the edit summary, it was clear that dab's capricious but harmless temporary edit was to remind people of the state of the highly problematic article "European people" before dab put in all his hard work. His version was not the "worst article on wikipedia" by any stretch of the imagination, and expressions like that are best avoided. (However, that description definitely applied to the previous version, thanks to the contributions of Jimbo-banned User:Fourdee and his ilk.) Somebody should write a Ph.D. thesis about the chemistry of this page: even an anodyne and neutral article like this one, perhaps because of its murky origins, is constantly creating storms in teacups after periods of remaining peacefully dormant. We had banned editor Kurban Kossack editing a while back in a slow edit war; and I had to separate North and South Caucasian in the table - a technology I had to struggle to master - to avoid another conflagration. Mathsci (talk) 11:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I consider JdeJ's involvement here highly disruptive and unconstructive. I have avoided calling it "vandalistic", but after he came to my talkpage calling me a vandal for investing time and effort in illustrating a complex topic, I do feel rather inclined to regret that. --dab (𒁳) 09:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, re look at me, I am the center of attention, this is nonsense. I would be ever so glad if you would just let me build this article in peace. It is a lot of work even without all this debility. I do invite you to ignore me and simply go away. You have wasted hours of my time without bothering to cite a single reference, and then you deign to insult me for suggesting that you shouldn't do that. If you have anything to say, cite your sources like everyone else, ok? And if you don't, please keep your animosity to yourself, this isn't usenet. --dab (𒁳) 09:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

POV fork

It appears to me that this article, as it has been developed by Dbachmann, is in fact a POV fork from Eurabia. Dbachmann seems to actually admit that his intent is a POV fork is his intention here[7]. It is true that some problematic issues effects that article, but at least there is no doubt that Eurabia is WP:notable as an element in popular thinking (as can be seen my the multitude of YouTube videos on the subject -- at least one with over 55,000 views [8]). Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure where you see any ties of this article with Arab countries. I'm assuming this is either an error or a joke.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so, Malcolm. dab has to speak for himself, but I think you are unfairly leaping to a false conclusion. This article emerged out of aricles on the white race and white people in the context of discussions about race in articles in Wikipedia. If your point is that there are Arabs in Europe and they should be included as a European ethnic group, well, i would agree with that. Jews and other stateless ethnicities are given inedequate attention here. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The article, as I understand it, is about European ethnic groups, and deals with the demographic effects of newly arrived immigrant ethnic groups within Europe [9][10]. There are a group of articles that Dbachmann is working on together, to develop the changing demographic situation in Europe, and this seem as good a place to note that as any. There is also, for instance, Muslims in Western Europe that he is working on. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Malcolm is jumping to conclusions that just aren't there. I've read both topics and cannot really find the POV fork that Malcolm claims, nor can I see that dab's edit comment "admits" any such thing. Like Ramdrake, I wonder if this indeed the article you meant to comment on?JdeJ (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I am mistaken. Would it be better to delete this section? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

If we didn't already have an article about European Ethnic groups we'd have to create one. There's no POV fork here - regardless of whether it was created as the result of a POV dispute.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm Schosha is obsessed with the "Eurabia" topos, and he is now following me around because I have questioned the notability of his article. Cheap tit-for-tat tactics, best to WP:DENY. I have been working on this article for half a year, while I first noted the existence of the Eurabia article last week. THe "pov fork" allegation doesn't make any sense no matter how you turn it. --dab (𒁳) 09:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Dbachmann, has included, as usual, plenty of ad hominems when replying to me. I do not appreciate his doing that. Statements like "Cheap tit-for-tat tactics", and "Malcolm Schosha is obsessed..." are not good indicators of WP:assume good faith. It should be noted that my statement about POV fork did not contain anything negative about Dbachmann himself, and all I said is what I think is correct. I assume his editing intentions are good even if I frequently disagree with his views. If it should be that I am mistaken about the POV fork, I am sorry. I am, most certainly, not, as he claims, following him around. I would appreciate it if he would remove the problematic statements about me. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, dab's arguments aren't always the most well-crafted but the fact remains that there's no case here. This isn't a POV-fork in any sense I can detect and I cannot see how dab's comment that you linked to would indicate anything of the kind. JdeJ (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll save the energy to "craft" arguments for the day anyone begins to build a case around here. I don't need to "craft" any arguments as long people keep confusing this page with a chat forum for exchanging our various notions, opinions and ideas loosely related to "ethnicity". Please do this elsewhere. Malcolm is perfectly free to follow me around, as long as he is willing to refrain from posting until he has anything remotely sensible to say. Which is evidently not the case here, for which reason I suggest we just close this section. --dab (𒁳) 16:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

As usual, Dbachmann did not reply to my request for civility, instead he threw out some more accusations such as "Malcolm is perfectly free to follow me around..." which is nothing but an accusation of WP:stalking. I would like him to demonstrate that accusation, or withdraw it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

"follow me around" as in going through my contribution history. That's ok, I looked at yours too. Also, that's not "stalking", and I did say I was ok with it, just as long as you try to avoid creating unnecessary drama. --dab (𒁳) 10:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

{{off topic}} Tag placed on the section

Dbachmann was questioning on my talk page the placement of the off-tpoic template on the section pertaining to the history of European ethnology. The reasoning is clear: this article is about European ethnic groups, not European ethnology. The section would be perfectly at home in the latter; for the former a proper history section would give an overview of the development of the major ethnic groups of Europe (i.e., theVölkerwanderung, the Spring of Nations etc.) A large section on the development of European ethnology, IMHO, does not really fit under the heading of European ethnic groups, and the fact that we don't have a separate article on European ethnology (it just consists of a redirect to this article) isn't a good reason to put a section that should belong in that article in the article on European ethnic groups. I believe the reasoning is simple enough.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

History of European ethnography

Ramdrake posed the question whether this section belongs in the article. Personally, and it's of course just my opinion, I think it's relevant and contributes to understanding the topic. The notion of ethnicity has been given different interpretations at different times (both religion and language have at times been much more important in the interpretation of ethnicity than today) and I think this section can be used to elaborate that topic.JdeJ (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

"this article is about European ethnic groups, not European ethnology." wrong. Unless you make a {{split}} suggestion, it is about both, to equal parts, as is made clear in the lead. Obviously, any one article can only reside at a single title. You are also welcome to make move suggestions. --dab (𒁳) 21:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's what I suggest: let's let other editors weigh in on the subject, and if there's consensus that the section is indeed relevant, I'll go and remove the tag. I was asking the question in good faith, based on my perception of the subject. If a number of other editors feel that my perception is not that of the majority, I'll be glad to comply to the majority view.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure this is the place for a history of European ethnology. The real issue is, we need to historicize the account of European ethnic groups. Has anthropologists' definition or approach to studying European ethnic groups changed? if so, the article should make that clear - but I don't think that would be well-served by a separate section on the history of ethnology. Instead I would sugest having sections on specific, historically located debates that transformed the study of European ethnic groups, as a way of taking this into account. By the way, if this articl really is meant to be based on European ethnology it is a litle embarassing that it does not even mention Wolf and Cole's The Hidden Frontier, one of if not the greatest classic single study of European ethnicity. It also leaves out other very famous works on European ethnology - Pitt Rivers and Behar's respective books on Spain, Frankenberg's book on Wales, Thomas and Zanienecki's classic The Polish Peasant, Sharon MacDonald's edited volume, Sue Wright's book, Pi Sunyar, Hans-Rudolf Wicker ... all the important work by katherine Verdery, Christina Bratt Paulston and Donald Peckham's edited book on language and ethnicity ...David Rock and Stefan Wolff's book on Germans, Anastasia Karakasidou's book on Greek Macedonians ... I have no problem with claiming that this article is about European ethnology, but it seems strange to make the claim when it doesn't draw on current well-known sources. I am no expert on Europe and yet I know of these, that is how well-known they are among ethnologists. Let's build up the article based on actual research, and then we can decide how much of the history of "ethnology" itself needs to be explained. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Slr, please go ahead and add these references to the article. Criticizing dab for not including them himself does not seem very constructive; everybody's expertise is valuable, in this case your own. Please go ahead and edit the article. Mathsci (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

indeed, "it is a litle embarassing" that we waste time here on talk exchanging petty hostilities instead of actually working on the article. Nobody said the article was finished. I certainly don't have a problem with mentioning case studies like The Hidden Frontier, but I have the uneasy feeling that if it had been I coming up with these, I would be shot down immediately under charges of WP:SYN. The Hidden Frontier is a study of two villages in Europe, not on "ethnic groups of Europe" as a whole. But we should certainly mention it in the "history" section as an influential 1970s case study.

To Ramdrake, I appreciate that there could be two articles, one an inventory of European ethnic groups, the other on the discipline of European ethnology. It may ultimately be wise to split these, but I do not think the article has come far enough to disect it into sub-articles, there needs to be a stable consensus on article structure for that, and an "off topic" template is also hardly the way to go about this. --dab (𒁳) 10:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

MathSci, I did not criticize anyone. I certainly did not criticize dab. I am sorry dab feels under siege. I donot know what he means when he writs about "eschanging petty hostilities" since I did not direct any hostility at him or anyone else in my prior post. I do admit to criticizing the article, but since no one owns the article no one will take this personally - and I think identifying problems with articles and making constructive suggestions is almost as important as researching and writing content. Not as important, perhaps - certainly far easier ... but still worth doing. As to dab's concerns about concerns: Books like The Hidden Frontier make two or three sorts of claims: claims about ethnicity in general, possibly claims about Europe or specific countries, and claims about specific ethnic groups. I cannot see any problem adding this information as long as we are always clear about the specific source. But yes, if anyone drew together information from two or more different books (at least, if authored by different people) I would probably question about SYNTH. Mathsci, I am sorry but I am not the one to add this information - I know enough to know that these books are very well-regarded. I would hope that of the many thousands of Wikipedians, some have read these books and could help out. Or others out there would be interested in reading them now to contribute to the article. Unfortunately my current work doesn't allow me to give Wikipedia that amount of time. I am not asking any one particular person here to do that work either. But Wikipedia boasts of its tremendous number of volunteers working on articles ... I wish more people who wish to help involved themselves, and to anyone who has the time I am glad to share what knowledge I do have, and mention these highly-respected and relatively current works of European ethnology. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Slr, you've been wearing those rose-tinted spectacles again :) Mathsci (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I did feel "under siege", and I continue to feel a lot of time has been wasted on this talkpage with pointless discussions about non-issues or offtopic issues. But luckily, at the end of the day, this is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the article was (with justification) criticized as poorly referenced. It is now properly referenced. I thus understand that the only remaining point of contention is the "identity and culture" section, to which we should now turn our attention. --dab (𒁳) 10:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Lebanese people?

Lebanese people are mentioned as both non-Europeans in Europe and Europeans in non-Europe. What is that supposed to mean? I'm going to take the initiative and remove them as Europeans outside Europe, I think they are basically ethno-linguistic Arabs like any others.--Mttll (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

well spotted. I think this keeps being added due to some weird kind of genetics-based ethnic nationalism. I am not sure, but I think Lebanese_people#Genetics sheds some light on this. --dab (𒁳) 10:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Tatars

The material in the article is not "incorrect" because it does not purport to represent the Russian POV. This article is on ethnic groups in Europe, not in Russia. The Russian government has authority within its territorial boundaries, but not outside its territorial boundaries. What is relevant here is what social scientists say, and how members of ethnic groups self-identify. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

is there any evidence that official Russia does not respect self-designation? Afaik, Russia is very careful to give a full listing of each and every grouplet within their borders. --dab (𒁳) 13:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Turks are not ethnic europeans

This article is about the ethnic Europeans not the Europeans.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 03:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

And what's the criteria for being ethnic European?--Mttll (talk) 12:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

being "native" to somewhere (some place) in "Europe". "Native" doesn't mean presence since the stone age, but continued presence for "many" generations, viz. "centuries".

most Turks live in Asia Minor, it is true, but those Turks included as native Europeans are the inhabitants of Turkish Thrace, which is indubitably in Europe, and which has indubitably been inhabited by Turks for several centuries.

this is the argument behind the sources we give. The easy answer, of course, is: "because we have quotable references that include the Turks". --dab (𒁳) 13:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite understand why User:Mttll has replaced a careful sourced statement about Turkic groups with his own unsourced statement. The CIA fact book was previously used as a source. If User:Mttll wants to change sourced statements, he should provide an alternative source. Mathsci (talk) 06:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The idea that a small population of nomadic Central Asian Turkic peoples migrated to Anatolia, a center and crossroads of many highly developed, urban civilizations for thousands of years, and wiped out the entire indigenous population, is absurd. The ancestors of most people who speak Turkish today are the same people who spoke Greek under the Roman and Byzantine empires and Hittite long before that. They adopted and absorbed new cultures and languages again and again, and they even absorbed the genes of the invaders, but the base of the population has remained consistent over time. The same is true for most countries in Europe - The Irish, for example, are genetically related to the Basques, but their ancestors adopted Celtic languages (just as most Irish speak English today but are still identified as a Celtic people). --74.103.150.125 (talk) 06:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Dutch

17 million Dutch in Europe is very low. If you count all ethnic Dutch in Europe you will get a number around 25 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.144.100.44 (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

then present your references at Dutch people. --dab (𒁳) 08:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Poles and Ukrainians

The real number of Poles in Europe is estimated on ca. 42 million (ca. 37,5 million in Poland, 2 million in Germany, 600,000 in UK, 200,000 in Ireland, over 1 million in the Eastern Europe and 700,000 in the rest of Western Europe), so it is higher estimation then those in the article. On the other hand the real number of Ukrainians is lower. There are ca. 46 million people living in Ukraine, where Ukrainians account for about 80% of population – ca. 36 million. Other Ukrainians live in Russia ca. 3 million, the rest of Europe over 1 million. The total number is ca. 40 million. So, Poles are higher number ethnic group then Ukrainians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.51.136.157 (talk) 07:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The number of Poles that have recently emigrated to England, Ireland, Germany are included in the 37,5 million. In The number of Ukrainians in Russia is estimated at 6.4 million, with an additional 1.2 million in Moldova. It is hard to get precise numbers. Bandurist (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The official government statistics estimate max. up to 2 million emigrants from Poland. In contrast, the Poles in other European countries are almost 5 million. This means that there are at least 3 million Poles more than the Polish population (37,5 + 3). For example, data for Germany does not include the subsequent 1,5 million Poles who have dual citizenship. On the other hand, the 3 million Ukrainians in Russia is data from a census, not estimate, as well as for the Poles. YES, it is hard to get precise numbers, so best to use the official statistics and where appropriate, have recourse to the estimates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.51.136.157 (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

"White British" is not an ethnic group!

I appreciate that the current government likes to use this term, but it is actually meaningless (i.e.: it is undefined and ill-conditioned). "Britain" simply refers to one main island; and British to a particular political entity that exists within defined parameters.

"English" is an ethnic group because it comprises and describes a language, culture, and a genetic (i.e.: haplogroup-definable) identity in a way that neither "white", "british", or "white british" possibly can (i.e. there is no "whiteland", where people speak "white", and eat whitish food etc...!).

This should be self-evident, because I am writing in "English", a language that evolved in an ethnic state called "England", that has a well-recorded, definable and traceable history and origin that is entirely a function of a specific group of humans definable by a specific gene cluster pattern [all this data is available on wikipedia by the way!]. The same applies to the other autochthonous groups of the current state that is called the UK, that happens to comprise the countries of those authochthonous groups, and has done in the current configuration for less than a century (i.e. since the partition of Ireland).

The autochthonous ethnic groups of the UK are: English (or Anglo-Saxon), Scottish, Welsh, Cornish, Manx, and Irish.

"White" is absolutely not an ethnic group, it's a political term (arguably of American origin), which is more than a little anachronistic in the 21st century.

Please could this be corrected, as it's a glaringly obvious inconsistency in the context of that table.

N.B.: Just because a particular political entity at a particular time wishes to apply a particular nomenclature to something, it doesn't behove contributors to wikipaedia to adhere to that as though it were fact (though they can of course report it as a particular view held, as often occurs... but we need to stick to objective academic and non-political sources at all costs).

User: MacDaddy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.15.31 (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

this is much like Spanish people, and very far from "glaringly obvious". Starting in the 2001 census, White Irish and White British were recognised as distinct ethnic groups in Great Britain. Please read British people and White British. "White" is a racial classification, and "British" is a nationality, but "White British" is very much an ethnic or super-ethnic group, with English, Scottish, Welsh, etc. as subgroups. You say you appreciate that "the current government likes to use this term". Well, so what is your point? Which, do you think, will be considered more WP:DUE for inclusion on Wikipedia, the terminology of the UK government, or the opinion of Wikipedia editor User: MacDaddy? See also WP:TRUTH.

Incdentially, the main island is Great Britain, while the "Pretannic Isles" are the entire archipelago, including Ireland. --dab (𒁳) 08:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Small Mistake

In section 3 “By country” there is a mistake with the table. For Denmark under “majority” it says “Danes 95%” but the 95% should be moved under “%” like all the other countries.Clark.d.kennedy (talk) 05:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

That % is wrong. That section in the article is a joke. Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Galicians

Galicians are portrayed as "Spanish people" because of Spain's policy of identifying all of its people as Spanish. In reality, Galicians are a subgroup of the Portuguese- most of all linguistically (which seems to be the main litmus test for this article's grouping criteria). --Duomodimilano (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Title

The first sentence is "The European peoples are the various nations and ethnic groups of Europe". "Peoples of Europe" makes much more sense to me as this articles title than "ethnic groups".--Duomodimilano (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

6 mil +1,3 mil +0,2 mil+0,3 mil = 7,8 mil Serbs

6,2 mil + 1,3 mil +0,2 mil+0,3 mil = 7,8 mil Serbs, max 8 mil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.91.116.182 (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

the insanely detailed headcount in the (sigh) infobox at Serbs has Balkans: 8.5 million, rest of Europe: 1.5 million, which would add up to 10 million. --dab (𒁳) 11:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense Catalan people classification

Catalan people are in three different states and they are not more Spanish that French. The classification as a subgroup of Spaniards it's a nonsense. 88.19.137.96 (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

it isn't "nonsense", it is a question of the definitino of "Spanish". I realize this is difficult, and I realize the Spanish themselves do not have a proper definition for "Spanish", just look at es:Pueblo español según la Constitución linked as the corresponding article to our Spanish people. This is a matter of the common scope of the English term "Spanish people", not of Spanish notions of the (non-)existence of a pueblo español. It is also something you would need to discuss in greater detail at Catalan people. --dab (𒁳) 07:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

typo

The sentence "Some living in Northern Ireland can also subsumed under British or White British. Most speak English as their Firt Language" should be changed to "Some living in Northern Ireland can also subsumed under British or White British. Most speak English as their FirSt Language", by adding an S to "Firt". -- 93.47.27.28 (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

European Diasporas

I have added some more Countries with European Diasporas to the 'Contemporary Diasporas' section and I have updated inaccurate and out-of-date information in the 'Contemporary Diasporas' section. I have also added Populations and replaced out-of-date and inaccurate populations of Diasporas (Such as the population of Eurasians in India; there are nowhere near one million Eurasians in India) in certain Countries in the same section. --Billsta1 (talk) 10:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"dubious" tags in table

who added all the {{dubious}} tags in the "ethno-linguistic" table? As is clearly indicated by the footnote, "unless otherwise indicated, population figures are those of Pan and Pfeil (2004)". What is there to discuss about that? The table was built to reflect this source. Nobody has any business fiddling with the table organization, or the population figures unless they can cite a quotable source on which they base their changes. All unreferenced fiddling with population numbers should just be rolled back. --dab (𒁳) 08:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably the same person who has removed South Caucasia yet again. Mathsci (talk) 08:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually not. The person who removed Georgian was Mttll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), somebody who has has a long block history for similar troublesome edits. All his edits to WP seem to have some nationalistic agenda. Mathsci (talk) 08:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

map

5th map from above: if the city Salzburgo in the map is meant to be the same as todays Salzburg, it is located in the wrong place (too far on the right). - Soulslayer from German Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.114.236.95 (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Validity of Page

I mean, honestly, what exactly defines an ethnic group as "European"? Nobody can really agree on that. Western Europeans snort at the "Europeanness" of Turks and even Balkan peoples, and even Mongolians sometimes claim they are European so that they are not classified under the same continent as the hated Chinese.

Frankly, I think this page is a ton of generalizations, and even racist.

Ethnicity is a spectrum, not categories. Every region shades into the next, to quote Jared Diamond. The Spanish could be argued to be closer ethnically to the Berbers of North Africa. There has never once been a single united European ethnicity, and I don't think there ever will be.

And furthermore, where does Europe end?

One can make a reasonable argument that in fact, the whole Middle East would be much better placed as part of Europe than Asia. An overwhelming majority of both regions practice Abrahamic religions, a trait which is not present in India or East Asia (but still present in Western Central Asia), and the Middle East was the founder of the civilized culture which spread to Europe, making the Middle East by far Europe's largest influence.

It's rather opinionated and speculative to define any trait as something that makes people European. How about some examples...

1) Geography: This excludes the fact that Russia, which is overwhelmingly considered part of Europe, has territory in Asia. Furthermore, the boundaries of this so-called "Europe" were layed out long ago, and we can't just pointlessly assume correctness, especially when the borders were made from a rather Christian-centric, and racist European point of view.

2) Christian Religion: May I remind us all that the Christian religion came from the Middle East? It is not a European religion.

3) Language: If we say Indo-European languages, that includes India, but not the Basques. That argument is better than geography or religion, but I'm not buying it. Much worse is that if we make a linguistic Europe, there will be areas of pockets of "Europe" surrounded by other "continents". That's a no-go.

4) Racial appearance: Many Berber groups of North Africa have higher frequencies of light hair and blue eyes than the so-called "European" Spanish. Furthermore,

5) EU-membership: So, somehow, political decisions decide on people's ethnic identity? Don't think so.

6) Residence: If we count residence as something that makes someone European, what about diasporas. And heck, what about the US, Canada, Australia, etc., where people descended from people of countries of Europe form a strong majority and are extremely culturally close to the founding nations?

7: Culture: Culture is largely based on perception. But may I point out that Hungarians have a strong Central Asian influence on their culture, a language originating in the Ural mountains, and a pentatonic scale, despite being located in the heart of geographical "Europe". Is Hungary now excluded from Europe? And Russians living in Kamchatka undeniably are far more European than Kalmyks living in Ciscaucasia, despite Ciscaucasia being considered Europe and Kamchatka being considered one of the most remote regions of Asia.

...as you can see, the whole concept of constructing an inexistant European ethnicity is rather stupid, just as an Asian or African identity is stupid. I really see no point for this page unless you guys can make some mention of the major problems with the viewpoint of a "European" classification.

And frankly, there is nothing keeping countries like Kabylia or Iran from being considered European except for religious prejudice and obstinance of sticking to artificial human-construed boundaries.

We may have to seriously consider why we even have this page in the first place. Because it seems to me it is based on largely perspective-based "information", and has no valid research aside form a ton of opinions about what is "European" and what "isn't". You could even call it racist, for classifying peoples into continental groups without much defined basis for classification, due to persistant inconsistency.--Yalens (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

it is funny how we never get this sort of resistance at articles like ethnic groups of Africa or ethnic groups of Asia, groupings by continent that are arguably far more "racist". Seriously, read the article. Nobody is "constructing an Europan ethnicity". Instead, the article discusses the numerous ethnicities (plural) found in Europe. --dab (𒁳) 06:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason you don't, frankly, is that Africa is a continent with clearly defined boundaries, whereas the Europeans are still caught up in rather obselete racist ideas on where the end of their imaginary continent is. A much better comparison would be if we had a page called "Ethnic groups in Eurasia", as that is actually a completely legitimate continent.

You say you aren't trying to create a unified European identity, but yet the page talks about unifying factors (churches especially, which excludes numerous groups). You are racistly excluding groupps because they aren't "European enough". The whole concept of Europe is at best chauvinistic.

Supposedly, there are no generalizations, and yet at the very top of the page, Europe is described to speak "Indo-European and Uralic languages" (excluding Turks, Basques, Tatars, Bashkirs, Chechens, Circassians, Georgians, Maltese, Jews, Avars, and I could go on forever), and a number of religions are declared European (may I note that NONE of them are indigenous to what you call Europe?). I may request this page for deletion. --Yalens (talk) 13:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrong table, as usual

Again, confusing ethnicity with nationality. Catalans cannot be within the Spanish group, first because they don't belong to the same ethnic group, but specially because Andorrans and the Catalans from France and Italy are not Spanish by nationality, so it doesn't make any sense.

The whole thing gets even funnier when you see that Basques are in a totally independent group and that the Aranese are surprisingly in the Francophone section, when they are Gascons by language/ethnicity and Spaniards by nationality. Deliberate misinformation or politically biased nonsense? --Purplefire (talk) 00:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed "European identity and culture" section

I removed the "European identity and culture" section for several reasons:
1) This section is highly POV;
2) It is unsourced and is nearly all OR;
3) The tags have been on there for over a year with few changes;
4) Although there was *alot* of words written in the archives sections, there has been no movement for quiet some time on the subject;
5) The section is off-topic. The article is about Ethnic groups in Europe, not pan-Euroism as described in the "European identity and culture." Power to the people.... Dinkytown (talk) 02:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

well, I object. The section is highlyon topic in the article about European ethnography.

Yes it needs work. As you can see about, it has been an uphill battle to even keep the straightforward "list" parts against the generic WP:IDONTLKEIT resistance, so the section on more "fuzzy" aspects will likely remain tagged for some time. --dab (𒁳) 06:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Disagree - The whole section is unsourced and is completely original research. The rest of the page is workable, but that section is off topic, the page is describing ethnic groups, not a pan-Europa. Pan-Europa needs its own page. Dinkytown (talk) 09:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted because (1) in general I do not think whole sections should be deleted without discussion unless there is a serious POV violation (2) in this case i see no serious POV violation, most of the contents is uncontroversial (3) the tagged sections are confined mostly to pne paragraph (I agree sentences that have been tagged for a year can safely be removed). dab, you seem to have an interest in this section. I do not have the time to do the research, but if you want to and add sources, I think that much of what is here can be sourced to Samuel Huntington (clash of civilizations) Immanuel Wallerstein (the World System) and Ferdinand Braudel on different fault lines within Europe or between Europe and other parts of the Old World, Andre Gundar Frank, Eric Wolf (Europe and the People Without History), and Peter Worsely (the Three Worlds) and perhaps Jared Diamond on the influence of Europe in other parts of the world, and Eric Wolf on the influence of other parts of the world on Europe. Dinkytown, I bet you would find these works (in all cases i mean the major or most famous works by each author) interesting, and you might enjoy doing some legitimate research starting with these significant and veifiable sources, to keep this section and perhaps even develop it. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I must register howeve that I do think Dinkytown has a legitimate argument that this section is not about European ethnic groups but rather pan european culture and thus belongs elsewhere. I support this, but still think (1) there should be some discussion before deletion, and (2) I would much much much rather Dinkytown remove the section to another article than just delete it. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the problems. I will try to restore an improved revision (but not today). Can we please remember that this isn't just the "list of ethnic groups in Europe" article but also the European ethnography one? Are you seriously suggesting that nothing can be said in informed, referenced prose about features and aspects, major commonalities and major differences wtin European ethnography? I would appreciate if we could finally move past the pseudo-skepticism doubting that there is such a thing as European ethnography and move to the stage where we iteratively and gradually improve our coverage of the topic like anywhere else on Wikipedia. --dab (𒁳) 13:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This section must be removed immediately

There are serious POV violations here - a white supremacists point of view. What organization (short of the KKK and Neo-Nazi groups) claim to support a 'European culture'? Answer: none - there are hundreds of cultural organizations Sons of Norway, Knights of Columbus, etc. that support individual cultural organizations, but the only organizations that support a Euro-culture are the Neo-Nazi. This is good site for the KKK and Neo-Nazi groups. There *may* be a Pan-European identity, but it is very new (less than ten years) and largely softly-imposed administratively from above such as the EU. Get a source that has a poll taken that the people identifying themselves as "European". I doubt that you will find one. I'm sorry Slrubenstein, but I am not going to do research on something that I disagree with its basic premise.

Understand that I am not accusing anyone here of being a racist or white supremacist, but I think you guys are not seeing the forest beyond the trees here.

"The culture of Europe might better be described as a series of overlapping cultures." What the hell does that mean - asside from the weasel wordage? Is there any 'continental culture' that is not "overlapping"? It's *very* Eurocentric and unsourced.

There is also so much of the info that is incorrect and simply wrong. Case in point, Christianity did not start in Europe, nor does it singly manifest from there. Coptic Christians from Asia and Africa; Ethiopian Orthodox Christians from Africa, plus numerous other smaller sects all across Asia, grew up separately and had nothing to do with Europe.

"Some tendencies that define modern Western societies are the existence of political pluralism" yea right, like the Nazi's, and Marxist-Leninism, to name a few. What was World War Two about?

It has no sources. What Wikipedia page will tolerate that?

Any one of these issues are enough to remove it from the page as described in under burden of evidence on the author, Original research, and unsourced material.

I am going to be a gentleman and give you 48 hours to source all of this material or I will remove it. This section has been up there in this condition for over a year with no movement. I'm not trying to hurt feelings, but this has to move on. Get some sources on this or take it off. Dinkytown (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't leave any more comments like this. It is not how wikipedia is edited. The section can be tagged, but you cannot blank it, since now three editors have disagreed with this procedure. The material has been there since the time when the article was called "European people", when it was more or less the whole article. It could be better sourced but as Slrubenstein has said, it is factually correct and neutral. Dbachmann has given his reasons why this material - in some form or other - belongs in the article. Mathsci (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with Dinkytown. And 3 people isn't nearly enough. Frankly, there is nothing factual about the bunch of opinions and original research and POV slush that is placed in that section. No offense to any of the writers, but really, if that's the whole article, than as my section here says before, the whole thing is invalid, as its nothing but OR and opinions. --Yalens (talk) 23:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It's best to avoid a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach. I said this section was the whole article 2 1/2 years ago [11]. Much later dab retitled the article and extensively rewrote most of it. Please go back and look in the history of the article and please don't misquote me. The main point is that the content of the article should be discussed collegially here, not by making threats. Mathsci (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW this was the article at its weirdest [12] - Dinkytown's userpage reminded me of the ill-fated gallery :) Mathsci (talk) 00:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make personal references about peoples' userpages - have a good time. It does not change the fact that the section is POV, unsourced, and incorrect. The simple matter of fact is that if you don't have sources - you don't have an argument. It's that simple. The Wiki rules state that if there is no sources, then it can be removed. A year has gone by and that section tag is still there - and still no sources.

It doesn't matter what the article looked like 2+ years ago. Yes, there has been a lot of work good on the article since then - great, but this section detracts from the article now with disinformation, OR and opinion. The article is relevant, and should remain, and I believe that who ever wrote that section had the best intentions, but frankly that section wouldn't survive as a college under-grad research paper, and it shouldn't survive here.

If you don't have the sources, then removed the section, and the wiki rules stated above support that action. If you have some sources, then lets see them. This is how we learn from all this. I don't mean to be brutal, but I've have seen petty arguments that go on for months until someone realized that one side didn't have any sources and the other side had over two dozen solid academic sources. A lot of wasted energy was involved in that argument, all because someone was emotionally attached to a section (I'm not saying that anyone is here). That is what I am trying to avoid - its nothing personal. I've been wrong before in debates, and I've learned its quicker and better to just admitted that you are wrong and move on. We are all fighting for a better article - not each other.

If there are sources to support that section, then put it up there and debate it. If not, then the section must be removed. That's how we learn from all this, its nothing personal. Dinkytown (talk) 01:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't write this material, so I don't know why you say "you". I am just saying that you should avoid making threats. Dbachmann already said he was going to rejig the section, so please be patient. There are no time limits on wikipedia. (BTW I liked the Sami picture, although not the old article on European people which had all the faults you describe.) Mathsci (talk) 01:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

"You" made a reference to my user page. I never threated anyone. I just stated my intention to what I will do and the reasons why. There actually is a time limit: see here. Everyone will agree that a year is way too long, if he or anyone else has the sources on hand, then 48 hours should be enough. The time should be short as the content is disputed. If more time is needed, then they should state so, otherwise it should be moved off and worked on there. If you are talking about this photo? Yea, I like it too. There is only one question that will never be answered: Does he have two wives? Dinkytown (talk) 02:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Since the material has been in the article for 2 or more years and people have real life commitments outside this internet site, there is no rush. Dropping the deadline of 2 days would seem the reasonable thing to do (I know that it'll take quite a while for me to get a source that I've ordered for an art history article). This was the picture in the gallery BTW - a woman, marital status unknown :) Mathsci (talk) 03:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Then that section should be moved off the page an worked on. If it stays on the page, then its assumed factual - which it's not, for all the reason described above. Wiki policy supports this action here. I was actually very generous with the two day deadline. After that I will move it to this talk page for someone to work on it. Dinkytown (talk) 05:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:DEADLINE. If you did that, you could in principle be blocked for disruption. 09:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Dink, I assumed good faith in my response to you but your almost hysterical response is not helping in any dialogue.

• You write, "I am not going to do research on something that I disagree with its basic premise." Well, actually, these are in fact the articles or aspects of articles that we should all spend ore time working on. It is a longstanding piece of advice on the NPOV page, or some guideline - all i iknow is that it has ben here for ages - that one way to create an NPOV encyclopedia is if we all try researching and editing on views we definitely disagree with. It is not a bad idea.
• Dinky, you make another mistake when you suggest that if the material remains people will think it is factual. No one shoud think any Wikipedia article is "factual" as such, I am not even sure that that would mean. Wikipedia's policy is NPOV, to provide significant views not truths. All one can infer from material being on a page is that it reflects a significant view.
• Dink, you continue to go on about material that has been tagged for over a year. But i explicitly said I have no objection to removing it. I think now that you are calling attention to it it is fair to give editors a few days to see if anyone can come up with any cites (honestly, if you have waited a full year you can wait three more days) but yes Dinky if in a few days no one has come up with cites, remove it. You do not have to make more of a stinkabout it, I already agreed with you. Or do you like arguing with people who agree with you?
• Dinky writes, "If you don't have the sources, then removed the section, and the wiki rules stated above support that action. If you have some sources, then lets see them. This is how we learn from all this." Uh, did not you not bother to read what i wrote? Did you fail to see my mention of many sources that could be used to rebuild this section into something quite good? I will mention them again: Huntington, Frank, Wallerstein, Braudel, Wolf, Worsley. There is clearly a concept people use, "Western Culture" or "Western Civilization." At wikipedia, we do not care whether this concpt is "true" or not we only care whether there are significant and reliable views about it. In fact there are - about whatever the boundaries of "the West" may be (and all significant views relate it in some way to Europe), although views may be divided over the boundaries. Over how European culture has spread and influenced other societies elsewhere in the world. And about how the cultures of other parts of the world have incluenced Western culture. Scholars have written about this. I have presented you with a short list of the major scholars. Whether you agree with it or not you can learn something by looking at these books and correcting, augmenting, or just providing citations for this section. But your response? You declare, emphatically, that if it is not your point of view, you do not want to learn anything about it. Well, boy am I impressed by your open mind And that sure is the best way to go about writing an NPOV encyclopedia. Let's never write about things we doubt, let's write only about our dogmatic beliefs. Yup, that will ensure neutrality.
• Some of your arguments baffle me. You point out that some things (overlapping cultures) are not unique to Europe. So what? What makes something a feature of European culture is that it helps explain how Europeans act. It does not in any way have to be unique to Europe. That is a silly and absurd position.
• Another argument that baffles me is your point that Christianity did not develop in Europe. And ....? Does the section or the article ever claim that it did? You know, tomatoes are an important part of italian culture, and potatoes are an important part of Polish culture, but these things are not indigenous to Italy or Poland. Plntains are essential to many Amazonian cultures but are not indigenous to the Amazon. You cannot understand the history of just about any Caribbean Isand - for the past fur hundred years - or the culture of its people without knowing something about sugar, and sugar is very much not indigenous to the Caribbean. Beliefs and practices circulate around the world. Buddhism may no longer be at all an important part of the culture where it was invented, yet be important to the cultures of many peoples (where it is not indigenous). So Christianity is not from Europe. Who said that it was? But is it important to undersanding European culture? Well, maybe some anthropologists and historians disagree but I bet plenty agree.

I think i can summarize Dink's position to two points, both of which are baffling. First point: to claim that something is an important element of European culture, it must be indigenous to Europe and cannot be of importance to anyone else. What a sily remark. By this criteria writing is not an important part of any culture, since it is not unique to any one culture and di not originae in any existing culture. Bow would that me a stupid thing to argue. Second point: If you claim that something is important in European culture, but it is found in other cultures, you are a White Supremist. Huh? Would my saying gunpowder or moveable type were invented in China make me a Chinese supremist? Dinky, this is not ho social scientists discuss culture, culture boundaries, cultural difussion, nor is it the way social scientists discuss geopolitics or colonialism. "Power" in fact has indeed been an important part of the story of European or Western culture, and needs to be addressed, but your irational view of White Supremicism is just a diversionary tactic that keeps us from discussing and analyzing the real workings of power and inequality here. I repeat what I waid in my inital comments: there are a number of verfiable sources with significant views that could be used for citations for many of the points here, and in some cases can help us improve the article. But Dinky protests, he will never read a book he may disagree with. Dangerous things may result. The bottom line: there was evidence of a pan-European identity at the Congress of Berlin, and there is a great deal of post-colonil literature that refers to "Western" culture identified with europe. And there is scholarship on this culture. As i said i am open to discussions of placing coverage of this in another article, but certainoy, coverage belongs somewhere. The tect hee is a good start, with about as many flaws as most Wikipedia stubs. If only Wikipedia were growing. If only Wikipedia were expanding to include new editors. if only Wikipedia had new editors who knew how to do research. Sadly, many peopl com here just to push their own poin of view and delete views they don't like. Oh well. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

If Mathsci wants to file a complaint against me, then do it. If you don't put in the sources, the that section is just a blog, POV and will be moved/deleted. If you spend the same amount of effort in putting in the sources than trying to summerize my statements, we wouldn't have this discussion. Write my full name out Slrubenstein, or else I might think your making a political statement about me. Dinkytown (talk) 12:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, you two... forget personal things, this is about the page.

Mathesci, I don't consider a ton of well known people's opinions about what Western civilization is to be verified fact, and that's that. It is opinion, not fact, and it does not belong on a factual encyclopedia. Deleting it is not out of the question, and the fact that it was on there for a long time is more reason to delete it, not less. --Yalens (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yalens, you have Wikipedia backwards. What do you think facts are, anyway? Do you think they are the truth? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Facts are things that are verifiable, i.e., occurances, statistics, etc. Not ideas about what Western civilization is. Those are all OPINIONS, as they cannot be proven right or wrong. This section is hopeless. --Yalens (talk) 01:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yalens remark is silly. Of course opinions can be verified. It is easily verifiable that Braudel holds to opionion, or view, x, and Wallerstein to opinion, or view, y. Yalens are you suggesting we can include only those things that have ben proven right? Do you mean "what is true?" Slrubenstein | Talk 01:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Because of the unjustified threats of banning from Mathsci and the put-downs and personal attacks from both Slrubenstein and Mathsci - and no editing on the section in question, I voided my 48 hour statement for sources since I believe we are losing good faith. If people would put more energy into source collecting rather than personal attacks, we would be better off. Yalens is right, its the page - not us... I would suggest that we all focus on improving this section, rather than continue on as above to potential edit war. Right now, we do not have a debate going on because there are no sources to discuss.

I did not delete the section in question, but have moved it to this talk page as per: WP:HANDLE. It is up to the author/defender to provide sources for this section. The first thing that needs to be done is to get the sources for these statements. It could now be done here at our leisure. I would welcome not just the parties above to edit this but anybody. Dinkytown (talk) 20:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

This was advice, a mild warning: it was not a threat. I believe the author was User:A.J.Chesswas. He is under no obligation to defend what he wrote back in 2007. But you are right, other people can now help locate sources. Mathsci (talk) 09:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

European identity and culture (Work in progress for section)

Personifications of Sclavinia, Germania, Gallia, and Roma, bringing offerings to Otto III; from a gospel book dated 990.

Main articles: European culture, Western world, Western culture, Christendom, and Pan-European identity

The culture of Europe might better be described as a series of overlapping cultures. Whether it is a question of West as opposed to East; Christianity as opposed to Islam; many have claimed to identify cultural fault lines across the continent.

European culture has had a very broad influence on the rest of the world, basically due to the widespread practice and legacy of colonialism. The exchange has not all been one way, some European features have been drastically changed by imports from elsewhere. Popular European foods such as chips (frites or French fries) and rice are derived from products that are not European, but indigenous to South America and Southern Asia respectively. Nearly all of the Americas and all of Africa were European colonies at one time or another - though in earlier times, European nations often colonized each other. Or were even colonized by Non-Europeans - Arabs and North African Moors colonized the Iberian peninsula leaving, for example, a significant Arabic influence on the Spanish language.

Various parts of the Americas are also considered overseas territories of France which are considered integral parts of the French Republic. A large proportion of the population of the Americas are descended from European emigrants (in some cases fleeing harsh economic times or religious intolerance). As a consequence most people in the Americas speak languages that are to varying degrees, derived from European languages. These include Latin American Spanish, American English, Caribbean English, Brazilian Portuguese, Haitian Kreyol and Papiamento. There are still significant cultural, economic and political ties between the former European colonial nations (Spain, Britain, the Netherlands, Portugal, Belgium and France) and the former colonies around the world.

The term "Western culture" is used very broadly to refer to a heritage of social norms, ethical values, traditional customs, religious beliefs, political systems, and specific artifacts and technologies. Specifically, Western culture may imply:

• a Graeco-Roman Classical and Renaissance cultural influence, concerning artistic, philosophic, literary, and legal themes and traditions, as well as a tradition of rationalism in various spheres of life, developed by Hellenistic philosophy, Scholasticism, Humanisms, the Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment, and including, in political thought, widespread rational arguments in favour of freethought, human rights, equality and democratic values averse to despotism, irrationality and theocracy.
• a Biblical-Christian cultural influence in spiritual thinking, customs and either ethic or moral traditions, around Post-Classical Era.
• Central and Eastern European cultural influences concerning artistic, musical, folkloric, ethic and oral traditions, whose themes have been further developed by Romanticism.

The concept of Western culture is generally linked to the classical definition of the Western world. In this definition, Western culture is the set of literary, scientific, political, artistic and philosophical principles which set it apart from other civilizations. Much of this set of traditions and knowledge is collected in the Western canon. The term has come to apply to countries whose history is strongly marked by Western European immigration or settlement, such as the Americas, and Australasia, and is not restricted to Western Europe. Some tendencies that define modern Western societies are the existence of political pluralism,PPfact}} prominent subcultures or countercultures (such as New Age movements), increasing cultural syncretism resulting from globalization and human migration.

Pan-European identity refers to both the sense of personal identification with Europe, and to the identity possessed by 'Europe' as a whole. 'Europe' is widely used as a synonym for the European Union even though there are millions of people living on the European continent in non-EU states. The prefix pan implies that the identity applies throughout Europe, and especially in an EU context, 'pan-European' is often contrasted with national.

That is a POV. I'm not European but I say the section stays. I think this user is being very sensitive because of his background and from that sensitivty comes these POVs. AnwarSadatFan (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not have them, but I know that these are the majore, verifiable, and significant sources on (1) changing boundaries of and fault lines within Europe, (2) ways in which European culture was influenced by other cultures and (3) ways in which European culture has influenced other cultures: Emmanuel Wallerstein's books on the "world system" first volume n 1974, (2) Ferdinand Braudel's works on European hystory, especially the Mediterranean system, (3) Eric Wolf 1982 Europe and the People without Hitory. To a lesser extent, Samuel Huntington on the Clash of Civilizations, Andre Gundar Frank Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America and Rodney, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa on Europe's influence outside of Europe. There is a fair amount of literature that identifies "modernity" with Europe - Marshall Berman All That is Solid Melts into Air and David Harvey the Condition of Postmodernity; Nestor Canclini has a book on Hybridity that is one of the few that I know of that looks at the distinct forms modernity takes outside of Europe in an attempt to balance the study of "modernity." Slrubenstein | Talk 09:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I know that in addition to discussing the concept of "Western culture," dab has suggested a section on the ethnology of Europe. I know nothing of this but asked a college teacher I know to recommend books, people interested in Europe can draw on these:

• Ruth Behar The Presense of the past in a Spanish Village
• Julian Pitt-Rivers The People of the Sierra (Spain)
• Thomas Belmonte The Broken Fountain (Italy)
• Ronald Frankenberg Village on the Border (Wales)
• Paul Willis Learning to lbor (England)
• Michael Harzfeld The Poetics of Manhood: Contest and Conflict in a Cretan Village (Crete)
• Michael Herzfeld Ours Once More: Folklore and Ideology in the making of modern Greece
• Anastasia karakasidou Fields of Wheat, Hills of Blood: The Making of Greek macedonia (Greece/Macedonia)
• John Cole and Eric Wolf The hidden Frontier (The Tyrol - Austria/Italy)
• Katherine Verdery The Vanishing Hectare: Property and Value in Post-Socialist Transylvania (Romania)
• John Borneman Belonging in the Two Berlins: Kin, State and Nation (Germany)
• Henri mendras, Alistair Cole Social Change in Modern France: Towards a Cultural Anthropology of the Fifth Republic(France)

I can try to get more names but this would be a good start. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that these are all extremely POV and unless we want to make an article that is purely hypothetical, with every statement with so-and-so says in front of it, it cannot be brought to wikipedia's standards as it is purely POV and opinionated. And frankly, much of that is quite nationalistic, further eroding its legitimacy.

Let me now identify a somewhat shortened list of generalizations present in the current page:

--Greco-Roman incluence. Admittedly, this is a great influence on large areas of Europe. However, it is often greatly overstated. True, the two main alphabets- Latin and Cyrillic- are based on Roman and Greek script. However, let's remember that both of those are, in turn, based on Phoenician script, which is NOT European, and it is important to note that. They also have influenced the state-building of many European nations, but it is important to note that this is a mainly WESTERN EUROPEAN (and to a lesser degree, Central) phenomenon except for Russia, which was influenced heavily by the Byzantine Empire (i.e., I find it highly interesting the claim that somehow, there is much Greco-Roman influence over Tatarstan!). And in many cases of the influence, it comes through other sources and is thus heavily diluted. The Greco-Roman influence on Finland comes through the influence of Sweden, which came to Sweden through the influence of Denmark, which came through the influence of English and German missionaries, which came from the influence of Irish missionaries, which came from the influence of exiled Roman Christians. As we see, the actual cultural influence on most of the continent is not nearly what people exaggerate it to be, and is mostly found in Romance-speaking countries and, of course, Greece (with possible addition of Malta to this list as well, even though they now speak a Semitic language).

--The Renaissance: Also an exclusively Western European phenomenon. I recommend removing any mention of it, as even in Western Europe, it excluded large swathes of area. It's effects were minimal in Central Europe, and in pretty much all of Eastern Europe, it was completely unimportant. We should remove all reference to it.

--This line... "Central and Eastern European cultural influences concerning artistic, musical, folkloric, ethic and oral traditions, whose themes have been further developed by Romanticism."... apparently, Central Europe and Eastern Europe are not considered Europe, as if their influence influences... Europe? So now this "Europe" is only Western Europe? Interesting. Fits with the general Western Europe-centric views of the article. ...and let me bring up the fact that we are completely ignoring huge areas of territory? Like, the Balkans get pretty much little-to-no mention in regards to culture as they get grouped under either Central or Eastern European, often incorrectly (Balkan musical culture is much more aligned to Turkish influences than their Eastern European counterparts in Russia and Ukraine, or to Poland and Germany; frankly, it constitutes, in this case, its own European region). And don't even make me go into the total non-notice of the North Caucasus or of the Turkic speaking areas of Russia or Kalmykia. These are in geographical Europe as well, let us be reminded.

--Christianity. No, no and no. European = Christian and Christian = European does not work. The Albanians, Bosniaks, Tatars, Mordvins, Udmurts, Bashkirs, European Kazakhs, Kalmyks, Dagestanis (I could go into a long list of these), Circassians, Georgians, and plenty of other are excluded here. Not to mention that nowadays, there is quite a list of European countries with nonreligious majorities. And what about non-European Christians? Frankly, the frequent reference to this equation is simply inacceptable. And let me bring up this for another time: Christianity is a Middle Eastern religion, Semitic to be exact. It represents the spread, even invasion, of non-indigenous ideals, replacing the indigenous European ones. Unless we are talking about a new, bigger Europe that includes the Middle East as well (which really wouldn't be that incorrect, considering its much more culturally similar to Europe than it is to, say, China), we should stop acting like Christianity is somehow European. It is a phenomenon that has been going on in Europe for a little under two millenia, it wasn't always there, and it may not necessarily stay. Saying Europe is defined by Christianity reflects POV (and let me note, mentioning in the article the view I express now would ALSO be POV, and we shouldn't do either, we simply should remove any statements relating Christianity to somehow being European or not being European).

-- Democracy (or any type of government for that matter). Government types come and go. Europe has only been universally democratic for a grand time of less than 20 years. Furthermore, many European countries claim to be democratic but are anything but, most notably including, but not limited to, Russia, Belorus and Georgia (if you consider Georgia European, as most Georgians do). It is by no means something that is defined by Europe or defines Europe. Once again, POV...

I could go on, but I'll leave it at that for now... --Yalens (talk) 01:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Your own views do not matter Yalen. The only question is wheher these opinions come from significant verifiable sources. If you can find other signiicant verifiable sources that provide other opinions, of course we would include those too. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not "my views". The fact is that this whole concept of generalizing a whole continent of people to fit with what you individuals think is "European" is simply opinionated, not NPOV, and a mass generalization. What people call "European" or "non-European" comes and goes, and is subject to much bias. Frankly, if you want, right a blog about it, but this is a FACTUAL encyclopedia, and individual people's generalizations of Europe based on what is mostly actually Western Europe is not fit. And frankly, I don't appreciate you saying that "my views don't matter" and trying to shut me up. I believe that is not in good faith. --Yalens (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is your own view, you have not forwarded any sources. Of course your views do not matter, that is just our NPOV policy. My views do not matter wither. What matters is significant views from verifiable sources. Now, above, I suggest almost 20 scholarly sources that could be used for rewriting this section, some on "Western culture" in general, many on specific European countries. These are all significant viess from verifiable sources and thus fully comply with our NPOV policy. And your response, Yalens? "The problem is that these are all extremely POV." That just shows that you are utterly clueless about our NPOV policy. As long as you are just going go tell people to violate NPOV, which is all you hae been doing, we should not listen to you. Slrubenstein | Talk 07:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

So, wait, its NPOV by definition if it states a source. Ahoy, let's all state the Mein Kampf as Neutral Point of View then! I love the logic here! (and seriously... I really fail to see how... ah, well, this is pointless, nobody is going to read this trash of a page anyways). Any fool can say that whether its published or not doesn't determine its neutrality. I find it funny you go by such illogical criteria. The fact is that this is SUPPOSED to be a factual encyclopedia, not one based on imaginary things by a long list of authors with their own Pan-European-nationalistic-and-heavily-opinionated-point of views that are anything BUT Neutral Point of View. If you're going to say it as "some people say", with references, that's fine, but the whole page proclaims these things as verified, universal truth, which it isn't. And further more, the page is full of things like "the culture of Europe is influenced by Central and Eastern European romanticism"... Central and Eastern Europe ARE Europe, are they not now? And it goes onto things like the Rennaissance, which was a Western European phenomenon, somehow being generalized to a whole continent. Not even your pan-European nationalist authors can verify that, yet its right there anyways! The whole section is a bunch of generalizations and non-Neutral Point of View. I don't care about things like PhDs, plenty of ridiculous fascists had PhDs. What matters it that this is CLEARLY nothing but opinion, no matter who says it.--Yalens (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You have mentioned Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler. What has this to do with the section in the article under discussion? I'm afraid you will be blocked if you continue arguing like this without providing sources: a complaint will be made at ANI unless you refactor your comments. You are using this page to WP:SOAPBOX in a highly inflammatory way. You are neither discussing possible edits nor possible sources. Mathsci (talk) 22:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yalens, we're primarily interested in who is saying what right now. On the one hand, we have Mr. Norman Davies, Ph.D, saying that European culture is to be understood as arising "from the roots of the Christian world in Greece, Rome and Judaism to modern phenomena such as the Enlightenment, modernization, romanticism, nationalism, liberalism", etc. On the other hand, we have you saying that all that is over-generalized POV flotsam. I'm sorry, but a Ph.D. is going to win out over a Wikipedia editor every time. Now, I know there are respected authorities out there who share views similar to your own. Your job is to go out and find them, and then report back your findings to your fellow Wikipedians in the spirit of collegiality. But regardless what you find, the chances are slim that it will result in the total deletion of this section. —Aryaman (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Useful Sources for "European identity and culture"

For what it's worth, I'd like to add links to two partially online works which may prove interesting while working on this section:

• Monaco, P. 'Modern European Culture and Consciousness, 1870-1970'. Albany: SUNY Press, 1983. ISBN: 0-87395-702-4 [13]
• Jordan-Bychkov, T; Bychkova-Jordan, B. 'The European Culture Area: A Systematic Geography'. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2008. ISBN: 0-7425-1628-8 [14] (Cf. the discussion which begins on pg. 9.)

Granted, the section needs work. If there is a real, verifiable controversy in the literature, then that needs to be stated as a caveat to the whole discussion, and the various views should be discussed. For an example of what I view to be a fair treatment, Jordan-Bychkov (2008:11) argues that, "in a narrow sense, ... Europe can be defined as those parts of the Eastern Hemisphere where the people are Christians, speak and Indo-European language, and exhibit Europoid physical traits." However, the author goes on to grant that, though subjective, further specification is necessary, and concludes by saying "By this necessarily personal definition, then, Europe includes that part of the Eastern Hemisphere where people are not merely Christian, Caucasian and Indo-European, but also educated, free, healthy, individualistic, wealthy, materialistic, mobile, urbanized, employed preponderantly in industry, and demographically stable. ... David Gress refers to this European culture complex as 'a synthesis of democracy, capitalism, science, human rights, ...individual autonomy, and the power of unfettered human reason.' It rests firmly on the glory of ancient Greece, layered over by the Renaissance, Enlightenment, and modern science." (2008:13).

I think that pretty much covers the gist of what this section is trying to say.Aryaman (talk) 11:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly enough the Bychkov/Jordan book was one of references used for the recent rewriting of Europe#Definition, where there were similar problems. The other references used there might also be helpful, particularly Lewis & Wigen. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 12:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone might also want to take a look at N. Davies: "No two lists of the main constituents of European civilization would ever coincide. But many items have always featured prominently: from the roots of the Christian world in Greece, Rome and Judaism to modern phenomena such as the Enlightenment, modernization, romanticism, nationalism, liberalism, imperialism, totalitarianism." (1996:15) from:

• Davies, N. 'Europe: A History'. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. ISBN: 0-19-820171-0 [15]

—Aryaman (talk) 13:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I was just notified of the ANI discussion regarding this. Sad. Can we just get on with the section? (If anyone is wondering why I don't just edit the section myself: The article is semiprotected, and I have made it a personal policy to restrict my activity to the talkpage of such articles, providing helpful comments and research where I can.) In that spirit:

I found another very interesting source which deserves being considered:

• Berting, J. 'Europe: A Heritage, a Challenge, a Promise'. Delft: Eburon Academic Publishers, 2006. ISBN: 90-5972-120-9 [16]

In particular, please read through Chapter V (European Culture - Cultures of Europe) beginning on pg. 51. The author has put a lot of thought into the issue we are having problems with here, and now that I've read it, I don't see how we can refrain from mentioning it. Thanks, and good luck. :) —Aryaman (talk) 10:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

In particular, the sections from 'L'idee d'Europe jusqu'au XX'e siècle' (Bochmann's identification of 'the common elements of European heritage' - which was presented at a meeting of the CSCE) are worth including (even if, as Berting comments, "it is, one could say, rather amusing to read that this common heritage still has to be identified" (2006:51-52):

• A common cultural and spiritual heritage derived from Greco-Roman antiquity, Christianity, the Renaissance and its Humanism, the political thinking of the Enlightenment, and the French Revolution, and all types of socialism;
• A rich and dynamic material culture that has been extended to the other continents;
• A specific conception of the individual expressed by the existence of, and respect for, a legality that guarantees human rights and the liberty of the individual;
• A plurality of states with different politcal orders, which are condemned to live together in one way or another;
• Respect for peoples, states and nations outside Europe.

I think we already have more than enough material here to rework the contentious portions of this section, get the tags removed and end this already overblown dispute. Thanks. —Aryaman (talk) 10:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Since dab seems otherwise occupied, a first step would be

• either rewrite the material from scratch with citations
• or find citations relevant to the individual groups of statements, modifying them if necessary to reflect what the different sources say.

In the case of Europe the source Lewis & Wigen stated that "Ancient Greece is often (but by no means always) considered to be the birthplace of Western culture". If statements like this are qualified in the source, they should be similarly qualified in the article. Would you be willing to produce a first draft here (or even in the article itself) of the passage? Perhaps the first step, even before writing is to add the references you intend to use directly to the article. Good luck. Mathsci (talk) 12:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Section Rewrite

(Note: This is, of course, far from perfect. But it does give us something to work from. The notes are properly formatted, and include additional information (check the source code to read them). I have the citations, and will add them if folks are happy enough with this to let me put it up on the main page. —Aryaman (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC) )

Personifications of Sclavinia, Germania, Gallia, and Roma, bringing offerings to Otto III; from a gospel book dated 990.

Main article: European culture

European culture is largely rooted in what is often referred to as its "common cultural heritage". Due to the great number of perspectives which can be taken on the subject, it is impossible to form a single, all-embracing conception of European culture. Nonetheless, there are core elements which are generally agreed upon as forming the cultural foundation of modern Europe. One representative list of these elements includes:

• A common cultural and spiritual heritage derived from Greco-Roman antiquity, Christianity, the Renaissance and its Humanism, the political thinking of the Enlightenment, and the French Revolution, and all types of socialism;
• A rich and dynamic material culture that has been extended to the other continents;
• A specific conception of the individual expressed by the existence of, and respect for, a legality that guarantees human rights and the liberty of the individual;
• A plurality of states with different politcal orders, which are condemned to live together in one way or another;
• Respect for peoples, states and nations outside Europe.

The concept of European culture is generally linked to the classical definition of the Western world. In this definition, Western culture is the set of literary, scientific, political, artistic and philosophical principles which set it apart from other civilizations. Much of this set of traditions and knowledge is collected in the Western canon. The term has come to apply to countries whose history is strongly marked by European immigration or settlement, such as the Americas, and Australasia, and is not restricted to Europe.

Pan-European identity refers to both the sense of personal identification with Europe, and to the identity possessed by 'Europe' as a whole. 'Europe' is widely used as a synonym for the European Union even though there are millions of people living on the European continent in non-EU states. The prefix pan implies that the identity applies throughout Europe, and especially in an EU context, 'pan-European' is often contrasted with national.

---

Comments

I think this is pretty good. However, by no stretch of the imagination do I see any basis for the last bullet point, respect for non-European states. This only makes sense if you mean "during the presidency of George W. Bush." Well, yeah, then I woud agree. But otherwise it is in my view wholely unsustainable.

It might make more sense to replace the bullet points of self-identity (which you HAVE to find sources for and which would lead to an ever expanding contentious list) to saying that there are certain key events that have shaped European self-identity e.g. Thermopolay, which reoriented civilization from the fertile Crescent to the Mediterranean; the schism between roman and Orthodox Christianity; Charlemagne; whatever it was that led people on the Baltic to identify with people on the Mediterranean; Columbus - Magellan - Cook; MartinLuthor; the Peace of Westphalia; The French revolution - Robespierre - Napolean; Hitler and the Nuremburg trials; the Cold War. The reason i favor this approach is two-fold. First, I think it will be easier to find major historians (look at Braudel and Hobsbawm for starts) who would back up this list or something liek it. Second, you can use each event to represent a conflicted or paradoxical identity - Colombus is the creation of a world culture, but it is also the enslavement of Africans and the genocide of Indians. I think it is more fruitful to highlight points of tension or ambivalence. If you do not do this, then the alternative is a list of good things versus bad things. Because the list you have now, too many people can too easily say it is more European self-delusional crap like the White Man's Burden. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is what I actually would do, although I really cannot, don't have time. i would start with Lewis and Wigen's book, The Myth of Continents and explain why Europe, like any other place, is a construction. Then I would go into the historical events that Europeans refer to in justifying this construction (which is what I was trying to do in my list, above). Then I would talk about Europe's shifting core and shifting boundaries, and overlaping culture areas (Germanic, Slavic, Latin) that sometimes coexist, sometimes coallign and in some ways fuse, sometimes tear one another apart. Well, these are some ideas. I thnk that Arya did a good job with the material at hand. But I am trying to think further. Also, I refered to many books above - some about "Europe" (Huntington, Wolf, others) and a longer list about more specific European cultures. I still think the best way to go is to read these books and summarize in a well-organized way what they say. They are all good sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Those bullets points are quoted from K. Bochmann's L'idée d'Europe jusqu'au XXè siècle (1990), as is explained in the accompanying note. It's interesting that you mention the last point, because Berting does the same after quoting this passage. :) As Davies mentions (also in the notes), no two lists would be identical. I chose this one because it seems to hit all the major points, and this way we stave off requests to substantiate each and every individual point (which we certainly would be forced to do if we created a list of our own). Perhaps Bochmann should be explicitly mentioned in the text as the source of the list as opposed to simply having it in the notes?

I agree that there is a lot more which could be done on this topic. But, seeing as this is the article on Ethnic groups in Europe, and not Culture of Europe, where such in-depth treatment would be entirely appropriate, I thought it best to keep it limited for the time being.

Either way, I was hoping the above rewrite could replace the current section, end the dispute over the sourcing of content, and serve as a starting point for further constructive edits. With a few voices of agreement, I would gladly make the change. Thanks, Aryaman (talk) 17:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I would not call it a representative view. I would name the view, and provide context. And if possibl I would provide a very different list from an equally significatn author to provide balance. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking along the same lines, which is why I had this in the note:

Cf. Davies (1996:15): "No two lists of the main constituents of European civilization would ever coincide. But many items have always featured prominently: from the roots of the Christian world in Greece, Rome and Judaism to modern phenomena such as the Enlightenment, modernization, romanticism, nationalism, liberalism, imperialism, totalitarianism."

We can hash out the details as we go. My main objective here was to rewrite the section and provide enough sources so that we can get rid of the tags and end the neturality and sourcing dispute. Thanks, Aryaman (talk) 00:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed out the section, removing the tags as well. Hopefully, now our efforts can go into improving the section. :) Thanks, Aryaman (talk) 10:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Aryaman - You did a very good job on that section. Balenced and well written. Thanks for 'being bold' and putting that in. I see only see two small issues about the text and I'm willing to compromise: First, I moved Berting's reference to the top of the list *only temporarly*, so that I could place the {dubious} tag there so it wouldn't conflict with each other. The reason why I put that tag there is for two reasons: 1) I believe that last line to be fairly Eurocentric (although in good faith), and can be easily challenged. There is a book called "How Europe Underdeveloped Africa" but Walter Rodney that has been highly critical of Europe's actions both during the colonial period and after. Example: African military governments supported by European governments while they exploit the mineral wealth of the country. Case in point today, oil companies exploiting Nigeria's oil wealth, supporting the government in power, while the masses are in poverty. The ethnic distinctions between ethnic Hutus and Tutsi were primarily a Belgian creation to pit one side against the other in order to rule over both. I believe that one sentence will be a source of conflict by non-Europeans in the future. If we can either expand on that thought to make it more specific; or, remove that one line all together (then put the reference back to where it was). The other lines are well established and should not be challenged. I understand that this is about Europe,and not Africa, just trying to describe a world view of this

The second issue is that last paragraph. Does anybody (not just Aryaman) know where that was referenced? We need a citation on that one.

Other than that, it looks great. Good job Aryaman... Dinkytown (talk) 04:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Rodney is a very important and highly relevant source. When I first restored the deleted secton to the article, I ought to have mentioned him. But i did mention other scholars whose works are equally important and make complementary points: we really have to include Frank's book, which does for Latin America what Rodney does for Africa, and also Wolf's book, which is synthetic and covers the hole world. We should include Said's Orientalism in relation to any claims about Europe spreading knowledge. I might addmore than a setence, but I agree with Dink that it need not be a lot - what is important is registering that these views exist (they are significant and veifiable) - and providing the proper citations for readers who wish to learn more. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Dinkytown. I have added a few more references, and expanded upon a few key points in the notes. The section on Pan-European identity now has one reference, though - after just a few minutes researching - I found that it could be expanded upon significantly. Right now, I mention the confederalist/intergovernmentalist debate on European integration in passing in the accompanying note, but this could be developed into a significant contribution to the section, provided someone wants to delve into it. Thanks, Aryaman (talk) 11:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

seeing the rather dubious merit of the original "complaint", I think you have been making good progress. Dinkytown pointed out that the section was insufficiently referenced, and it must be admitted that this was the case. It is not the case any longer, and I think the section is rather fine as it stands now. My thanks to Aryaman for his efforts. --dab (𒁳) 14:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, you guys have improved the page a lot.

However, may I emphasize that we already HAVE a Western culture page, so couldn't we just make a reference to that with link and be done with this section. As I believe was said earlier, the page is supposed to be about European ethnic groups, not necessarily their percieved shared cultural traits, many of which are shared by peoples who generally aren't considered European (especially when we discuss the Middle East's many cultural affinities with Europe). --Yalens (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I mean, since we pretty much discuss this all on Western culture, or Western civilization if you prefer... I really see no reason to have it here without trying to promote a certain viewpoint that the groups have a distinct shared culture that is specific to what some people consider "Europe", which is rather tenuous. --Yalens (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

And, as Aryaman noted on my talk page, there are books in which the boundaries of Europe are criticized, for example, see Berting, J. 'Europe: A Heritage, a Challenge, a Promise'. Delft: Eburon Academic Publishers, 2006. ISBN: 90-5972-120-9. I'd say one could just as easily reason that cultural Europe goes all the way up to the West Himalayas, and make a point that it corresponds wiht both historical patterns + culture as well... So yeah, how about just a short section. --Yalens (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Yalens makes a very good point. Above, I mentioned some sources on European ethnic groups (rather than Western culture in general). It was immediately disparaged but these really are notable scholarly works we can draw on:

• Ruth Behar The Presense of the past in a Spanish Village
• Julian Pitt-Rivers The People of the Sierra (Spain)
• Thomas Belmonte The Broken Fountain (Italy)
• Ronald Frankenberg Village on the Border (Wales)
• Paul Willis Learning to lbor (England)
• Michael Harzfeld The Poetics of Manhood: Contest and Conflict in a Cretan Village (Crete)
• Michael Herzfeld Ours Once More: Folklore and Ideology in the making of modern Greece
• Anastasia karakasidou Fields of Wheat, Hills of Blood: The Making of Greek macedonia (Greece/Macedonia)
• John Cole and Eric Wolf The hidden Frontier (The Tyrol - Austria/Italy)
• Katherine Verdery The Vanishing Hectare: Property and Value in Post-Socialist Transylvania (Romania)
• John Borneman Belonging in the Two Berlins: Kin, State and Nation (Germany)
• Henri mendras, Alistair Cole Social Change in Modern France: Towards a Cultural Anthropology of the Fifth Republic(France)

I can try to get more names but this would be a good start. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we should pay attention not to let this degenerate it into a general discussion of Western culture. The material should remain strictly focussed on cultural aspects related to European ethnicity, and link to the articles of wider scope, Western culture, European culture in the spirit of WP:SS. Weeding out is just as important as adding material. With an iterated process of adding good material and shortening redundant material, the article will become ever better and more focussed. --dab (𒁳) 18:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio

Berting's five points have been copied word-for-word from his book. Please could they be paraphrased so that it is not a copyvio? Dinkytown objected to point (e) without checking the source. He moved a completely accurate citation, replacing it by a tag. That is against core WP policies. Please check the sources in future. Mathsci (talk) 07:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree something needs to be done here. I would hesitate to paraphrase, however, because we will be faced with the criticism of having created our own list, which - for what it's worth - could be seen as a violation of WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. A quote circumvents that. The way I had it, it's unclear that the whole list is coming from Bochmann, and that's a problem. I also agree that the last two points are arguable. Berting criticises both as being dubious, and he has a point. We could mention Bochmann explicitly in the text and put the whole list in a quote tag. Would that be an option for you? —Aryaman (talk) 10:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Bochmann wrote the original in French, so one way round this might be to put the French list in a footnote and then do our own translation in text. I couldn't find a version on the web and I'm a bit too busy with academic matters to look up the book in the SciPo library in Aix. I might be able to do it at a later date. Mathsci (talk) 11:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want to follow up on that, here's what I could find on the original publication source:

• Villain-Gandossi, C. (1990). Le Concept De L'Europe Dans Le Processus De La CSCE: (The Concept of Europe in the Process of the CSCE). ISBN: 3-823-34110-3.

Bochmann's article was a contribution to that work. Good luck on digging it up. :) —Aryaman (talk) 11:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: It might be worth mentioning somewhere that Villain-Gandossi's book, and hence Bochmann's list, was produced in conjunction with the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. Aryaman (talk) 11:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) There is probably a copy here in Aix because the first named editor of the volume is Christiane Villain-Gandossi, Temps, Espaces, Langages Europe méridionale Méditerranée TELEMME, CNRS/université Aix-Marseille I, Aix-en-Provence. Her office is probably within 1 km of where I live. We might have been in the same café together. Mathsci (talk) 11:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)