Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
: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. ] (]) 16:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
: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. ] (]) 16:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
::I made a few quick checks. ]s were lumped together previously, but with a misleading wikilink. Similarly it might be better also to have ]s, ]s, ]s, and ]s. 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. ] (]) 16:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
::I made a few quick checks. ]s were lumped together previously, but with a misleading wikilink. Similarly it might be better also to have ]s, ]s, ]s, and ]s. 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 16:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Misplaced Pages.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope
Why are all the North Germanic peoples lumped under "Scandinavians"? It looks odd, especially since the Slavic ethnic groups are so clearly defined, for example. Aissle (talk) 03:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Turkic peoples
It always disappoints me to see editors battling it out at an article, but not working things out at talk. As soon as it's clear that there are multiple reverts going on, please immediately take things to the discussion page. --Elonka05:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
It disappoints me that you did not look at the diffs properly before making this kind of statement. As explained below, this was just an act of vandalism to the first two lines of the 12 lines on Turkic peoples. The editor was invited by three different editors to justify himself on this talk page, contrary to what you have suggested above. Mathsci (talk) 07:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
When I saw the edit war going on, I almost did the same thing and create a "Turkic" talk section. I read through some of the previous discussions about whether Turkic people were considered a European ethnic group, but it didn't seem like there was consensus as well as it seemed like it was just everyone's opinions. Bottom line: someone needs to find a source or two that would include this ethnic group, as it doesn't matter what anyone thinks. I don't know enough about the subject to even have an opinion; however, my opinion wouldn't matter if there were no sources to back it up. Kman543210 (talk) 05:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Both Elonka and Kman543210 seem not to have noticed something quite important. A careful examination of the diffs shows that this editor removed the header Turkic people and then Turks, but left 10 other Turkic ethnic groups. The editor's subsequent attempts to justify his edit are therefore rendered completely inconsistent. I can't see what this was other than cackhanded vandalism.
It seems that ethnic groups present in transcontinental European countries are for the purposes of this article classified as European ethnic groups. As in the case of Georgia, footnotes can give more detailed explanations where there is any ambiguity. Mathsci (talk) 06:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
This is not a social or geographic issue, but rather one of history and ancestry. Included are only groups originating and indigenous to Europe. The Turk peoples have no commonality with Europe apart from currently occupying a portion of East Thrace as part of the Republic of Turkey. Koalorka (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
can we be reasonable about this? Turkey is a transcontinental country, hence the Turks living in Turkish Thrace are Europeans. We can give all sorts of qualifications to that, no problem, just try to find some compromise solution acceptable to everyone. dab(𒁳)21:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
You are speaking in terms of geography. This is an article about ethnic origins. The Turks, though a small percentage of them has been implanted onto the European continent through Ottoman colonialism, are not a European ethnic group. Koalorka (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
the truth of the matter is that only people from that region of thrace should be included as a european ethnic group being the vast majority of turkey is not in europe they all cant be european ethnic groups--Wikiscribe (talk) 22:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The only Turks in East Thrace that could be considered European are those of Greek, Macedonian or Bulgarian decent that have been Islamicized over the centuries and adopted Turkish nationality. Koalorka (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
12-14 million seems correct as a rough estimate 8 years later. Perhaps User:Dbachmann has other sources. I have no idea where the Turkish diaspora estimate comes from. It could be removed or modified if there is some ambiguity in what meaning it might
have. Mathsci (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, this is not an issue of nationality or geography. The Turks are derived from a Central Asian ancestry and are not indigenous to Europe. I cannot make that any more clear. Those in East Thrace could be considered European, if this were an article on geography, but it is not and pertains to those groups of people that had their origins in Europe. The Turks and Turkic people do not. It's really quite simple. Koalorka (talk) 22:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
And Russians are in part descendants of Mongols, and Spaniards have some North African blood too. We could use this argument ad infinitum and probably discount many more European ethnic groups. The truth of the matter is, Istanbul, the largest population center in Eastern Thrace, has a long history first as Byzantium and then as Constantinople and very much traces its root deep into ancient European culture (the Greek and Roman Empires, specifically). To deny its Europeanness doesn't really make sense.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, you are speaking about a confused geography and culture. This article is about INDIGENOUS European groups. Turks, despite occupying some historically European lands, do not qualify at all. Your comment about the Russians and Spaniards is also very inaccurate. For a greater understanding of the subject, please see HERE. Read carefully, then allow me to correct this article. Koalorka (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
WP articles are not permitted as sources for editing other WP articles. Please cite a book or a scholarly article. Mathsci (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I did not use it as a source. It was used to brief some of the confused editors on the scope of this particular page. Now, please cite a book or scholarly source stating Turks originated in Europe, otherwise, the information will be removed. Koalorka (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, this article is about "European Ethnic Groups", my take is it talks about ethnic groups with long-standing residence in Europe. Your definition of "indigenous" seems to me to be much more restrictive, and unsupported by independent, reliable sources.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Not long-standing residence. But groups that came into existence and came to be known what they are today from Europe. The Turks just happen to have colonized East Thrace from Greece through bloody conquest 500 years ago. This does not make them European ethnically. It's very simple. Any further questions, if no, I'll proceed to remove the false information. Koalorka (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
You must provide sources for your statements from books or scholarly articles if you wish to make changes. Please provide sources for the statements you have made. Mathsci (talk) 23:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
some of the turkish ethnic groups should not be here such as the Kazakhs they are not european and the article states that they are from central asia--Wikiscribe (talk) 23:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
All Turks are basically from central Asia, originally developing from Mongoloid stock. Naysayers, you are the ones that have introduced controversial changes, the onus of providing sources stating Turks are ethnically European is on you. Koalorka (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely. That is why I removed the Turkic people from the list. There was no consensus to insert this foreign group there. I usually find sneaky Turkish nationalists are responsible for those types of edits, pushing for acceptance of EU integration. Koalorka (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that I am a sneaky Turkish nationalist, basically Mongoloid from Central Asia? Was it something you found in my editing history? BTW personally I have slightly mixed feelings about Turkish integration in the EU, mainly because of problems of Islam fundamentalism, but that is not the issue here. I voted for British incorporation in Europe in the 1970's (probably long before your birth), again not the issue here, except to show that you might have made an extremely uncivil and erroneous personal attack on me. Might this help you to get certain things a little clearer in your mind? Mathsci (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Please be aware that most of the editors opposing the inclusion of Thracian Turks as a European ethnic group were subsequently indef-blocked. Since then, the consensus (which has stood for months) has been to include Thracian Turks. While you're free to test for a changing consensus, (there are a number of avenues for this), I reiterate that your POV goes counter to current consensus. Thus, the onus is on you to gather consensus to exclude. Also, please be civil as your comment above looks very much like an attack on Turks.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Why were they blocked? Where's the consensus? This all seems strange because the consensus itself seems like a POV push by a few. Koalorka (talk) 01:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I am glad to see that there is discussion going on about this issue. For best results though, I would ask that (1) Everyone focus on discussing the article content, instead of the editors; and (2) that discussions be source-based. It's not about people's opinions, it's about what the sources say. There also seems to be a bit of a disagreement about the scope of the article, as to whether it should include ethnic groups that originated in Europe, or whether it should include ethnic groups that are in Europe. It might be worth making separate sections on this, or flagging such groups accordingly (again, based on sources). I personally have no preference how it's done, but it may be a case that just changing a section header, may address the entire dispute. --Elonka03:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Interestingly enough koalorka1 has just closed his account on Youtube within one hour of my post. Coincidence? koalorka1 made some of the most vile racist remarks (the N word) I have ever seen, still in google's cache. Also he had an interest in guns, was pro-german, was a member of a European patriot group and European Defence Force (even the creator) on Youtube, etc, etc. Mathsci (talk) 04:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The question you have asked about ethnic groups that originated in Europe is impossible to answer. The section on genetic origins makes this clear, since scientists now believe that Cro-Magnon man originated in Africa. Also the continual migrations over the history of Europe do not help things. We just have to take what is recognized as Europe - bearing in mind the ambiguities over the precise borders - and record the groups present now, whatever their history. Where there is ambiguity, we write careful footnotes based on sources, such as the CIA fact book. Where two sources disagree, we record that the matter might not be clear. This is what the current article does. One real problem (not a dispute) that this discussion has highlighted is that the article in fact lacks sources for various statistics, something that can easily be remedied. An expert editor is needed to handle the border problem. Mathsci (talk) 04:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec)There are other difficulties. A large of Turkey was part of Greece in 500 or 600 BC. The city of Marseille was a colony of Phocaea in Anatolia, part of Ancient Greece, although technically Asia Minor. I have no idea about which ethnic group occupied Anatolia at that time or to what extent they continued to have a presence in the succeeding centuries. Undoubtedly this must be discussed in the scholarly literature. I can fancifully imagine that the Marseille pastis comes from somewhere in Turkey, a chic adaptation of ouzo. Anyway the largest ethnic group in Marseille seems to be the Italians, not the French. Just an example of how complicated things can be in Europe. The first evangelists in Marseille were Lazarus and Mary Magdalen who came to our shores from the Holy Land in their rudderless sailless boat. What ethnicity were they? Small pieces of their bones survive encased in gold, sometimes more bones than a human body normally contains, but I am not sure the Church has ever allowed them to be analysed scientifically. Mathsci (talk) 05:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Even though the genetic make-up of Europe is very complex and has been fluctuating over the centuries, we cannot introduce false information and use, say, simply the current demographics out of convenience. Koalorka (talk) 04:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no false information at present. You simply haven't accepted that Turkish Thrace or its inhabitants are part of Europe. It's not a good idea to make claims without producing sources. Referring to "sneaky Turks" is equally unacceptable. Please find the books or scholarly documents as Elonka has suggested. FYI I found one book on ethnic groups that did not list Turks among ethnic groups of Europe. (I didn't look at the rest of the book in detail.) Your quest: find that book. Please also try to see that this is not a black and white issue: the article will record ambiguity where there is ambiguity in the literature. Mathsci (talk) 05:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Koalorka, be reasonable. Turks, whether one likes it or not, have been in Europe for the last 600+ years (PS: it's May 29th). How much time should we let pass before we grant a group "autochthony"? In the end, we're all immigrants (imagine how the native -paleolithic or neolithic, depending on the theory one adheres to- peoples must have felt after the various Indoeuropean migrations, for example ;). Btw, Mathsci, do one's activities outside Misplaced Pages concern us? I'm seriously asking; is there a guideline? 3rdAlcove (talk) 06:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I'm not sure there is a guideline. Each case is different. But I would imagine that if somebody confirms that they are a regular contributor to Stormfront, it might be perceived that they have a COI if they edit articles such as Race and crime. In this case, apart from his self-created anti-Turkish userbox already mentioned, this editor has confirmed on my talk page that he posts elsewhere as "koalorka". There are postings under exactly that pseudonym on anti-immigrant gun-related forums off-wiki (guns are User:Koalorka's hobby). These circumstances are quite rare on WP. He is the one who has made several anti-Turkish accusations on this talk page, as if it were completely acceptable. In this case, his actions seem to have been condoned by Elonka, because she has not given him a specific warning, even following his 24 hour block for revert warring with 3 different editors.This incident is the only major trouble we've had on this page since it was recreated under this name. Mathsci (talk) 11:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
re "You are speaking in terms of geography. This is an article about ethnic origins. The Turks, though a small percentage of them has been implanted onto the European continent through Ottoman colonialism, are not a European ethnic group" -- Jesus Christ, have it ever occurred to you that "Europe" is a geographical term? This isn't the Nordic race article for crying out loud. If you want to discount "implanted" populations, I am afraid we will be left with the Basques, and perhaps the Sami. If even that. We might also redirect this article to Neanderthal, since the current populations all derive from Cro Magnon imperialist expansion. So the Turks were "implanted" only recently? As in, 600 years ago? Then where to draw the line? The Hungarians clearly aren't "European" in this case. And of course, about 99% of US Americans aren't "American" at all, but recently transplanted foreigners. Seriously, I don't know why we are even discussing this. dab(𒁳)07:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree with 3rdAlcove and Dab. If you wanna define European peoples, you do it by listing the peoples who reside in Europe in the current era, not by bringing forward the ethno-geography of the early medieval era or the mesolithic age. That's a fairly obvious point of neutrality. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
There certainly is a distinction between (1) ethnic groups in Europe and (2) ethnic groups that underwent ethnogenesis in Europe - which is criterion the man on the street uses to distinguish between "European" and "Non-European". The problem is the article title does not distinguish between the two, and both can be construed as "European ethnic groups". Simply put: this dispute is the result of a "loaded" title. —Aryaman(talk)10:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Right...which is why he gets broadsided in a forum like the present when he tries to defend his belief in a difference between "people from Europe" and "people in Europe". No, he hasn't studied ethnology/ethnography, and usually cannot articulate his position. Which makes it all the easier to dismiss him as an uneducated closet racist crackpot-in-the-making. Alas, that doesn't change the fact that the distinction I mentioned above does exist, and is at the root of the problem with this entry. —Aryaman(talk)12:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
We must agree to differ there. This talk page is not a forum as you suggest. I have no idea what ethnogenesis means in the context of migrations such as the Norman invasion or whether it is in fact used by historians in that context. There is the notion of integration and assimilation of immigrants (like me in France); personally the only part of myself I have reinvented but alas not perfected is my accent. I self-identify as British, only as English during the Rugby World Cup, if things are going favourably for us - Perfidious Albion. However, it is far from innocent to write, "There was no consensus to insert this foreign group there. I usually find sneaky Turkish nationalists are responsible for those types of edits, pushing for acceptance of EU integration." The use of words like "foreign" and "sneaky Turkish nationalists" is a clear articulation of a certain extreme point of view. Mathsci (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree to differ on what? I'm trying to shine a little light onto the reasons for this dispute and suggest an improvement, and you actually feel it necessary to remind me that Misplaced Pages is not a forum? And what the hell do the Normans have to do with it? The point of my comment is this: "European ethnic groups" is a "loaded", i.e. a "poorly defined" and "inherently contentious" title. Ethnic groups in modern Europe would be more like it, considering the present scope. Keep the title as is, and you can count on periodic and entirely avoidable flare-ups just like the present. Change it, and you circumvent all such flummery from the start. And "indigenous" is a piss-poor excuse for an improvement in this area - regardless of whether it can be sourced or not - for the reasons mentioned above and then some. Right now, the article is a grab-bag of all sorts of things clustered around the key-words "ethnicity" and "Europe" - for which we undoubtedly have the mergists among us to thank. There is no risk of a PoV-fork, as we are dealing with entirely different topics here. IMO, this article needs to be hacked into tiny little pieces and cast into the raging sea of diasambiguation. —Aryaman(talk)13:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with your second interpretation and agree with what many other editors have said, and I have already said: that the article takes the geographical continent of Europe and lists the current ethnic groups. Prior to the Normans, there were Angles, Saxons and Vikings in Britain. Historically these different ethnic groups were then intermingled after the Norman conquest. Likewise the population of Sicily is marked by similar but probably more complicated changes. It is precisely because of this historical complexity, already outlined for Marseille, that I assume the modern day geographical definition has been adopted. Although I'm not very keen on your suggestion for a change in title, I think you have a valid point that the limited scope of the article - as you quite rightly say ethnic groups in modern Europe - could be spelt out a little more explicitly in the lede, perhaps by the insertion of an adjective like "modern-day" or an adverb like "currently". It seems obvious that a discussion of say Picts, Vikings, Ostrogoths or Saxons - all historically valid European ethnic groups - is completely beyond the scope of the current article. Mathsci (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Re: "The article takes the geographical continent of Europe and lists the current ethnic groups." Yes, the article does do that...and a whole lot more: it tries to discuss the "physical appearance and genetic origins" of Europeans, various "European diasporas" that have occurred in recent history, both out of and into Europe, it broaches the topic of "European identity and culture", and to top things off, the "European Religion". And even if it limited itself to the scope as you just defined it, the title would still be inappropriate. I'm not quite sure how one can agree that the actual scope is indeed "ethnic groups in modern Europe" on the one hand, yet continue to think that this is best listed under "European ethnic groups" on the other. 'Tweaking' the lead is not going to fix the problem: it is inherent in the title itself. Terms like "European culture", "European ethnicity", "European religion", etc., may help sell party programmes and travel brochures, but they are hardly terms with which meaningful academic discussion can take place. Regardless, the spirit of the age is on your side, I suppose: rather than eliminate this kind of inherently POV jargon from our vocabulary once stripped from the domain of the radical right, the left has simply gobbled it up as its own intellectual property, complete with the right to define its components at will. But, I digress. If you demand to keep the title, then at least compose the remainder of the article with the bravado it deserves. Onward! (FYI: Prior to 1066, the Angles, Saxons and Danish Vikings were kissing cousins speaking mutually intelligible Germanic dialects, and the Normans were themselves descended from migrating Danes - not exactly the 'melting pot' scenario it's often cracked up to be.) —Aryaman(talk)15:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Mathsci, you know well what the scope of this article is, do not evade that. You are aware of the existence of a European demographics page which is basically a list of ethnicities inhabiting the geographic entity that is Europe, what you proposed here. Why create a duplicate of that page? This page is CLEARLY dedicated to identifiable ethnic groups originating in Europe. Koalorka (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe that Varoon Arya's suggestion has some merit: a minor tweak to the title, such as Contemporary European Ethnic Groups should take care of the situation. It's obvious here we're not talking about Celts, Picts or Angles, so I don't see a problem with making that explicit.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Would that then include foreign non-European populations currently residing in Europe? Indonesians, Somalis, South Asians etc? Koalorka (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
It depends on the scholarly literature and other reliable sources. We need to stop pretending that we Misplaced Pages editors have the power to decide who is and is not European. It is our job to report on what other people say and if there are debates try to explicate them. Are Jews a Europopean ethnic group? Not for us to decide. Some say yes, and some say no, and scholars (historians, anthropologists, sociologists) are generally not concerned with deciding who is right but are rather interested in what is going on that makes it possible for some people to say yes and others to say no. The sooner we start rewriting this article to explain all this to people, and stop arguing among ourselves who is a European, the sooner we will ... well, be writing an encyclopedia article instead of an ersatz blog. Slrubenstein | Talk16:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
COMMENT. The editor User:Koalorka, since his arrival last year on WP, has consistently dedicated his edits unrelated to weaponry to removing Turkey from articles on Europe (once on Europe itself) or removing references to Turkey as a partially European country. He has made approximately 180 edits of this kind in Turkey-related articles/templates/categories. He has also been cautioned on WP:AN/I for taunting Turkish editors and has been blocked for antisemitic comments while editing the talk page of Stormfront. We have just witnessed one further example of his systematic campaign of vandalism and disruption.
As Slrubenstein has said here and below, this disruption has nevertheless raised some general points that have helped improve the article. Mathsci (talk) 08:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Wow, you actually had time to count all 180 edits? I personally don't see what the problem is with just adding the ethnic groups of Turkey that may be considered part of Europe and putting an asterisk that some don't view them as part of Europe (if both views have sources). Kman543210 (talk) 08:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Similar ambiguities and differing interpretations are already carefully explained in footnotes. But the best idea is to look at the book cited in the bibliography on Turkish ethnic groups to see what they say and/or elsewhere in the academic literature, as Slrubenstein has already suggested.
BTW I not only counted the edits, I read them all and created a subpage on them, with annotated diffs (not 100% accurate) :) User:Mathsci/subpage. Since an editor on this page accused me elsewhere on WP of being "close to edit warring", I just wanted to find out exactly what was going on, just in case the situation recurs here or elsewhere. This was in fact the second time the editor removed the material on Turkic groups without discussion. As you might imagine, I must have been quite upset by the editor's accusation to have gone to the length of preparing the subpage. Mathsci (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I've read all of the above, but I find absolutely no good arguments as to why ethnic groups that are almost exclusivly located in geographic Asia, do not have their origin in Europe and that are clearly both culturally and genetically separate from European ethnic groups, should be included as a "European ethnic group". I simply cannot understand the agenda of some people on Misplaced Pages to at all cost try to force Turkey and Kazakhstan etc into Europe. Why are you doing this? What is you agenda? Why are you not in a similar maner trying to arbitrarily force certain ethnic groups/countries into Asian definitions? Please try to see how unreasonable it is to define Turks as ethnic Europeans. With your own logic, the French would need to be included as an ethnic South-American people and as an ethnic Asian people - at the same time - among others. The Spanish would have to be included among ethnic African peoples and so forth. Almost all Turkish people do not live in geographical Europe, so they should not be included there: they are an Asian people and all should be happy with that. If there is some marginal Turkish people, that actually mainly live in Europe, say in southern Russia or the Caucasus, they should be included. But other Turkish ethnicities (eg Turks, Kazakhs) should be left out. Khoios (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
There is no agenda for the main space article, apart from representing as closely as possible what can be found in recognized sources, with any ambiguities carefully explained (with citations) in the text or in footnotes. Mathsci (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Tone of the discussions
Someone asked what the policy was on this, and I'd like to be clear, that talkpages are supposed to be used to discuss article content and not editors. See also no personal attacks. Some of the above comments have very little to do with the content of the European ethnic groups article, they are just ruminations about the character and off-wiki activities of one of the editors. But on Misplaced Pages, it is not that important what someone says off-wiki, it matters how they behave on-wiki. As long as someone is able to express their opinions in a civil way, they are welcome here. If there are concerns that someone is using multiple Misplaced Pages accounts in an inappropriate way, file a sockpuppet report.
I do realize that the concept of ethnic groups is a very hot topic which gets emotions involved, but could I please ask everyone to stick to discussing the article. Also, instead of everyone debating their own opinion on what does and doesn't constitute a European ethnic group, it would be far more helpful to supply sources. See also Misplaced Pages:No original research. Surely in the ranks of academia, this concept has already been debated and written about. Or in other words, unless we already have a source that a group is a European ethnic group, it shouldn't even be included in this article. Per Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, any unsourced information can be removed from any article, and then it is the responsibility of those who wish to add it back, to provide a source. If we have conflicting sources, then we can debate consensus on the talkpage as to how much weight to give to different sources, per WP:UNDUE. But right now we have several people arguing strictly from personal knowledge and opinion, without any sources, and further, attacking other people for arguing from their personal unsourced opinions. C'mon folks, we can do better. If there is something in the article which anyone feels is false, add a {{fact}} tag to it. If no one provides a source in a reasonable amount of time, remove the statement. If anyone tries to add it back without a solid source, they will be warned, and in extreme cases, blocked. --Elonka15:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
In an ideal world, editing might be done like this. However, in this case your remarks fail to recognize that
this page has been almost entirely the work of just one editor and that sources have been gradually added afterwards
the disruptive newly arrived editor, reported and cautioned for similar behaviour on WP:AN/I one month ago, has spent the last 8 months making similar unjustified and unsourced removals and deletions to Turkey-related articles/templates/categories all over the WP.
Before embarking on "ex cathedra" pronouncements to other editors, please could you try in future to spend some time making sure you know what is actually going on. Otherwise you risk needlessly causing offence to established good-faith editors. Mathsci (talk) 08:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, as I see it, there is more than one editor being disruptive here. I would remind everyone that this article falls within the scope of certain Arbitration Committee decisions. For those who aren't sure what ArbCom restrictions are, I'll explain, without going into too much detail. Basically, ArbCom, on the behalf of the Misplaced Pages community, has identified that there are certain "hot spots" of ethnic conflict on Misplaced Pages. As such, ArbCom has ruled that some topic areas can be put under tighter restrictions than other parts of Misplaced Pages. These restrictions can do such things as tighten up civility controls, put editors on 1RR (one revert) restrictions, allow administrators to place topic bans on certain editors, and so forth. This particular article, European ethnic groups, falls within the scope of multiple such hot spot areas, so we can look at which restrictions apply to which areas, and this depends on which topic area/case we're talking about. One applicable case is called Digwuren, which deals with the topic area of Eastern Europe. Though since the most recent dispute on this article has to do with Turkey, I'll quote the restrictions from what is called the "AA-2" case, or Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, which deals with conflicts around "Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iran, and related ethnic/historical issues." The restrictions, as of January 2008, state:
Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Misplaced Pages as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Misplaced Pages's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.
So, as an uninvolved administrator, I am hereby notifying everyone about these restrictions. At the moment, things appear to be fairly calm, so everyone has more or less amnesty, but if there are further problems, I will not hesitate to send official "restriction" notifications to individual editors, and then if problems continue, there may be further restrictions ranging from topic bans to blocks. Specific things that I would like to focus on:
Civility. I want everyone here to treat each other with respect (most of you have been doing quite well in this regard, but this is just a general reminder). Also, this means I want people to stop throwing the word vandalism around, unless referring to blatant vandalism as defined in WP:VANDAL. Ideally, just stop using the term altogether on the talkpage. As a rule of thumb, if there's disagreement about what is or isn't vandalism, it probably isn't vandalism.
Please keep talkpage discussions focused on article content, and not the contributors involved.
Sources. Please ensure that any further additions to the article, are linked to reliable sources
Limit reverts. Except in cases of obvious vandalism, no one should be reverting this article more than once a day
Sticking to the above items (which most editors on this page already do) will help to reduce disruption, and ultimately should make everyone's editing much more pleasant. If anyone has any questions, feel free to ask here, or on my talkpage.
Having added three four sources, fourfive ten bibliographical references, and asked dab about sources (he is now supplying sources and has told us where to find extra ones), I was trying to find out whether the Gajal or Gadhjal people should be added as an ethnic group. I have found it hard to find a non-wikipedia reference in the English language (the refs elsewhere seem to be in Bulgarian but it seems the numbers are 20,000 or more). Can anyone be of any help there, for example if they happen to read Bulgarian? This ethnic group is not mentioned in Levinson's handbook and I cannot judge how that handbook is regarded by scholars (I'll look for a book review in the academic literature). Incidentally I applaud dab's recent scholarly additions to the mainspace page - the most content that has been added since he created the page under its current name. He is an excellent example to us all. In the two histories, I can find no evidence of disruption on the mainspace article or this talk page prior to Elonka's very recent arrival and actions behind the scenes. Mathsci (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Ethnogenesis and indigeneity
The discussion on Turkic people was valuable for raising complex issues, but also counterproductive because we need to address those issues without getting bogged down on specifics about Tuks, Turkics, and Turkey.
As I read through the morass of argument, it seems to me that the really problematic word is "indigenous." Whenever the debate gets especially heated, it seems like people start adding the word "indigenous" before 'ethnic group" as if this solves the problems. in fact, i think "indigenous" itself is a loaded and not very helpful word, at least not in and of itself.
Above, Varoon Arya made an important point:
There certainly is a distinction between (1) ethnic groups in Europe and (2) ethnic groups that underwent ethnogenesis in Europe - which is criterion the man on the street uses to distinguish between "European" and "Non-European". The problem is the article title does not distinguish between the two, and both can be construed as "European ethnic groups". Simply put: this dispute is the result of a "loaded" title.
I am not sure I agree, but I DO see this as a constructive comment that ought to be taken seriously and built on.
By the way here as in all things we should stick close to NOR and V and try to represent notable views in verifiable sources. Our account of ethnic groups, and of debates over ethnicity, should be based in serious academic debates. I think we might as well admit out the outset (if now can be called an outset) that this means we will be using concepts not familiar to "the man on the street" but hell this is an encyclopedia and it is often our job to provide accessible accounts of complex concepts. We aren't going to cut whole swaths of the articles on quantum mechanics or the theory of relativity because they are counterintuitive or hard to grasp by "the man on the street" and we should hold this article to the same standard. Slrubenstein | Talk16:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Good. I think the first thing that should be done (if, that is, we have in fact decided that the title of this article should be either "Ethnic groups in modern Europe" or "Contemporary ethnic groups in Europe"; I prefer the former, as it helps to cut short such unproductive and OR-prone discussion such as "...but the Illyrians ARE a contemporary ethnic group!") is for everyone involved to take a look at something like David Levinson's Ethnic groups worldwide (1998). The introduction to the section on Europe is viewable on-line, and gives a good, reputable overview of exactly this subject. Other editors may suggest other, equally reputable and equally accessible standard reference works for the purpose of group orientation. After that, the contributing editors need to agree upon acceptable terminology (Levinson's appears to be based on a good deal of research and is quite useful, to boot). This can then be used to draft an acceptable outline for the article, into which the bare facts can then be inserted. (Naturally, the superfluous stuff needs to be split off - and there will, if done correctly, be a good deal of it.) Then, barring any huge oversights, we can begin with copy-editing. How does that sound? —Aryaman(talk)18:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
i think thats a great idea, renameing the article as you have suggested would cure alot of the problems people have had with including non native european ethnic groups than maybe there could be a splinter article stateing more indigenous european ethnic groups only--Wikiscribe (talk) 19:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikiscribe, either you have a penchant for sarcasm, or you misread my intention with the proposed title change. Either way, the idea is to limit this article to ethnic groups in modern Europe, regardless of whether they are considered "native", "non-native", "indigenous", "non-indigenous" or whatever. After this article has been cleaned up and put back on the right track, we could explore the possibility of creating an article on ethnic groups which underwent ethnogenesis in Europe. Ethnogenesis is a relatively new addition to the scholastic vocabulary, but seems to be gaining ground steadily. With that said, let's focus on the topic at hand, yes? And while you're at it, why not read the suggested literature above? :) —Aryaman(talk)19:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
These issues can and should be discussed here side by side. Two issues need to be looked into:
which groups do we have on the territory of Europe. This is a straightforward headcount. This includes Kalmyks, Chuvash, Tatars and what have you. Kalmyks are clearly an "ethnic group in Europe", since Kalmykia is west of the Caspian Sea and thus clearly part of (the eastern fringe of) Europe.
which peoples are considered "native" to Europe. This is much more loaded, and built on notions of race. It is true that the Kalmyks, as a Mongolian people, are "racially" clearly Asian, not European (much more so than the Turks!). Yet the place they call home is in Eastern Europe. We can discuss the distinction of "native" Europeans and "non-native" groups that "underwent ethnogenesis elsewhere", but anything connected to this must be clearly sourced to WP:RS. These are subjective gut notions we may all share here, but which nevertheless are far from objective and as such need clear attribution.
The second point should perhaps be addressed in the "indigenous" section, which at present only talks about marginalized groups (Sami, Basques). If somebody can present a source, this would be the place to present the notion that Basque, Celtic, Latin, Greek, Germanic, Slavic, Baltic, Albanian and Finnic groups are considered "native", while Turkic groups (and the Kalmyks? and the Maltese?? and the Romani?? and the Hungarians???) aren't. The latter group is clearly divided from the former by virtue of arriving in Europe in the Middle Ages (after 500 AD), while the former groups have direct predecessor populations in Europe dating to at least 500 BC. So the millennium between 500 BC and 500 AD would seem to determine who is "really" European? That's a possible claim, I suppose, but a claim that needs to be established off-wiki first. dab(𒁳)21:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm with you one the first point. Regarding the second, I'm leaning towards a split under something like European ethnogenesis (/-es) (Google Books; Google Scholar). I don't think it would be a case of WP:CFORK to create a separate article under some such title, as the two topics, though closely related, would be distinct in that the former would deal with the present situation in Europe, including coverage of the Diaspora into Europe, while the latter would deal with the historical situation and the Diaspora out of Europe. ("European Diaspora", if not already a redirect to the Jewish Diaspora, should perhaps be created to disambiguate here.) But you are certainly right that, while the head-count issue is pretty straightforward, the question of "ethnogenesis" will be a different animal altogether. Yet, it also seems to promise the most potential to become an informative and interesting article.
As for the terminology: "native" and "indigenous" are going to be very slippery to deal with. For some, it is actually part of the definition that an "indigenous" population be politically/economically/linguistically "marginalized". As for groups such as the Germanic, I think it shouldn't be difficult to show that there are two things going here on regarding their "ethnogenesis": (1) that by which they conceived of themselves as an ethnic group, i.e. their primary ethnogenesis (which never really happened to the Ancient Germanic peoples as a whole, but instead on case-by-case basis, e.g. Anglo-Saxons ethnogenesis), and (2) that by which a national ethnic group later reflected upon (and sometimes reformulated) their own ethnogenesis (the birth-place of a good deal of the nationalism of the 19th and 20th centuries). I'm just tossing out some ideas to be explored here, but I do think that we should seriously consider splitting the two early on so that work can progress with a clearly defined scope in one or both cases. —Aryaman(talk)22:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Terms like native and indigenous are slippery indeed. I think we have to do two things. First, when relying on state or quasi-statal sources (the German census; UNESCO; the CIA handbook) we have to use their categories and provide notes explaining how they define their terms. I also believe that there is some scholarly debate out there about how people come to be considered "indigenous" or "native" and we should cover these debates insofar as they apply to specific ethnic groups in or of Europe (we should discuss the debates in a more general sense in the articles on ethnicity, race, and nation, I think). Slrubenstein | Talk10:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The last suggestion - assuming that it would be combined with an effort to improve articles like Definitions and identity of indigenous peoples) is probably the best way to deal with the bulk of the "native/indigenous" issue. Terms like "native European" and "indigenous European" are indeed found in the literature...typically referring to members of the plant and animal kingdoms, and thus really don't belong in a treatment of European ethnogensis at all, other than perhaps to give something like a 'layman's synonym' in the lead. —Aryaman(talk)11:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
well, nobody suggests there is an "European ethnicity". If there ever will be one, it will emerge in the future (Pan-European nationalism). The idea of "Europeanness" is one of a "super-ethnicity", of common traits spanning a large number of ethnic groups, each indigenous to parts of Europe, none of them simply "indigenous to Europe". I don't know if we can come up with an "European ethnogenesis" article, but I suggest we expand the "Indigeneity" section in this article for now, and see what people can come up with. dab(𒁳)12:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
No, there is no single "European ethnicity" as yet. But the term "European ethnicity" does play a role in the literature relating to the Diaspora out of Europe, particularly the US, but also in regards to the Diaspora into Europe. Richard Alba, Richard Dyer and others have made a case for the emergence of this so-called "European ethnicity" in the late 50's and 60's as a response to the Civil Rights movement. In Europe, the notion is mainly due to the projection of Muslim immigrants (i.e., self-identifying as sharing a "non-European ethnicity", and thus bolstering the emergence of "European ethnicity" - soundbites of Geert Wilders blaring in the background). Be that as it may, talk of "indigenous Europeans" is going to do little more than make the deficiency of the various definitions for "indigenous" apparent. We will be very close to something like what you scoffed at above, i.e. limiting "indigenous European" to the few remnants of Old European culture, as they are the only ones that really fit the definition. While it may seem like common sense to view Indo-European cultures in Europe as "indigenous", I am seriously wondering if anyone can provide a source in support of it. Gimbutas has done a good job of portraying the IE peoples as "invaders", and I haven't run across anyone contradicting her in the name of good sense. —Aryaman(talk)13:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
dab: thanks for making the changes, which are a great improvement to the article. Is it possible to add some sources? Mathsci (talk) 08:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
it is, and you can help: all of the articles linked should contain reasonable sources we can import as required. dab(𒁳)09:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Ethno-linguistic groups
This term needs to be used vey cautiously in the article. While language is often an important diacritic of ethnicity, there is no reason to suppose that people who speak the same language are related to one another. This means that even if we establish that people living in one part of Europe five or six thousand years ago spoke a Germanic language, does not mean that people in the same part of Europe speaking a Germanic (I do not mean to pick on Germanic, you can put in any other language group here) language are their descendents. It is certainly possible that they may be their descendents. In many parts of the world people usually marry people who speak the same language, and because of this people who speak the same language may be closely related genetically. But this is not necessarily the case and in some parts of the world, and at some times, it has demonstrably not been the case. It is just as likely that people who migrate into an area learn a new language. This is why so many people in the United States who speak English, a West Germanic language, itself Germanic which was a proto-Indo-European language, and may thus be said to be members of the Germanic or Indo-Eruopean ethno-linguistic group, are not descended from Germanic or even Indo-European people (or, if they have among their ancestors people sho lived in central Europe five thousand years ago, they ar eonly a small portion of their ancestry). There was a time - I do not have the reference in hand so I do not know if this was a german, Russian, or US census - when Jews were identified as Germanic because they spoke Yiddish. Yet no one at that time believed that these speakers of a Germanic language had, among their ancestors five thousand years prior, many who lived in Europe.
I am not denying that someone who speaks English or German today may have some many or all their ancestors five thousand years ago people who lived in present-day England or Germany.
The only point I am arguing is that we need to be careful in how we use terms like Indo-European or Germanic or any term that could be used either for a language, ethnicity, or both. And when we make claims that link a continuity of language to a continuity of ancestry, we need to have citations for reliable sources. The article opens by saying this is something anthropologists study and that is true, and there will be articles in major journals, notably Current Anthropology and American Anthropologist but also linguistic and physical anthropology journals, on precisely these topics. Many of these may not be available on-line, but we should look to them for information for building this article. As always, let's not start with something we happen to believe and hunt for a citation that supports it. let's look for the most current "scholarship on the topic, and report what they say. Slrubenstein | Talk10:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
you talk about cultural continuity vs. genetic continuity. By "ancestry" you mean purely genetic ancestry, and you somehow seem to think cultural continuity is less "real". This article looks at both aspects because both aspects constitute ethnicity, and you are right, of course, that it needs to be clear which aspects it is discussing at any given point. I am not sure whether you are saying we should list the European Jews as a separate ethnicity. We could do that, I suppose, or rather we could list Ashkenazi Jews (1.5 million) and Sephardi Jews (0.5 million). I am aware, of course, that the Jews are a special case wrt "ethnicity", so we can treat them as a special case, but I don't think that means we need to re-organize the presentation of the 70 or so other groups listed. dab(𒁳)15:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I am impressed that yo have mind-reading abilities ... I honestly do not know where I wrote anything that even implied that I think cultural continuity is less real than biological continuity. Could you please point out th place where my fingers were operating independently of my brain? Slrubenstein | Talk16:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, the reason you are not sure whther I am saying we should list european Jews as a separate ethnicity is because I have not expressed any view whatsoever. I guess your mind-reading abilities switched off. But I will tell you what I actually do think: I think we should follow notable views in reliable sources, and if there is more than ne notable view from reliable sources, we should provide an account of both/all notable views. As always, I do not think this is for any Misplaced Pages editor to decide, that would violate NOR. When you write "we could do that, I suppose" are you proposing to violate NOR, or do you have a verifiable source that does this? if you do, by all means, let us include it in the article. Slrubenstein | Talk16:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
As for the seventy or so groups that are listed, perhaps we ought to be more careful about providing the verifiable sources, and being sure whether how they define ethno-linguistic group, whether they mean people who speak a certain language, or people who self identify as members of an ethnic group, or people for whom there is genetic evidence of descent from people from the Bronze age or some other time. Unless these things are clarified, the distinction between people of European and non-European origin in the first section (with the list of 70 or so groups) is unclear, confusion, and/or misleading as well as the statement in the following section that these "indo-european groups" developed "in situ." Slrubenstein | Talk16:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
well, I was giving you the benefit of assuming that you actually were making a suggestion in relation to this article, within WP:TALK. Your statement "there is no reason to suppose that people who speak the same language are related to one another" seems to imply that your notion of "relationship" is purely genetic, and that cultural or linguistic ties do not count as "related". I'll refrain from second-guessing what you may want, then, and wait for a concrete proposal on your part. dab(𒁳)09:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I did mean related genetically, but this does not mean that I deprecate cultural or ethnic identifications. But right now the first two parts of the article are unclear. My proposal is a request that in any case where we make any historical claims about an ethno-linguistic group - e.g. that it is "indigenous" or formed in the Bronze Age and today has x million members, we have sources for each of these claims that defines what is meant by "ethnolinguistic group" or that makes it clear that the source provides no definition. Slrubenstein | Talk10:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
you will find no claim in the article that any given culture "is 'indigenous' or formed in the Bronze Age and today has x million members". The inventory of current groups, the discussion of "indegeneity", and the inventory of historical populations is clearly separated. You do find head-counts of super-groups, like "Indo-European" Indo-Europeans (total 665 million). It is clear that there is no "Indo-European ethnicity" in Europe today, but a number of ethnicities that share Indo-European origins in the Bronze Age, but are clearly separate today. I think you should state what precisely you want a source for, since none of the sorts of claims you seem to object to are present. I do know this sort of thing is a problem on Misplaced Pages, and I have a long history of removing national mysticism, but there is none present here that I can see.
in so many words, feel free to clarify points if you think you can rephrase them better, and feel free to use {{fact}} where you feel a claim is dubious, but let's not play games here. If you object to the statement "The Basques are assumed to descend from the populations of the Atlantic Bronze Age directly", try to propose a better phrasing, don't play the skeptic. Go to Origin of the Basques and see what material you find there that may be useful for the purposes of this article. We could have done this easily in the time we've already invested in general musings on "cultural or ethnic identifications". dab(𒁳)12:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The population figures given in the first part, as far as I can tell, are derived from the population of a country and speakers of the language. This is not the same thing as an ethnic group. Jews living in Poland will speak Polish and be counted in the Polish census as Polish and show up on this table as members of the "Polish ethno-linguistic group" which is a mistake. The first part also distinguishes between the larges Ethno-linguistic groups (e.g. Latin and German) and then distinguishes other Europeans who are part of diasporic groups. The wording implies that members of the large European ethno-linguistic groups are not members of diasporic communities, when of course many are. If the wording is meant to suggest that these are overlapping rather than mutually exclusive groups, then perhaps this can be clarified. I have not made any edits myself because I was unsure what the intention was. Slrubenstein | Talk12:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
the population figures are derived from the obsessively and meticulously researched infoboxes in our ethnic group articles. Thus, the English people infobox, at Template:English populations presents an estimate for 45.26 million English in the UK. That's an estimate, but it's the best we can do. The Hungarians infobox presents a detailed estimate for some 13 million Hungarians living in Europe. I am not sure what you want. It is perfectly clear that we can only ever present estimates here. Hence the repetitive "approx." in the headcounts. As for Poles, we have estimates of 38,860,000 in Poland, 1,055,700 in Germany, 900,000 in France, 400,000 in Belarus, 250,000 Lithuania, amounting to some 42 million. Does this number include the Polish Jews? It does according to the Poles article. Personally, I find the implication that Polish Jews aren't Poles somewhat disturbing, but I guess it's a matter of WP:CITE. If you are unhappy with having the Polish Jews counted as Poles, I suggest you go to Talk:Poles and complain about it. According to this, "Estimated number of Polish Jews is between 10 and 30 thousand. Not all of them are religiously Jewish, many of them are Christians, predomenantly Catholics." Slrubenstein, are we really discussing the question whether a group of 0.03 million is or is not included in the "approx. 42 million" estimate? Don't you find the question rather moot? You will also note that the long history of European Judaism finds due mention under "Religion", where, being a religion, I suggest it belongs. dab(𒁳)06:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Some people claim that there is no Jewish ethnic group, but most scholars do not. And it doesn't matter why you would find the claim that Jewish citizens of Poland may be ethnic Jews and Polish citizens disturbing. Slrubenstein | Talk12:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
indeed. As you say, it's a complicated question, and ostensibly not the focus of this article. I think it would be a good idea to contribute to the Who is a Jew? article if that's your field of interest. I apologize for the somewhat testy tone of my replies. It was due to my difficulty to make out any constructive or on-topic suggestions for the purposes of this article in your comments. As far as I can make out, your comments, in spite of being phrased very generally, concern the Jews in particular. As far as I can see, this would affect listing of Ashkenazi Jews (about 1.4 million), Mizrahi Jews and Sephardi Jews (about 0.3 million each), and perhaps Bené Roma (some 50,000) and Romaniotes (some 6,000), or roughly 2 million people in total. I have no objection to briefly mentioning the complicated case of a Jewish ethnicity, sub-ethnicity or non-ethnicity phrased according to your preference. But please be aware that this is an overview article of a population of 0.75 billion people, and we clearly cannot carve out the details on each and every sub-group here, that's simply beyond the article's scope. Thanks, --dab(𒁳)08:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
DAB, my remarks are not focused on Jews; they merely provide one convenient example. May I suggest that your response has something to do with your taking my initial comment personally? At least, that seems to be the case in your as you describe it testy response. Let me assure you that the comment was not directed at you personally nor intended to be read as relating to you personally. It was a general comment picking up on some issues raised by another editor in a preceeding section, and meant to be of general value to any discussion about moving the article forward. Now, I know you have put a lot of work into the article. nevertheless, my comment was not directly about you or your work. If your thinking it was in any way accounted for any of the testiness of your reaction, let me just assure you: do not take it personally. Slrubenstein | Talk11:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
no, I do not see anything personal here. I just found your comment less than constructive. If you're going to pick an example, perhaps we can make it not the Jews, who are, as is very well known, a sort of special case as far as ethnicity is concerned (we have a who is a Jew? article, besides the main Jew one for a reason; there isn't going to be a who is a Hungarian? article anytime soon). So. Is there any suggestion what to do next? As you may have noted, I have come up with a suggestion regarding the Jews distilled from my comments all on my own. This feels a bit silly, as in a one-man editing dispute. Perhaps you could just make some coherent suggestion what you want to see changed in the article, or perhaps even edit the article yourself (it's a wiki). This will save me the effort of second-guessing what your suggestion would be applied to the article as it stands. --dab(𒁳)12:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
"This will save me the effort of second-guessing what your suggestion would be applied to the article as it stands." You still insist on taking it personally. This is not about you. You do not own the article, and not every comment is directed at you. if you do not understand the comment or do not find it constructive, just ignore it. let other people read it and decide for themselves whether they want to engage it. The purpose of this talk page is not just to influence Deiter Bachmann. It is for general discussion among all editors. You are not the arbiter of what goes on the talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk12:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I assure you I am not taking this personally, at all. "Second guessing" refers to on-wiki editorial activity, not to my private life at all, I am not sure how you can mistake one for the other. I don't know why you insist on trying to make this personal by attacking me all the time, bringing up my full name (although misspelled), etc. I have strictly commented on your comments, not your person. If you would prefer not to receive a reaction to your comments over receiving critical feedback, by all means, ignore everything I've said. Other editors do not seem to fall over themselves to reply to your comments, but I must maintain that I've never tried to prevent them from doing so. If others can be bothered to take this up, cheers to them and cheers to you. If not, this section can just sit here until it is archived, no problem. dab(𒁳)13:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry i misspelled your name. It was unintentional but sloppy and regrettable. I did not think that anything I wrote was an attack or could be construed as an attack on you. As you say, if no one finds my comment worthwhile, it will be archived soon enough. C'es la vie. Best, Slrubenstein | Talk14:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Slrubenstein, I've read through this thread and I would like to know what other ethnic groups may be effected by your general comments. Setting aside the issue of European Jews, which I think we all understand, could you please use another example to explain your comment a bit more clearly? Is there another methodology you propose? Do you propose to focus on genetics only in determining ethnicity? The conversation seems to have been derailed first into the specific case of Judaism and then into something about taking the thread personally, but as an interested outside reader here I'd love to hear the answers. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Well I do not have a criticism, but i do have a concern and question, regarding this:
Of the total population of Europe of some 730 million (as of 2005), some 85% or 630 million fall within three large ethno-linguistic super-groups, viz., Slavic, Latin (Romance) and Germanic. The largest groups that do not fall within either of these are the Greeks and the Hungarians (about 13 million each). About 20-25 million residents are members of diasporas of non-European origin.
The last sentence refers to members of diasporas of non-European origins. Does this imply that the three large ethno-linguistic groups mentioned first are of European origin? What does this mean? i assume it means that when the language developed (e.g. Slavic, latin, or germanic) it developed in Europe. But we are not just talking about a linguistic group (that would be clear enoug), we are talking about an ethnolinguistic group i.e. not just a language but the peole who speak it. What does it mean to say that they developed in Europe? Does this mean that none of them are descended from any of the 20-25 million residents who are members of a non-European diaspora? Is it not possible that many German speakers are descended from people who migrated to Europe from outside of urope? The linguistic group may have clear origins in Europe, but the people may have their origins outside of Europe. this is my main concern. Slrubenstein | Talk22:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Slr, as I understand it an ethnolinguistic group is by definition a collection of people (ethnos) categorized as a group by way of linguistic similarity. I do not understand how you are arriving at the idea that this term has two parts, one being linguistic and the other being genetic (the latter being what you admit yourself that you mean by "people".) To apply ethnolinguistic categories is to rely on something entirely different from genetics, or lineages of biological descent. If the two overlap then so be it, but there is no reason at all that they should. When you say that the "linguistic group may have clear origins in Europe, but the people may have their origins outside of Europe" what you are really saying is that the "ethnoliguistic group" may have clear origins in Europe even if some of its members can trace biological descent, however many generations back, outside of Europe. When the presentation is rendered accurate in relation to the term in question then it becomes clear that this isn't really an issue. To put it another way consider that there is no such thing as an ideal typical "people" seperate from any of the ways we have at our disposal to define such a people: ethnoliguistically, biologically, religiously, etc. People do not continue, they are born and they die. Biologically speaking genes may be passed on to descendants, but any notion that a "people" lives on must be constructed in some way or another. That is simply a fact. Is genetics preferable to ethnoliguistics? I don't think so personally, since human beings very rarely truly define a "people" in the strict terms of biological descent, and some rather prominent attempts to do so have been closely associated with some of the most horrific events in world history. I also believe that linguistic continuity is strongly correlated with various other cultural continuities, something that is much more important to the history and anthropology of group identity and ethnic boundaries than biological descent is.PelleSmith (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
PelleSmith, I think you misunderstand me. I am making no particular claims about ethnicity. I am pointing out that the article in its current form makes certain claims about ethnicity. When the article says there are x million members of an ethnic group in Europe today that have their origins in the Bronze Age - when it refers to a population - it is the article that is implying a genetic relationship. I have no problem with saying there are a hundred million people today who speak a language that first developed a thousand years ago. But the article is not just saying that, it is saying that the people themselves are descended from people living in the past - that brings in inheritance and genetics. Do you think language and genetics go together? I do not, and if YOU think they do not then we agree. And i would then ask you to take a close look at the article, because there are parts of it that are NOT clear about this, and I have provided examples, below. Slrubenstein | Talk19:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually I was addressing the exact language you used in the post right above mine. You may have made mistakes in this post, or not fully explained what you mean, but you quite clearly claimed therein that an ethnolinguistic group consists not only of a linguistic group, but also of a "people", and then went on to describe "people" in terms of biological descent. To quote: "But we are not just talking about a linguistic group (that would be clear enoug), we are talking about an ethnolinguistic group i.e. not just a language but the peole who speak it." The people who speak a language are the group, yes indeed they are. But they are only a people, in the ethnolinguistic sense, in that they speak the language in the first place. Your claim assumes that they are a "people" in a capacity seperate from their linguistic similarities. Again to quote you: "Is it not possible that many German speakers are descended from people who migrated to Europe from outside of urope? The linguistic group may have clear origins in Europe, but the people may have their origins outside of Europe." Please accept the fact that you have indeed made such a claim, and that my response shows no misunderstanding of what appeared in front of me in plain English. The article may have several difficulties, but my point was simply that this particular difficulty, that you claim stems from the use of terms like ethnolinguistic group, is not a difficulty at all. As it has been suggested below, if the entry is clear in its use of terms then the problems will be fixed. It should also, perhaps, not mix and match terms that refer to biological descent and genetic similarity with terms that refer more clearly to cultural similarity (such as "ethno-linguistic group"). BTW, a a "population" is not necessarily defined by genetic similarity or a "genetic relationship", certainly not necessarily in the social sciences. Again you are correct that it is not helpful to skip around between groupings that are genetic and groupings that are cultural, but if we have to chose one, I'd say the cultural one is much more preferable. See the response below by Aryaman about "race". Removing your genetic notion of what constitutes a "people" also eradicates the difficulties you wish to highlight. Please take more care in reading that which I am responding to before suggesting a misunderstanding.PelleSmith (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I said we are speaking not just of a linguistic group but of an ethnolinguistic group, meaning a group of people. And I stand by this point, and by my claim that you misunderstand me. This whole discussion began when I argued that "when we make claims that link a continuity of language to a continuity of ancestry, we need to have citations for reliable sources" - a point i still stand by. dab's response was to claim that I was saying genetic relations are more important than cultural relations. I ask anyone to reread what I wrote and point out the quote where I say that. I never say that. I never say genetic continuity is more important than linguistic continuity,k and I never say genetics is the basis, or a more important basis, for ethnicity than language or culture. i just never say it. All I do say and I guess i have to repeat it again, is that these forms of continuity are different and the article must treat them differently and if the article suggests that genetic and linguistic continuity coincide it needs a verifiable and reliable source to back that up. I provided an example above and below and I still stand by what I wrote. I have a friend who wrote a book about Greek Macedonians, arguing that although the speak Greek and identify as Macedonians, they are not for the most part decended brom King Phillip or Alexander the Great's Macedonia, are not descended from the Greeks of the age of Plato or Aeschylus. She was not saying that Greek Macedonians are not linguistically or culturally Greek, or Macedonian. She was saying that their ethnic identity was based on belief about biological descent, but was not actully based on biological descent. And she received death-threats from nationalists who insisted that there was biological continuity. Many people do believe that there is biological continuity within ethnic groups. We had this argument when this article was created, and in related articles: many people blieve this, but much scholarship challenges this. And I return to the point I made at the top of this section: we have to be careful not to confuse genetic continuity with linguistic continuity, and this is a serious concern when talking about ethnolinguistic groups because we are talking about groups of people. PellSmith, you asked me for a non-Jewish example, and I gave the example, above, from the opening of the article. It says that 630 million beling to the three large ethnolinguistic groups, and that around 25 million come from non-European diasporas. I repeat again my question: does this mean that none of the 630 million come from non-European diasporas? Do i need to spell out why I ask this? Most anthropologists believe humans evolved in Africa, which means that all - all - humans in Europe came from outside of Europe. So what distincition is made between the 25 million who are from outside of Europe and the 630 million ... is there an assumption that they have always beein in Europe? The article itself is unclear but one could read it as suggesting that the members of these ethnolinguistic communities are members of a group of humans who have been living in Europe since thse languages first formed. This reading is very close to suggesting that in addition to linguistic continuity there is genetic continuity ... if it doesn't mean that, why the special mention of people who came from outside of Europe? I am really trying to imagine what the article is saying. French belongs to other latin ethnolinguistic group. If my parents were Algerian and I was born in France, and grew up speaking French, the first section of the article suggests I belong to one of those non-European diasporic groups, not the Latin ethnolinguistic group. And this to me mixes up genetic and linguistic identity. And I think that if this is how scholars actully view it, we need verifiable sources which the article does not provide. And if there are no relevant sources, then we need to change the language so as not to mix up these two things. These previous two sentences are my main point and if you do not agree, fine, say so, but please do not tell me I am identifying ethnic groups with genetic populations because nowhere have I said that that is what I think about ethnicity. I am not talking about what I think. i am talking about what the article says. Let's focus on the article! Slrubenstein | Talk11:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
On second thought I wont repost what I originally posted, since this is pointless. I agree with the essence of your argument, I must have originally misunderstood you, take care.PelleSmith (talk) 15:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry that I did not express myself clearly or well before. I am glad that we agree in essense. If you see areas of the article itself that raise concerns along these lines - sections or combinations of sections that could be interpreted the wrong way - i hope you, or others who have more clarity than I about this issue, would make or at least propose changes to those parts of the article. Best, Slrubenstein | Talk19:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, what about this:
The Basques are assumed to descend from the populations of the Atlantic Bronze Age directly. The Indo-European groups of Europe (the Centum groups plus Balto-Slavic and Albanian) are assumed to have developed in situ by admixture of early Indo-European groups arriving in Europe by the Bronze Age (Corded ware, Beaker people). The Finnic peoples are indigenous to northeastern Europe.
Perhaps there is very compelling language that the Basque language developed in what is today Spain and France during the Bronze Age. But that does not mean that wll Basque-speakers are descended from people who lived in this area during the Bronze age. What does it mean to say "Finnic people" are indigenous to Finnland? Does it mean the same thingas I am inidgenous to Brooklyn as I was born there? Or does it mean that Finnish identity - primarily the Finish language - developed in Finnland. Well, okay, let's say that it did. That does not mean that people later migrated into Finnland, and learned Finnish. Are we sure that that never happened? And if people could migrate to Finnland and learn Finnish and their descendents be considered "indigenous" to Northeastern Europe, why not say someone who moved from Algeria to France and learned French - or at least that person's kids - are indigenous to Westen Europe? And if so, what does the word "indigenous" really mean? i ask these questions because the article uses the term "ethnolinguistic" which combines people with language - when in fact a language and the people who speak it can have very different histories. Slrubenstein | Talk22:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Here is a good example of the problems presented by the existence both notions: 1) biological descent and 2) cultural continuity. I agree that this is a problem. I think more care and clarity would fix those problems. However, "all Basque people" is a bit of a red herring. Even if there is a strong genetic link (something I haven't a clue about) all people of an ethnic group (however you slice it) will never be descended from one isolated population existing in the Bronze age. With the "Finnic people" we also run into problems of mix and match between genetics and language. Again I agree, but again we can't have as a bench mark any designation that works for "all people" of some kind. That's an impossible bench mark. We also have to admit, that while language and genetics clearly are not equivalent, that some populations have been both genetically secluded and linguistically continuous and that the existence of others that have not does in no way challenge every instance that this has been a prevalent occurrence. That is to say, it may be that some populations have both common language and high genetic similarity. We cannot discount that. All in all more sensitivity is needed in presentation here. I think we can all agree on that.PelleSmith (talk) 20:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes I think that's right Slr. I'm also not sure that the claims about Basques are especially constructive, most people in Europe are probably directly descended from the peoples of the Atlantic Bronze Age. I suspect this is meant to mean that the Basques have not mixed a great deal with other groups since the Atlantic Bronze Age, though of course if this is supposed to be some sort of claim of "ethnic purity" then it's a fallacy. I'm also concerned with use of the word "indigenous", it's a relative term, indigenous is usually used to refer to a group of people who are resident in a region when a new group arrives, so there is a migrant group and an indigenous group, but the migrant group will quickly become culturally assimilated and will cease to be a separate group, the descendents of the original indigenous/immigrant groups will be indistinguishable from each other, both genetically and culturally. When any new group arrives this "admixed" group will represent the "indigenous population". There's a massive confusion in these articles about "ethnic groups" many editors seem to think that ethnic groups are like the atom used to be thought of; a fundamental, indivisible, immutable and eternal unit. That somehow an "ethnic group" represents a genetically homogeneous unit that can be assumed to have some sort of unbroken biological and cultural unity over many millennia, but from what anthropology (a little) and genetics (much more) I know, this assumption is simply derived from the way the modern world is packaged up into "nations", and that nations have usurped the identities of semi-mythical groups that existed in the past and have claimed a direct cultural and exclusive biological descent from these groups. There's good political reasons for doing this, but there are no good biological or anthropological reasons to assume that these constructed identities tell us anything real about the past. Alun (talk) 04:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the simplest solution here is to be explicit about the fact that the article is discussing ethnicity, i.e. languages and cultures, and not race (i.e. "phenotypical differences", etc.). That means stating "Basque language" when we mean Basque language and "Basque culture" when we mean Basque culture. Referring to "Basque people" or worse, "Basques", is in itself problematic, and requires qualification in every case. —Aryaman(talk)12:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I have some major issues with that list, which is one reason why I have not been active in this discussion. It is a unique and peculiar mix of linguistic and quasi-nationalistic groupings which begs the question: "What exactly is an ethnic group?" Are there "ethnic French people", for example? Quite a few people (among them a number of scholars) would cringe at the thought of using something so plump as "French ethnicity", let alone put some number behind that term. For them, there are the ethnic groups of Alsace, Auvergnat, Aquitaine, Aveyronnais, Brittany, Burgundy, Occitan, Provence. Yes, they are integrated into the modern nation of France politically and economically, yet there remain enough significant differences in language and culture to regard them as different ethnic groups. (The reason I chose France as an example here is to draw attention to groups with an ambiguous identity such as that of Alsace: it probably started out as Celtic, underwent a Germanic period, but is now under the political jurisdiction of France, and bilingual. It is not for us to decide whether this ethnic group should fit under a "Celtic" or a "Germanic" heading - it is a unique part of Alsace history, part of that ethnic identity.) IMO, such ethnic groups are the real ethnic groups of Europe, not labels like "ethnic French", which is an a priori attempt to combine ethnicity and politics. Thus, if I were in control of this article, I would break it down to real ethnic groups followed by the country or countries they are found in and their approximate populations. But - and I'm sure many of you are sighing with relief - I have no intention to push for a complete restructuring of the list. I'm growing prematurely weary of a project that ignores age-old adages like "too many cooks spoil the broth". —Aryaman(talk)14:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I think what you are saying makes a lot of sense. (And I am thrilled someone understands that my point, opening this section, is not about jews in particular or even especially) If you are willing to start proposing specific edits I would be happy to work with you on making this article more encyclopedia. I think we both agree that it should reflect the mainstram scholarship, and that it is based on notable and varifiable views. Let's get started! I am not sighing with relief when you say you have not been active. Too many cooks may be a problem, but so is any one person claiming ownership of an article. Your remarks are the most cogent response to my comments, and I want to remind you that WP:BOLD has been a core guideline here since Misplaced Pages's birth! Slrubenstein | Talk14:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
you may be surprised to hear that I, too, completely endorse Aryaman's points. Yes, this is about the difficulty of the concept of "ethnicity". Yes, this is inherently tied up with nationalisms and politics. Yes, there will never be a single "correct" way of looking at this. All of this is granted from the outset. "Ethnicity" is comparatively simple to define in tribal societies. It is practically impossible to get any clear notion of it in modern urban democracies. That's because urbanity fragments identity and you end up with subcultures replacing tribes. And yet we need an article discussing ethnicity in Europe, because there can be no doubt that there are ethnic groups in Europe. I have am not opposed at all to presenting a (referenced!) discussion of the difficulties involved. But I think, precisely because this is so difficult, that Aryaman's approach of "listing the real ethnic groups" is doomed to fail: there will never be any consensus of what is a "real" ethnicity and what isn't: you may as soon forget about that. There are undisputed cases: the Basques, the Sami and the Hungarians are without doubt classical "ethnic groups". But what about Switzerland? Are the Swiss somehow ethnicity-less? Or are there cantonal ethnicities (ethnic Bernese, ethnic Grisonian)? Or is the population of Switzerland merely a bunch of expatriate ethnic Germans, French and Italians?
This article cannot (and doesn't need to) answer this. What it can and should do is tell the reader, ok, there are 730 million people in Europe. Here is the population substructure along lines that may or may not be considered "ethnic". And lo and behold, we end up with a sensible picture of structures and sub-structures. I do not care if you draw the "ethnic" line at the level "Germanic Europe" or at the level "Alsatians", that's really up to you and not for Misplaced Pages to decide. What Misplaced Pages can do is present the structures such as they are. And as it happens, language is one of the, if not the foremost criterion of ethnic identity. You can enter pretty much any "linguistic" adjective, such as German, Italian, French, English, Romanian etc., and you will be taken to a disambiguation page presenting a link to a language, and one to an ethnic group. Indeed, most ethnic groups do not have a proper name other than that of their language (or conversely, most languages do not have a name other than that of the ethnicity speaking it). By no means do I claim language equals ethnicity. This obviously does not hold for major languages in particular, but becomes more and more accurate the fewer speakers a language has. It is still true that language is the first and most relevant indicator of ethnicity. dab(𒁳)11:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Well said dab. I agree with your statement 100%. How can we possibly apply a definite parameter to the project when that parameter itself (ethnicity) is flawed, variable and open to a multitude of definitions? (and a survey of recent historical approaches shows it depends on which way the wind blows). The only way this article will succeed is if it acknowledges these limitations, and offers an overview with different points of view. Dionix (talk) 03:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Dbachmann, do you have a source for this - ""Ethnicity" is comparatively simple to define in tribal societies. It is practically impossible to get any clear notion of it in modern urban democracies" - because i think most anthriopologists would disagree. Also, can you explain what you mean by a population substructure? Slrubenstein | Talk12:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
well, it's not a point I was wishing to make in article space, but since you pick out that statement, I would be willing to look into it. What part do you think is mistaken, that ethnicity is "comparatively simple" in tribal societies, or that it is "practically impossible" to define in urban society (ethnic identity fading in favour of class identity)? or both? This is ostensibly irrelevant to this article, but if you would like to pursue this point, I think it would be most at home at Talk:Nation. It is clear (I hope) that there is a hierarchy of overlapping group identities, peer group / tribe / class / ethnicity / nationality. Neither ethnic group nor nation addresses the question of tribal societies. Are you addressing the point of "ethnicity and class" or rather "ethnicity and tribal identity"? Both points are worth looking into. It has nothing to do with the point I was making for the purposes of this article (all I was saying is: "it's difficult and there is no consensus"), but I do suggest we move this section to Talk:Nation or Talk:Ethnic group and pursue it there. dab(𒁳)13:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree it may not be necessary in this article. But most anthropologists identify ethnic groups with modern states and would say that tribes either have no ethnic identity or a very unclear ethnic identity. the classic esample is Evans-Pritchard's book The Nuer.Slrubenstein | Talk14:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
alright, looking around, I did find a source that is relevant to this article:
E. J. Hobsbawm and David J. Kertzer, Ethnicity and Nationalism in Europe Today, Anthropology Today, Vol. 8, No. 1 (Feb., 1992), pp. 3-8. (it's on jstor.org)
I do find that any discussion of European ethnic groups will also need a detailed account of European ethnic nationalism (since, after all, Europe is the home of the nation state).
Quoting from the above paper,
If there is any standard criterion today of what constitutes a nation with a claim to self-determination, i.e. to setting up an independent territorial nation-state, it is ethnic-linguistic, since language is taken, wherever possible, to express or symbolize ethnicity (precisely my point above)
every separatist movement in Europe that I can think of bases itself on 'ethnicity', linguistic or not, that is to say that 'we' - the Basques, Catalans, Scots, Croats, or Georgians are a different people from the Spaniards, the English, the Serbs or the Russians, and therefore should not live in the same state with them.
Ethnicity whatever it may be, is not programmatic and even less is it a political concept. is a readily definable way of expressing a real sense of group identity which links the members of the 'we' because it emphasizes their differences from the 'them'. What they actually have in common is not so clear, especially today.
There are good reasons why ethnicity (whatever it is) should be politicized in modern multi-ethnic societies Electoral democracy produces a ready-made machine for minority groups to fight effectively for a share of central resources, once they learn to act as a group We can even see pseudo-ethnic groups being invented for political purposes, as in the attempt by the British Left to classify all Third World immigrants as 'Black' in order to give them more leverage within the Labour party
the core of ethnic politicization is not instrumental. One thinks of the familiar nostalgia for 'roots' which makes the children of assimilated, secularized and anglicized Jews rediscover comfort in the ancestral rituals and sentimentalize the memories of the shtetl which, thank God, they have never known.
If there is any standard criterion today of what constitutes a nation with a claim to self-determination, i.e. to setting up an independent territorial nation-state, it is ethnic-linguistic, since language is taken, wherever possible, to express or symbolize ethnicity (precisely my point above)
is ambiguous. Certainly language is a very important and some would say necessary diacritic for ethnicity. But I think most would say it is an insufficient diacritic for ethnicity. Above, were you saying it was necessary or sufficient? Certainly, it is not the same as ethnicity. Slrubenstein | Talk14:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
yes, as I just said. To copy-paste my statement above, "By no means do I claim language equals ethnicity." I hope we can consider this point settled now. I fail to see how any of this is "ambiguous", since nobody ever tried to suggest that language is a "sufficient diacritic for ethnicity". I didn't, and the source cited certainly cannot be read in this way. --dab(𒁳)14:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
here is another useful source:
Max Engman (ed.), Ethnic Identity in Urban Europe (Comparative Studies on Governments and Non-Dominant Ethnic Groups in Europe, 1850-1940, Vol. 8)
I only have access to this via amazon "look inside". The introductory article is entitled "Ethnicity and the City". p. 2:
Ethnicity is a key concept in modern European history Ethnic identity refers to a range of objective factors which distinguish one communal group from another. The most common of these factors is language. However, religion may also be important along with occupational or residential concentration and a more general cultural and historical distinctness.
There is no doubt that the great rise in ethnic identification coincided with the period of most rapid urbanisation in Europe. it is clear that the development of mass politics in many European countries between 1860 and 1910 drew attention to the value of ethnic identification as a mode of political organisation
the upshot is, indeed, that the development of conscious ethnic identities and nationalisms in Europe coincide with urbanization and industrialization. This is explained as a compensation for the loss of the social coherence of rural communities. I fully accept this. My comment referred to contemporary (late 20th to early 21st century) post-industrialized urban societies where youth subcultures have a much stronger significance than ethnic identity for the dominant group. Of course, second-generation immigrants will always strongly identify with their lost roots.
Ok, this is all I can come up with at the moment. I would be grateful if you could help working these sources into the article, or come up with some sources of your own. It is time we drop the idle talk and actually work on the article. I gave citations I consider useful for the purposes of this article in full for future reference. If nobody else does it, I will return to this at some later point and try to summarize the gist of the sources I found so far. dab(𒁳)14:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the second quote you give, which provides some historical context, is very useful - do you have a page numbe? I would work it in whereever you think it fits, Slrubenstein | Talk08:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Problematic article
I am a Finnish-speaking Finn of Swedish descent. Am I Finno-Ugric or Germanic? It is not that simple as the article suggests. My case is not unique in Finland, in fact it is quite the opposite. Genetically most Finns of today are not Finno-Ugric. I guess it is the same with many other European nations and ethnic groups too. Furthermore, Finns and Hungarians have just as much in common as Swedes have with Greeks - however, in the article they are in the same group. As one can conclude, this article is misleading and naive. --84.253.201.120 (talk) 21:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
no it isn't "naive". The naitveté is entirely in the eye of the beholder. This article lists ethnic groups. Note the wikilink: If you read the ethnic group article, you will note that it is very well aware that the concept is fuzzy and complicated. It nevertheless exists, is notable and needs to be discussed. The best approach is to start with rough categories and descend towards finer grained divisions. Every village in Europe, and every household in every village will have their own "identity". Many if not all people have several overlapping identities. If you know of a better way to present this and still convey meaningful information, let us know. --dab(𒁳)10:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
dab has been completely rejigging the table this morning, as you can see using the history button for the article. Gibraltar must have got lost in the wash :( Mathsci (talk) 10:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
we can add them back of course. I dropped them because they had a {{fact}} tag. I have no opinion on this. According to the article, "Gibraltarians are a racial and cultural fusion of the many European immigrants who came to the Rock of Gibraltar over three hundred years." Does that make them a separate "ethnic group"? Also, they number below 30,000. I do doubt that this list should be stretched to a resolution of village-sized subgroups. We state that there are 90 million Russians in Europe. Nobody seems to be objecting to that. How many subgroups sized of the order of 30,000 do you think we will find if we really look at these 90 million people in detail? Don't keep asking this article to perform something it cannot and should not: if you want the full gory details on "Spaniards" as a group, you need to consult Nationalisms and regionalisms of Spain. All this article can provide is a link to the detailed discussion. It cannot and must not replicate the full details. dab(𒁳)10:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. You mention subgroups within another country; Gibraltar is not part of Spain but a separate entity altogether. On the question of ethnicity, the article states:
Ethnic identity is also marked by the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness and by common cultural, linguistic, religious, behavioral or biological traits.
Gibraltarian people fit this description as their cultural and linguistic features are different to those of any other group. This is why I strongly believe that they are notable enough to be included in the article despite their (in comparison) low numbers. Regards, --Gibmetal 7709:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Kudos to whoever overhauled the article. It is greatly improved and is now about what it should be: European peoples. Any interest in renaming? Two minor comments:
the "southern Romance" group label is incorrect- the term is not Romanians and Vlachs but, linguistically speaking, about Sicilian and Sardinian. Perhaps this should be "eastern Romance"?
If we can lump Germans and Austrians under "German speaking Europe", and Danes, Swedes, Norwegians and Icelanders under "Scandinavians", I'd say that we certainly can list Rusyns under Ukraininas, and Montenegrins under Serbs. Let's try not to allow the list to fray too much. dab(𒁳)14:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
map
The Russian part of the map seems to originate from a source I am not sure of, here is a modern ethnical break-up of Russia, make corrections accordingly. --Kuban Cossack09:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
If you used this map, why have you made changes in Ukraine? Map of Russia can't show languages in Ukraine. Moreover, even this pro-Russian map shows Ukrainian population in Eastern Sloboda Ukraine. Your map doesn't display even it. Let's stop creative work, let's start using sources. --Riwnodennyk✉14:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I made changes to Eastern Ukraine, based on the dominance of the Russian population in areas such as the Donbass where in places they are minority, if I got it wrong feel free to check it. I did make changes to areas where the old png had gross errors in the population of Russia. Like Adygeyan population being absent, yet having Estonian and Latvian populations spread into across the borders which is untrue. Now why do you insist on the term some Cossacks. In Russia Cossacks are recognised as an sub-ethnic group, part of the Russian people. If you have evidence that Cossacks fall in other population groups please present that. Until then stop reverting. --Kuban Cossack14:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
OK. Let's stop reverting, let's discuss. Your changes were made only in the part of Eastern Donbas, but mostly in Southern Sloboda Ukraine (Kharkiv and Luhansk Oblasts). Ukrainians dominate in both of them (71% and 58% respectively). Also I live here, so I don't need to check it :) What about Cossacks - this is not Russian Misplaced Pages, this is the world-wide Misplaced Pages, we can't use Russian ideology as only one right. Now article Cossacks is not only about modern Cossacks, so I would like to find a compromise, because there were e. g. Zoporozhian Cossacks that have been absolutely not Russian, also many modern Cossacks struggle for recognition of them as a separate ethnic group. So I'm not against mentioning them as sub-group of Russians, however we must make clear situation around them. As well I'm not against your changes in Russia except Ukrainians in Eastern Sloboda Ukraine, which are shown on the map which you have used as a source. --Riwnodennyk✉14:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
First of all, this is not about Historic ethnic groups, but about present ethnic groups. The Zaporozhian Cossacks history ended in 1775. Second of all nation identity did not exist back then, as the Zaporozhians never called themselves Ukrainians. Thirdly modern Russian Cossacks are already recognised as a separate ethno-cultural group in Russia, and as a Cossack myself that is enough. The other major regions of compact Cossack population outside Russia Ural and Semerechye have lost their Cossack population by majority after the Russian Civil War (left with Dutov & deported by the Bolsheviks). The other compact area is the corner of the Lugansk oblast and as you said 58% is not exactly dominance... Moreover I should stress that in those oblasts there are as well as mixed, homogenous regions of Russians and Ukrainians. (After all that same census can be used for Eastern Sloboda and the Olbast population would also show a far greater Russian Dominance (see map) . --Kuban Cossack15:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
This map isn't so detailed as first on you called (here). Why do you want to change map without sources? What is the source of changes you made in Ukraine? --Riwnodennyk✉16:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
The map shows that your reversion to the changes you made to Russia has no ground. If you want to make corrections to the Ukraine area of my version based on the sources you have please do so. Leave the rest as they are though. That map that I gave shows that Eastern Sloboda Ukrainians make no more than 4% anyhow, Russians in Lugansk make up more than 40%. --Kuban Cossack16:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Second map doesn't show Eastern Sloboda Ukraine at all, only Oblasts of Russia, like Voronezh or Belgorod. But the map you change is detailed, we can compare it with first one . Also we have no sources about Ukrainian changes. If we have 40% Russians in Luhansk Oblast, that doesn't that this is more than 55% Ukrainians. So we don't need to change Ukrainian to Russian. I don't think we should spend time to play with changes. If you don't have enough sources, let's return map to previous one, which had sources. You can make changes in many other Oblasts of Russia, Latvia, Belarus and so on, but you showed trustful modern map, that shows only Russia and shows Ukrainian in Sloboda Ukraine. You can draw new one and upload, no one is against. --Riwnodennyk✉16:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
The Russian census of 2002 and Ukrainian census of 2001 show that there are more Russians in Luganks Oblast than Ukrainians in eastern Sloboda, yet you revert all of my changes like the invented Belarusian presense in Smolensk, the equally invented Ukrainian presense in the Kuban, the lack of Circassian presense in Adygeya etc. Those changes have been sourced. Now since you are the expert in Ukraine then feel free to change what you think is wrong there, like the dominance of Russians in Kherson Oblast, or the Moldovans in Odessa Oblast, I don't exactly think that is correct either right, but leave my changes to Russia as they are, deal? --Kuban Cossack08:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
yeah, the map over-emphasizes minorities. It's the best one we have though. I would like to see an update, but whoever does that will need to deliver quality. dab(𒁳)19:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Culture of European ethnic groups
I am removing the section on European identity and culture. The article is about European ethnic groups so one would expect cultural issues at the ethnic level. Secondly, the section seems more about the culture of the Americas, than it does of any European ethnic group.
Muntuwandi (talk) 23:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I do not read it that way at all. It was written by a swiss editor (dab). Please provide a more carefully reasoned critique before blanking sections like this. Mathsci (talk) 06:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
The material in question is
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 also has a broad influence beyond the continent of Europe due to the legacy of colonialism. In this broader sense it is sometimes referred to as Western Civilization. Nearly all of the Americas and all of Africa were ruled by European powers at one time or another, and some parts of the New World, such as French Guiana, still are. The vast majority of the population of the Americas speak European languages, specifically Spanish, English, Portuguese, French and to a much lesser extent Dutch. Additionally the cultures of the European colonial powers (Spain, Britain, the Netherlands, Portugal, Belgium and France) exert a strong influence.
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.
to start with there is not a single reference so this borders on Original research. It really shouldn't matter whether the person who wrote it was swiss or japanese or from Jupiter. The article is about European ethnic groups, Slavs, Moldovans, Walloons, Sicilians etc. there is no information about what their culture is. The largest paragraph is devoted to cultures outside of Europe and not within europe, with a discussion of American and African colonies. Of the estimated 50 nations in europe, only about 8 countries were involved in colonialism. So a devotion to a discussion on colonialism is WP:UNDUE because it ignores the culture of ethnic groups of about 42 other member states. The notion of Western civilization is also irrelevant to the discussion of European ethnic groups, As western civilization also includes American civilization and often excludes eastern european cultures. Lastly it is laden with eurocentric bias.
I suggest its complete removal, until anyone prepares a section that actually deals with the culture of european ethnic groups which is what the article is all about. Muntuwandi (talk) 13:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
the cultures of individual European ethnic groups is not what this article should deal with. There are individual articles for that. The article should give whatever can be said of a generic "European culture". In terse WP:SS of course. Culture, like language and heredity is part of the notion of "ethnicity". Yes, that's a fuzzy notion beginning to end, but this doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or that it shouldn't be discussed. If "European culture" is tenuous, articles on "African culture" or "Asian culture" are hilarious, since both Africa and Asia have a very, very large diversity compared to Europe. Europe is pretty much a peninsula with a more or less uniform culture compared to these larger continents. dab(𒁳)15:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
The article on European culture is actually pretty good and has a NPOV. The content in this ethnic groups article is not a summary of the European culture article, but is more boasting and bragging about European accomplishments. Muntuwandi (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
the European culture is a dilapidated list article. Nothing wrong with it, but it needs work. To suggest it is undue to give emphasis to Europe's great countries, because, hey, there are an estimated 50 nations in Europe, betrays endearing naivete at best. Europe's dominating cultures are British, French, Italian, Spanish-Portuguese, German and Russian. These (historically colonialist) nations set the tune. The remainder adds harmonics. dab(𒁳)15:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I am not against having a section that discusses european culture and in particular, at an ethnic level, you know the usual stuff, food, music, dance, religion, language and sports. thats what people think about when we think of culture.
"To suggest it is undue to give emphasis to Europe's great countries, because, hey, there are an estimated 50 nations in Europe, betrays endearing naivete at best. Europe's dominating cultures are British, French, Italian, Spanish-Portuguese, German and Russian. These (historically colonialist) nations set the tune. The remainder adds harmonics."
I don't get this statement at all. This article is not about "major ethnicities in Europe", it is not about "European identity", it is about "European ethnic groups", that's plural. To claim that "These nations set the tune" is quite frankly just wrong, here in Finland people speak Finnish, not German, or English or Italian or Spanish, they have their own distinct Finnish culture, they go to sauna, they give their Christmas gifts on the 24th of December, when Joulupukki visits children at home, they celebrate Independence day on 6th of December, and go off to their mokki's for the Juhannus midsummer holiday. These are Finnish cultural traditions, their "tune" has not been set by Italy, or Britain, or Spain, they are an European ethnic group, it is distinct and important to Finns. Being an European ethnic group has got nothing to do with the major modern era political states that have grown up over the last several hundred years. There was no such country as Italy or Germany 200 years ago, Britain did not exist as a country 400 years ago. I understand that ethnic identity is fundamentally bound to political ideology, but in the end the title of this article is misleading if it is to be about some mythical pan-European super-ethnic group. Personally I think this is little more than OR, but even if sources exist to support it, it's existence does not belong in an article about the ethnic groups of Europe. Alun (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreed with Alun here that this article is about European ethnic groups, not about Major European Powers, although an article on the latter would be quite legitimate if it doesn't already exist. Also, tacking on top a discussion about colonialism, even a short one, is pretty much turning this into a coatrack. I'd say bring the section to the talkpage and let's have a discussion around it. Some of it we can probably salvage.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) I think both Alun and Ramdrake are slightly misreading the purpose of this section, which should be provided with sources and possibly slightly rejigged. As it appears to me, the aim is to explain how and why European ethnic groups spread across the world, taking with them their language, customs and culture and also the notion of "European identity". There are plenty of books and academic articles on this. This process started in the Age of Discovery. It is a matter of fact that not all European ethnic groups migrated outside Europe during this period; there is no need for any chauvinism about which particular groups spread, just the facts presented in a neutral way (although, if Alun will forgive me, I would like to make a small plea on behalf of our ovine friends for the Welsh farmers in Patagonia). I am currently adding some possible source material to the bibliography section; there might also be some history books. I see no point in soapboxing here. Mathsci (talk) 07:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
No soapboxing here, Mathsci. But I think we can all agree that this section needs references first and foremost, and then some of it may need to be rewritten. I would suggest to keep the section about pan-European identity (with references) as something about the possible future evolution of ethnic groups in Europe. Right now, I'm not aware that there really is a "European" ethnicity to speak of (except in a very few circles). The European diaspora that started in the Age of Discovery may also be broached, but I would recommend minimizing the references to "colonization" and "Western Civilization". Inhabitants of the Americas and Oceania haven't considered themselves "Europeans" for a long time). Finally, the statement about European ethnic groups all being overlapping really needs attribution, to avoid looking like OR. I think these are reasonable caveats.--Ramdrake (talk) 10:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
One thing to point out is that there is a considerable body of literature that many European ethnic groups formed outside of Europe. I do not mean prior to migrating into Europe, I mean after emmigrating out of Europe in the 19th century. This is not by any means the only or even principle way in which European ethnic groups formed, but it is one very important way they formed. We have to figure out a way to write this so that we do not assume ethnic groups existed prior to migrating out. The most obvious source is Eric Wolf's Europe and the people Without History but that book is synthetic and itself draws on a good deal of previous research (it came out in 1982). Also, some European ethnic groups came to an end as part of the nation-building processes of the 19th century. We all agree that this kind of stuff needs to be included with verifiable sources. But - should it go in a section called the culture of European ethnic groups? this really is not about culture. I see a major section on ethnogenesis with two subsections, one on ethnogenesis and nation-building, and one on ethnogenesis and migration. Slrubenstein | Talk10:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I absolutely agree that the best thing is to find good neutral academic sources and proceed from there. While parts of the article remain unsourced without footnotes, there will be recurrent problems, as has been apparent on previous occasions (sigh). "European identity" has been discussed in several scholarly books; if they discuss self-identification by diasporas as European, that could be relevant, but equally well in some countries like Brasil or Argentina something quite different might be the case. Unlike other articles elsewhere on WP, here there is the chance to write something scholarly, positive and informative, based on academic references. I also agree that the Age of Discovery should be treated in a neutral way, very much as in the history of Europe. The aim is not to show that Europe civilized the rest of the world, but just to explain why various migrations occurred from Europe over the centuries. I hope the rejigged section will remain short with wikilinks to longer articles. Mathsci (talk) 11:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
This is a very rough month for me but if there is someone willing to do some reading, I can recommend some great basic sources to start with. Slrubenstein | Talk11:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Looking again at the article, it might not be a bad idea to move the material purely on historical migrations from Europe to just before the section(s) on diasporas. That would keep it quite separate from discussions of religion, culture or european identity. Please go ahead and supply your list, Slr. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 11:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
David Cannadine, "The Context, Performance and Meaning of Ritual: The British Monarchy and the Invention of Tradition c. 1820-1977" in Eric Hobsbawm and Terance Ranger, The Invention of Tradition 101-164 (ethnicty and culture)
John Cole and Eric Wolf, The Hidden Frontier(classic case-study)
Susan Gal, "Codeswitching and Consciousness in the European Periphery" in American Ethnologist 1987, Vol. 14, No. 4: 637-653. (a very narrow case-study but a cutting edge example of the best current scholarship on the relationship between culture, language and ethnic identity)
Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism (general overview)
Eric Hobsbawm, "Mass Producing Traditions: Europe 1870-1914 in Eric Hobsbawm and Terance Ranger, The Invention of Tradition 263-308 (ethnicty and culture)
Anastasia Karakasidou, Fields of Wheat, Hills of Blood: Passages to Nationhood in Greek Macedonia, 1870-1990 (case-study)
Mikael af Malmborg and Bo Stråth The Meaning of Europe: Variety and Contention within and among Nations (general historical overview)
Prys Morgan, "From a Death to a View: The Hunt for the Welsch Past," in Eric Hobsbawm and Terance Ranger, The Invention of Tradition 43-100 (ethnicty and culture)
Hugh Trevor Roper, "The Invention of tradition: The Highland Tradition in Scotland" in Eric Hobsbawm and Terance Ranger, The Invention of Tradition 15-42 (ethnicty and culture)
Katherine Verdery, Transylvanian Villagers: Three Centuries of Political, Economic, and Ethnic Change (classic case-study)
Eric Wolf, Europe and the People Without History 354-384 (synthetic, see also the bibliography for more detailed sources and case-studies)
The above provide detailed case studies and summaries of cutting edge and notable scholarship. All the authors are or were well-regarded scholars, books published by major university presses. Slrubenstein | Talk11:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
By the way, concepts like Asian culture and African culture are indeed hilarious and if anyone wants to nominate them for deletion just let me know where to vote. But just because those articles make no sense does not mean that this article should make no sense. Honestly, the logic that because we have one bad article at Misplaced Pages we therefore ought to have another bad article at Misplaced Pages is beyond me. The very idea of European ethnic groups works against the idea of a "European culture." Now, among Europeans themselves there is a concept of "Western civilization" and I can certainly see an article on this. The notion of Western civilization is of course a social construct that has as much scientific meaning or validity as "White race" but it is a powerful social construct and there has been a good deal written about it; reliable verifiable sources provide the basis for a good encyclopedia article. Be that as it may, in an earlier discussion dab suggested that European ethnic groups are cultural and not biological. If that is the case, I see merit in discussing the relationship between ethnic identity and culture in this article, in relation to specific European ethnic groups. dab suggested that extensive discussion belongs in specific articles on specific ethnic groups and I agree. The question is, how much discussion of the relationship between culture and ethnic identity is needed for the concept of European ethnic group to be intelligible and meaningful to our readers? I suggest perhaps providing a few case-studies to illustrate the different ways ethnic identity and culture can intersect or relate. Slrubenstein | Talk12:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I think Slr makes some excellent points, ethnic groups come and go with alarming rapidity. My main concern was that the article seemed to be imposing some sort of hierarchical structure to the ethnic groups of Europe and I just don't think we can do this without it being OR. There is a section in the ethnic group infobox that asks for "related ethnic groups". This lead to all sorts of confusion at the English people article I was involved with at the time, some editors insisted that the related ethnic groups to the English primarily meant other speakers of Germanic languages, one editor wanted to include Spanish and Basque people because most English Y chromosomes seem to be derived from the Iberian peninsula from 10,000 years ago! My personal opinion was that the very concept of a "related ethnic group" is OR, I went looking for a reliable source to support the concept of "related ethnic groups" and could find none. It's entirely subjective as to what is a "related ethnic group". There was huge confusion, with editors claiming a higher order "Germanic" supra-ethnic group, others claiming that a British ethnic group subsumed other ethnic groups within the island of Great Britain. I was uncomfortable with all of these claims. I'm concerned that what we have here is an attempt to claim a supra-European ethnic identity that subsumes all other European groups and somehow contains the root elements of all European ethnic groups. If I've misunderstood this then I'm pleased, but the article as it stands does seem to support the idea of an European "supra"-ethnic group. Alun (talk) 06:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
briefly, Slr points out WP:OTHERCRAP, and rightly so. But I do not think either of these "continental culture" article deserve deletion, they should just elaborate on the notion such as it is. There is such a thing as a Pan-European identity just as there is Pan-Eurasianism and Pan-Africanism. These aren't "facts", they are sentiments, notions or ideologies and need to be treated as such. Beside these (rather dubious) "Pan-" movements, articles on continental culture can of course also give an encyclopedic overview in terse WP:SS. I understand your misgivings, and the answer is, we need to observe WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:RS to the letter. These "ethnic" topics are difficult, because there is no "correct" way of thinking about them, only a bell curve of opinions, and for this reason they are an Achilles heel of Misplaced Pages in need of constant and sceptical supervision. dab(𒁳)15:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
race and ethnicity ...
This discussion belongs here because it addresses the question of whether reliable sources for notable points of view are being described accurately, or if some editors are violating WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR by combining different claims to make their own argument in this article.
... are two different things. Is this article about European Races or ethnic groups? With the current title, we should delete all references to races. Or we should change the title. Slrubenstein | Talk11:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
you are wrong. race (classification of human beings) and ethnicity each stand for many different but overlapping notions, not "two different things". The notoriously unstable article on "race" in particular shows this. I see no reason to replicate these ultimately futile terminological disputes here. The title of The Native Races of the Russian Empire (1854) is merely an outmoded way of referring to what we would today call "the indigenous ethnic groups of the (former) Russian Empire". Shifting terms, same signifié. --dab(𒁳)12:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, surely we agree there are areas where they do not overlap. Let's just say, these are the areas I am espeically concerned with. And let's say that I am content to deal with the issue relying on our NOR policy. My concern is when people add in information about genetic distance between groups. even if they have a source supporting the claims about genetic distance, unless those sources refer explicitly to ethnicity, I think the editor is violating NOR. I will retract my concern to this one set of questionable edits. Slrubenstein | Talk13:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
well, we agree that the main article for these things is Genetic history of Europe, not this one. But the genetic studies do discuss population genetics in terms of ethnic groups. Statements like "Europeans are most closely related to East Asians and least related to Africans" refers to statistical studies done on a number of members of individual ethnic groups of the respective continents. Quotes like "Principal coordinate analysis shows that Lapps/Sami are almost exactly intermediate between people located geographically near the Ural mountains and speaking Uralic languages, and central and northern Europeans. Hungarians and Finns are definitely closer to Europeans." do ostensibly discuss the population genetics of specific ethnic groups. So, yes, it is perfectly possible and valid to talk about the genetic properties of European ethnic groups, no problem, keeping in mind that what we discuss is always population genetics. The source for the comparison of "continental populations" is "a study by Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza of the Stanford University, School of Medicine, using 120 blood polymorphisms provides information on genetic relatedness of the various continental populations, Genes, peoples, and languages - Cavalli-Sforza 94 (15): 7719 - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The Genetic history of Europe article isn't great in any way, but it is, still, useful as a mine of relevant literature. --dab(𒁳)16:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I disagree Dab. Ethnicity and genetics are separate - they only overlap because of two things 1. Ethnic groupings often have boundaries coinciding to some degree with genetic groupings. This is of course not coincidental because they have to do with human demographic patterns and a general human tendency to ethnocentric endogamy - but it still doesn't mean that genetics is an important part of defining ethnicity, or delineating ethnic boundaries. 2. because the concept of race has only been seen as being separate from culture and ethnicity in modern social studies. The argument that "Races of Russia" once meant the same as "Ethnic groups of Russia" is not valid because it exemplifies an outdated usage - in modern social studies noone would use the word race to mean ethnic group and neither should we. The modern concept of ethnicity is much closer tied to the concepts of identity and of nationalism something that is nearly completely absent in this article. Population genetics simply doesn't study ethnicity it studies populations - and it studies the correlations between genetics and ethnicity. It can be used to say something about the genetic origins of modern ethnic groups but this only serves to provide clues about the ethnic origins. In my opinion discussions of the genesis of ethnically based nationstates in Europe and a discussion of the emerging concept of common "european identity" are much more relevant to this articles subject matter than mitochondrial DNA. ·Maunus·ƛ·12:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Folks, there are four different issues here, and they are slippery: ethnicity, race, the language of biology (phenotypic traits or "blood"), and genetics.
Ethnic identity and genetics are independent variables, but they can be related (sometimes ethnic identity can be a barrier to sexual union, other times it is not. When ethnic identity is a barrier to sexual union, or corresponds with other barriers to sexual relations wtih others, such as geographic isolation, the result can be genetic distinction. But this is not the same thing as saying genetic difference defines and ethnic group; the historical relationship between these two variables is more complex.
However, dab did not - at least, not originally - state that ethnicity and genetics are the same. He said that ethnicty and race may overlap. The key point here is that race is not genetics. Race is not a biological concept, not in mainstream science. Race and ethnicity are two different social constructs through which people may establish social identities. What people mean by race or ethnicity can change over time, and anthropologists and sociologists have different definitions for race and ethnicity. What is important is that this article on European ethnic groups desperately needs more historical context - it needs to explain when people started and stopped talking about their identities in the language of ethnicity, and why; it also needs to explain when people started and stopped talking about their identities in the language of race, and why.
It also has to document the historical context in which the meaning, or diacritics of ethnicity and race, have changed over time. There are times when people do use what they believe to be biological markers as diacritics of race or ethnicity. This is not genetic science, this is folk biology. But it is real and important. People do not always define ethnicity in terms of blood relations; people often define race in terms of blood relations. Either way what matters is not the actual genetic relations but the beliefs people have about the relationship between their bodies and their social identities.
finally, we arrive at genetics, and the research for example of my colleague Dr. Tibor Koertvelyessy who identified significant genetic differences between two populations with distinct ethnic identities in Hungary - but his argument is that it was th importance of the ethnic barrier that led to these genetic differences. At some point we might want to incorporate such research into the article, but we would need to be careful and use reliable sources.
In the meantime, I think that instead of arguing over the relationship between ethnicity, race, and genetics, we should instead be looking for reliable sources that document the changing ways people have used the language of race and ethnicity to identify themselves, and whether or when beliefs about the body - about blood, hair, eyes, noses, as well as beliefs about other qualities, such as various virtues and vices - were believed by people to define different racial or ethnic identities. In this I think we need to rely on reliable sources, namely anthropologists, sociologists, and historians who have done solid research on these topics. Slrubenstein | Talk14:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the article is in dire need of historical context, and I also agree that the only way forward is by using reliable sources. It is also true that race is not a biological concept - but I (wrongly) used it as such, what I refer to is the emphasis that the article in its present states gives to genetics. I want it to be clear that information about genetic studies only have bearings on the subject matter of this article in so far as they elucidate the relation between ethnicity and genetics. Genetic information is not pertinent when used to try to define populations as "belonging" or "being related to" different modern day ethnicities. ·Maunus·ƛ·16:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
And I agree with you 100%. dab has suggested that much of the information comes fromsources that explicitly invoke ethnicity. When that is the case, the material should stay in the article, properly contextualized. I agree with you about when genetic information is not pertinent, but if someone has the view that it is, and if that person is notable, then we need to include that view as long as it is properly presented as such. Otherwise, it should be deleted. If you see material that does not meet these conditions and should be deleted, go ahead - I'd welcome that! Slrubenstein | Talk18:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure I agree with either of you. I really don't see why you are so reluctant to endorse the very fine tools that genetics has given us in unravelling questions of ancestry. And ethnicity is, of course, primarily about ancestry. I agree, of course, that everything needs to be sourced properly, but I dislike the implication that connecting genetics and ethnicity is such a terribly tall claim that needs extraordinary sources. It is rather, to my mind, a perfectly straightforward aspect of the topic under discussion here. That still means claims need to be sourced, but the mere presence of these sources shouldn't have be justified at every turn. I also don't see why the concept of "race" is constantly being brought into this. "Race" is a very complicated topic that will just muddy perfectly objective questions about ancestral relations. It is one thing to document certain genetic groupings. It is quite another question (mostly political) whether one should speak of these as "races". The genetic findings stand regardless of what you are going to call them. The only instance where "race" is mentioned in the article is
"The vast majority of Europe’s inhabitants are of the European (or Caucasoid) geographic race; characterized by white or lightly pigmented skins and variability in eye and hair colour and by a number of biochemical similarities"
I would be perfectly happy to rephrase that, already for copyright reasons seeing as it is a verbatim quote of the (current) Encyclopedia Britannica. But of course the usage of "geographic race" by the EB goes to show that this isn't some outlandish fringe concept. --dab(𒁳)07:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
The thing is that ethnicity is not primarily about ancestry. Ethnicity is primarily about belonging to a group. Of course a long historical connection to a group can reinforce the sense of belonging - but ethnic ancestry and genetic ancestry is not necessarily the same (although as I have said before they often do coincide). We already agreed that race was a wrong word to use - and have been talking about genetics.·Maunus·ƛ·07:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
we may want to take this to ethnicity at this point, because it's about the definition of the term. Ethincity is about (a) language (b) customs (such as religion, dress, cuisine etc.) and (c) ancestry. Neither of these three components is sufficient to establish ethnicity, but each of them is significant. So, no, this isn't "just" about ancestry, but it is very much "also" about ancestry. --dab(𒁳)08:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
let me just supply the OED definition of ethnic,
"Pertaining to race; peculiar to a race or nation; ethnological. Also, pertaining to or having common racial, cultural, religious, or linguistic characteristics, esp. designating a racial or other group within a larger system;" (emphasis mine)
OED would thus list (a) race (genetics), (b) culture, (c) religion and (d) language.
I recognize the difficulties with the term "race", but I also think the superstitious qualms about using it on Misplaced Pages are excessive, let alone the recurring claims that it "doesn't exist". Of course it exists: claiming otherwise is like claiming the Goth subculture doesn't exist, because its definition is "only" due to social convention and self-identification. Of course the genetic differences between races are minor ("the genetic difference between, say, two randomly picked Swedes is about twelve times as large as the genetic difference between the average Swede and the average of Apaches or Warlpiris", The Language Instinct p. 430). But saying they are minor amounts to admitting they exist, and their objective size says nothing about the subjective meaning that is attached to them. So yes, race is "objective" because it can be pinned down to specific (minor) items in population genetics, and yes, it is a "social construct" because the importance or meaning that is attached to these objective bits is of course purely cultural and cannot be predicted, justified or debunked by geneticists because if falls outside the scope of their field. --dab(𒁳)08:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that definition is sufficiently close to the definitions used within social sciences to be allowed to stand undiscussed in any of the articles about ethnicity. You seem to believe that we are just out to purge the concept of race or genetic phenotypings from wikipedia, this is not the case. My aim is that wikipedia should not blindly take over some common sense definitions of concepts such as "people", "ethnicity" and "race" and "genetic groupings" and transmit those common sense notions as if they were the truth or the scientific consensus about the topic. The way I see it the current article does exactly that it. It states some genetic data as if they were directly relevant for the ideas about ethnicity and how the ethnic groups of historic and modern europe are defined. To say that Europeans are a mix of finns, basque and balkans is simply not informative when talking about ethnicity and the different ethnic groups of Europe. This being said I think that probably the solution is not to remove any of the content about genetics - but rather to add a whole lot of content about the other aspects that are more important. As the article is now it is hardly more than a series of embedded lists.·Maunus·ƛ·08:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I would never suggest leaving it undiscussed. OED is the major dictionary of the English language, and it is always useful to give its defnintion as a first outline of the meaning of a term, after which it is of course our job to descend into the gory details of academic literature. You are prefectly right about the state of this article, and all your points are granted. If the juxtaposition of the various items under discussion do indeed give rise to misconceptions such as you mention, that's a problem. I am not sure it does that though. Drowning the topic in distorted disclaimers isn't a solution in any case. We'll just need to state clearly what we are discussing and then discuss it. If that still engenders misconceptions, that's not really our fault. --dab(𒁳)09:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
dab makes three distorted or unfounded claims, and makes a general mistake about terminology and NPOV. The three mistakes:
first, he writes, "I really don't see why you are so reluctant to endorse the very fine tools that genetics has given us in unravelling questions of ancestry." In fact, genetics gives us pretty rough tools. Genetics can help me trace one male ancestor and one female ancestor back many thousands of years. Those many thousands of years are very impressive, but when one goes back that far I am descended from lots and lots of people; currently genetics can help me identify only two. Second mistake: "And ethnicity is, of course, primarily about ancestry." Not true in two senses. First, it is not true that ethnicity is primarily about ancestry. As our article on ethnicity makes clear, ancestry may be one of the important diacritics of ethnicity. But it is not always an important diacritic, and it is seldom the only one or the most important one.
Second, the "ancestry" that may be a diacritic of ethnicity is not the same thing as the ancestry geneticists study. Geneticists are scientists and develop scientific definitions of ancestry, its components, meanings, and signifiers. Most people are not scientists and their beliefs about ancestry are folk beliefs, which often vary widely from that of scientists.
Third mistake: the OED identifies ethnicity with race, and dab adds in parentheses that race is genetics. dab, is "(genetics)" in the OED, or is this something you have made up? Mainstram scientists certainly do not identify race with genetics.
Finally, in invoking OED dab makes a basic mistake about OED and NPOV. The OED is a reliable source for the spelling and etymology of a word, no one would argue this. But when it comes to the meaning of the word, OED ranks meanings in terms of common usage, and provides very abbreviated definitions. This makes OED (like any dictionary) useless when the meaning of a term is debated by scholars. One of the first lessons I have to give my first year students is that they should not rely on dictionaries to define technical terms, it is a dumb (but typical of rookies) mistake, I tell them. What a physicist means by "leverage" is not what a banker means by "leverage" for example. And most people learn what physicists (or engineers) mean by leverage in secondary school, and most people learn what bankers mean by leverage by reading the newspaper. Where do people learn how population geneticists, anthropologists, and sociologists use words? These subjects are seldom taught in secondary school, and not well-covered by the press. Sorry, in these cases OED just is no substitute for actual research into the scholarship on the topic. And in this case, the scholarship on race, ethnicity, and genetics is apparently something dab is not familiar with. dab knows a lot and has added a lot to Misplaced Pages, but in this particular case I would ask him either to do the research or defer to those who have. Slrubenstein | Talk10:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Slr asked me to comment, although I don't know if what I have to say will be of any help. Isn't it much easier to define historically or currently perceived "ethnic groups" in Europe, with all the ambiguity involved, than the far more thorny problem of defining "ethnicity"? One of the reference books in the article lists ethnic groups all over the world. How does it address this problem? Mathsci (talk) 11:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
in reply to Slr,
"Genetics can help me trace one male ancestor and one female ancestor back many thousands of years." so it can. But that's not all genetics can do. You seem to have a rather distorted view of the field yourself.
you are citing a Misplaced Pages article you have yourself actively edited as reference. I am citing the OED definition of the term as used in real life. I never claimed ancestry is the primary component of ethnicity, but I insist, of course, that ancestry is one out of three or four primary components. Even the ethnicity article puts "presumed common genealogy or ancestry" first in its definition. The "presumed" is very transparent as the outcome of prolongued pov-pushing and begging the question of the sort Slr is presenting here. No serious encyclopedia would introduce a term in this way.
fine, so the "race" component of ethnicity isn't called "genetics" in the OED. Would you, then, prefer stating that ethnicity is composed of race, culture and language? I conceded that "race" may be restated in terms of genetics as a concession to your reluctance to discuss "race". Fwiiw, OED defines "race" as
"A group of people belonging to the same family and descended from a common ancestor; a house, family, kindred; A tribe, nation, or people, regarded as of common stock. A group of several tribes or peoples, regarded as forming a distinct ethnic set."
the meaning intended in the definition of "ethnic" is clearly "descent, ancestry" (since otherwise the definition becomes circular).
Slr, you really annoy me by now by talking down to me like that. I am perfectly aware of the truisms you keep presenting to "refute" me. You think the OED is "useless" for our purposes? Would you mind checking out leverage? Your first meaning (the physicist's) is under 1., your second meaning (the banker's) under 2c. You ask me to "do the research". I am sorry, but you do not strike me as particularly erudite in the field of genetics. Since you ask me to grok the scholarship or get lost, let me reciprocate: have you reviewed and understood the literature presented at Genetic history of Europe? Do you consider yourself on familiar enough terms with the field of human population genetics in order to have a meaningful discussion about how to best summarize its results here? I must say I have not had the impression that you are so far.
Your entire contribution to the discussion is that you keep raising caveats about the sociologically problematic conflations with race and racism. I keep granting you that, and keep insisting that genetics is perfectly relevant to the topic all the same. Upon which you shoot down some strawmen completley misrepresenting my position.
Mathsci is perfectly right, all this discussion on the definition of ethnicity is off topic here. It is Slr, not me, who keeps bringing it up. I am considerably annoyed to find myself pushed into defending a "biologist" position. Note that I would defend the cultural or linguistic aspects of ethnicity with equal conviction against attempts to portray ethnicity as "primarily" based on descent. As it happens, the opposite is the case, with Slr attempting to marginalize the importance of descent to something merely "presumed" and thus subsumable under cultural tenets. I object to this just as much as I would object to attempts at portaying culture as part of genetic descent. --dab(𒁳)12:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
dab, sorry you are annoyed by my disagreeing with you. As to your points: (1) yes, genetics can do other things - as a matter of fact, in my comments above I cited work by a colleague to exemplify one major way geneticists address ethnicity in their work. Does this make me ignorant about genetics? (2) I cited an article I edited because i happen to know a lot about the topic. But what is important is not that I edit it - this is not the first time that you seem to prefer to handle conflicts either by taking things personally or by getting personal - what is important is that the article on ethnic groups complies with our policies; it is NPOV, there is no NOR, and it uses verifiable reliable sources. What i happen to think does not matter and I did not direct you to the article on ethnic groups so you could read more about what I think. i directed you there because the article sums up important work by Vincent, Cohen, Wolf, and others. If you have read their work already all you had to do was to say so. If you are unfamiliar with their work, well, why on earth would you resist reading an article that introduces their work to you? Don't we come to Misplaced Pages to learn about things we do not know? I see no shame (or insult) in this, but if I am again annoying you I apologize. Now, what do you mean by "real life?" Are you saying anthropologists and sociologists do not study real life? Are you saying an enecylopedia should not draw on mainstream scholarly research? Honestly, what do you mean? (3) I have no reluctance against discussing race or genetics, I am reluctant to discuss them in ways that are ignorant of mainstream scholarship in the social and life sciences. It is you who have actually expressed reluctance to discuss race in your 7:25 post. Actualy, I once again find it hard to follow your arguments. I began by noting that race and ethnicity are different. You pointed out that sometimes they are used interchangably, and I immediately conceded the point and explained that I was only concerned about cases where they do not overlap, and that we need then to be careful about how we use sources; I didn't think you would find that so controversial. But today at 7:25 you expressed discomfort using the word "race" and then accused me of being uncomfortable with the word. Huh? (4) I note that the OED definition of race includes descent from one ancestor. Anthropologists have shown that in many cases this ancestor is fictive. In other cases, the question is at which generation the ancestor lived - people of different ethnic groups often have the same ancestors if you go back far enough. And of course, a group of people who have one ancestor in common have many - dozens, hundreds, it depends on how far back you go - ancestors not in common, which means that there could be more genetic diversity within the group than between them and another ethnic group. (5) "The meaning intended ... is clearly" is vague. The meaning intended by whom? When it comes to OED, I do not know but it does not matter since dictionaries are guides to spellings, etymology, and common usage. Misplaced Pages rejects synthesis and insists on presenting notable views from reliable sources. When it comes to ethnicity, we have to ask what are the major views and sources that identify people in terms of ethnicity and the answer is states and social scientists, espeically anthropologists and sociologists. There is no one definition of "ethnicity," and to pretend that there is is to violate NPOV by disregarding other notable views. We need to provide all notable views that come from reliable sources. If the German state identifies certain people as belonging to a certain race or ethnic group, we need to know what the German state at that time meant by race or ethnic group - and we should also find out whether there are other notable views (for example, if the group in question had a different view of its identity, or whether mainstream social scientists contested the state's classification). I am suggesting we do precisely what mathsci suggested, "define historically or currently perceived "ethnic groups" in Europe, with all the ambiguity involved."
As to your claim that I should heed Mathsci's advice and not be so concerned with general definitions, please top projecting. It is you who has been quoting dictionary definitions when Maunus and I have mostly been calling for strict compliance with V, NPOV, and NOR. Indeed, above I stated explicitly that ethnicity and genetics may overlap, and I really do not understand why you disagree with this. But frankly sometimes it is hard to follow your own argument. Are you denying that at 7:25 you wrote "and ethnicity is, of course, primarily about genetics ancestry?" And when Maunus wrote that he did not see it this way, that ethnicity is primarily about belonging to a group, and that ethnic and genetic ancestry often - often - do coincide but are not the same (pretty much what I said) at 8:31 you wrote "Ethincity is about (a) language (b) customs (such as religion, dress, cuisine etc.) and (c) ancestry" - which actually seems to signal your moving away from your earlier claim that ethnicity is of course primarily about ancestry? Well, which is it dab? Is ethnicity of course primarily about ancestry, or is it about language, custom, and/or ancestry? If you have changed your mind and are now saying it is also about language and custom I agree with you, but I do not agree when you go on to write "Neither of these three components is sufficient to establish ethnicity, but each of them is significant" for the simple reason that, following Mathsci's advice, I prefer to avoid monolithic definitions of ethnicity, which you seem obsessed by. I believe there are times when language, custom, and ancestry are all components of ethnic identity, but I know of cases where it is only one or two of these. As Mathsci suggests this isn't about coming up with a general definition of ancestry, no matter how many dictionaries or other encyclopedias you find that provide definitions that support your point of view that "ethnicity is of course primarily about ancestry." As Mathsci said, instead we should "define historically or currently perceived "ethnic groups" in Europe, with all the ambiguity involved." And are Maunus and I wrong to insist that such claims be backed up with reliable sources, and not violate NOR? Sorry if this annoys you, but it is simple Misplaced Pages policy. Get used to it. Slrubenstein | Talk12:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Just putting in my tuppence, but my understanding of ethnicity is that it is first and foremost about identity. This identity expresses itself through what could be called folk lore (in the very widest sense of the term), which can be one or any combination of the following (I may miss some): language, culture, customs, religion, history, perceived common ancestry (whether real or legendary), etc. And yes, genetic traits can correlate with ethnic identity, but they don't define ethnic identity; although ethnic separation can give rise to differences in some genetic traits, in some cases. But genetics isn't a mandatory part of ethnicity, or even an important part; it is however, a common correlate, which has very different implications.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
All i am really saying is, if there is a notable point of view from a reliable source that says that Germans view their ethnic identity in terms of ancestry, or that some geneticist has demonstrated that the German ethnic group is also characterized by certain genetic features, it should go in; if the view is not notable or not from a reliable source it shouldn't. And whose point of view that is being expressed should be made clear. This is just basic policy. Slrubenstein | Talk13:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
great. Thanks for restoring this huge piece of offtopic train wreck, Slr. You're really doing great at helping grind progress to a halt here. Do I deny that at 7:25 I wrote ""and thnicity is, of course, primarily about genetics?" I do indeed. At 7:25, I wrote, "And ethnicity is, of course, primarily about ancestry". I should have written "the notion of ancestry" to include both "real" ancestry and the "presumed" ancestry you care so much about. This could be so much easier if Slr simply made a tiny effort to hear what I am saying. Am I "obsessed" by "monolithic definitions of ethnicity"? No. But seeing that it is all but impossible to get Slr to appreciate perfectly simple points, I doubt we'll get beyond the "monolithic" soon. Getting back to me with "Sorry if this annoys you, but it is simple Misplaced Pages policy. Get used to it." amounts to WP:DTTR. What I would ask of you, Slr, is to stop pestering me with what I have already granted (such as the need for reliable sources, DOH)
Your tactics, Slr, is to heap up mere truisms nobody disagreed with in the first place, and then jump to the most far-fetched conclusions that bear no relation to your prior assertions. This has got to stop. Have you presented any case against the discussion of population genetics in this article? No. You keep saying that we need to be aware of "the social sciences" too. Great. Then open a section discussing social sciences, and leave me to expand on the "embedded lists" that are this article in peace. Ok? You are into postmodernist "the construction of ethnic identity"? Great, do it. I'll just try to document the bit about "real" (as opposed to "presumed") ancestry, which I grant you (again and again) is only a partial perspective. --dab(𒁳)16:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
dab, you are right I misquoted you ... the first time. You will see in the following lines I consistently used the same word you did, ancestry. And my point remains the same: first you say ethnicity is primarily about ancestry, then you say no it is also about language and custom . My point, dab, is that you cannot accuse me of distorting what you say when you first say one thing and then say another. As to my pestering you - once again you seem to have a systematic desire to take things personally. Perhaps you think you own this article, and any comment about it must therefore be directed to you? I began this thread by raising a legitimate concern about how some people approach it. I did not mention you by name, nor did I refer to any one of your edits, because I was not addressing you. Are you now thinking "Well, then why did you write it?" and beore you do let me just remind you that other people besides you read this page and edit this article. It was only later, after you said you disagreed with what I wrote, that I specified three particular things you wrote that I thought were istaken. And I still believe they are mistaken. But am I "pestering" you because I point out these mistakes? Well, you asked for it. Maunus and I were having a discussion of general issues directly relevant to this article and you jumped in and said you disagreed with both of us. You get annoyed when I then respond? Well, if you do not want me to respond to you, do not begin a comment by saying you think I am wrong when I was not talking to you. (Also, please do not pester me by accusing me of DNTTR when I emphasize that my main concern is the appropriate use of sourced, and then accuse me of leaping to "far-fetched conclusions." I have no idea what you mean by "far-fetched conclusion" (or postmodernism, which I never brought up), but the only conclusion I consistently emphasize is the need to use scholarly sources rather than dictionaries, and use them carefully. Now pleae make up your mind, is this a truism or a far-fetched conclusion? It is my conclusion, and maybe it is a truism, but when you accuse me of having said something far-fetched I think maybe you do not think it is a truism ... or you do not understand what I wrote.) Slrubenstein | Talk17:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
oh, good, back to the "don't make this personal" vein again, are we. I dare you to find an ad hominem attack in my comments. Skipping the remaining condescension,
"but the only conclusion I consistently emphasize is the need to use scholarly sources rather than dictionaries, and use them carefully."
great. I'll file that under "truism". You sure take the long way around to say WP:RS. You are asking for a source that ethnicity involves a certain amount of shared ancestry? Fair enough Feel free to just use inline tags. Thanks. --dab(𒁳)17:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
section break
Well I do know quite a bit about genetics, and when you say "Slr attempting to marginalize the importance of descent to something merely "presumed"" I'm at a loss to understand what you are implying. Just because descent is more presumed than necessarily a biological reality, it does not mean that it is not very important to the way people self identify. I have not noticed a single instance where someone has claimed that the fact that biology is not relevant to the concept of ethnicity, this automatically means the concept is unimportant or "marginal". I'm quite concerned about this use of the concept of descent, most of the work done on the biological ancestry of populations from different geographical regions has been done using Y chromosme or mtDNA data, these do not portray a realistic measurement of descent. Y chromosomes and mtDNA are very useful for tracking ancient migrations because of the way mutations accrue along the respective molecules, but they are very poor indicators of defining descent. As Slr has already pointed out mtDNA only measures a single line of descent and so do Y chromosomes, they have little or nothing to do with how someone identifies ethnically. The propensity for Y chromosomes especially and mtDNA somewhat to suffer from genetic drift makes them very poor markers for identifying any person or population's ancestry. When we think about Y chromosomes especially we need to be careful to remember that those specific types (or haplogroups) that have contributed to the modern human population may only represent a small subset of the total number of types that have existed in the past, and just because a specific type of Y chromosome becomes "extinct", it does not at all imply that the descendants of the men carrying this type of Y chromosome are not alive today, it just means that the Y chromosome of these men has not survived. To use an example, about 30% of African-American men have Y chromosomes associated mainly with people from Europe, by this analysis we would conclude that 30% of the ancestry of African-American men is European, but for mtDNA we find that African-American people have about a 12% contribution from Europe, and for autosomal markers the estimate is about a 15% contribution from Europeans. These figures can't all be right, and in the end whatever figure is "correct" it does not make any difference to the way African-American people self identify, they are African-Americans, with their own rich culture and traditions, irrespective of the composition of their ancestry. I know for a fact that I have a Y chromosome that derives from Bronze Age Norway and was probably brought to Great Britain at about the time of the Viking incursions into Great Britain via Denmark, this neither makes me Norwegian nor Danish and it certainly does not show that I have any major ancestry from either of these regions. If my patrilineal ancestor was living in Norway 3,000 years ago, and the average generation time is 25 years, then there are something in the region of 120 generations separating me from this single ancestor at a time when I have 2 other ancestors who all contributed to my genome. Likewise at the time that my male-line ancestor come to Great Britain about 1,000 years ago, I have 40 generations separating me from him, which produces 2 ancestors for me from the turn of the first millennium, it has to be odds on that my ancestry is overwhelmingly not Scandinavian, even though the one ancestor per generation that I can trace the migration of probably did spend the LGM in the eastern European refuge, his descendants migrating over many generations north through Europe to Scandinavia, then eventually making their way to Great Britain. Just because I can trace his migration and I "belong" to a specific haplogroup, it only tells me something very small, almost infinitesimally small about my ancestry. I suggest that we need to be very careful about correctly sourcing our comments, if a specific academic makes claims about ethnicity and genetics we need to make sure that we accurately cite what that reliable source says, and not say what we think he is implying. Furthermore Jonathan Marks makes a good point about sampling genetic data by "ethnic group" rather than by geography, it gives a sense of false distinctiveness because it biases samples. We can quote him actually.
As any anthropologist knows, ethnic groups are categories of human invention, not given by nature. Their boundaries are porous, their existence historically ephemeral. There are the French, but no more Franks; there are the English, but no Saxons; and Navajos, but no Anasazi...we cannot really know the nature of the actual relationship of the modern group to the ancient one...The worst mistake you can make in human biology is to confuse constructed categories with natural ones. And to overload a big project with cultural categories as the overall sampling strategy would be a serious problem." Marks, J. (2002) What it means to be 98% chimpanzee (paperback ed.) pp.202-203. Berkley. University of California Press.
And he is a reliable source. Population geneticists are not anthropologists, they have made very big mistakes by making unfounded assumptions when sampling human populations, and anthropologists who do know what they are talking about have rightly criticised these geneticists for the fundamental and dangerous assumptions they have made. Alun (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Alun, I am obviously aware of all you are saying about mtDNA and Y chromosome data, and I do not think anything in the Marks quote is at all controversial. But I think I suspect now where the basic misunderstanding lies. When talking about genetics, you automatically seem to be thinking of the remote past, the Upper Paleolithic at least. Of course this isn't what I mean by "common descent" at all. Ethnogenesis takes a couple of generations, 200 to 300 years maybe. "Common ancestry" is defined by general intermarriage within the group over this period. If you start out with a completely heterogenous group (say, utterly disparate mtDNA haplogroups) and have them intermarry for 200 years, you'll end up with an ethnic group sharing a common ancestry even if their ancestors 200 years earlier had no common ancestor other than mt-Eve. The point is that ethnogenesis takes more than a generation. If you share a common culture with a group for 20 years, you're just an old boy in a subculture. If you keep going for six or ten generations, you may end up with an ethnic group. In this sense, common ancestry over a couple of generations, not reaching back into the Paleolithic or even the Iron Age, is indeed a prerequisite. Now Slr will no doubt glance at the above paragraph and give me another link to WP:NOR, or repeat a few common points I've granted six times over before. But I am not trying to write an article here, I am trying to figure out why we don't seem to be able to communicate. --dab(𒁳)17:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually I feel, especially with this last response by dab, that we are understanding eachother pretty well, I believe that Dab and Slr, myself and the other editors are pretty close to eachother in our understanding of the problems at hand and that we are now at a place where we can go along with bettering the page. What I personally would like to be clear in the article is exactly the fact that claiming descent from a particular person is no guarantee of any common ethnicity at all, particularly not if that ancestor is more than a few generations removed. What I object to is the notion that for example because populations speaking germanic languages all stem (linguistically and genetically) from a common but very remote ethnic group (the proto-germanians) that this means that speakers of modern germanic speaking peoples are also then somehow closer related ethnically, for example I believe (this being of course OR) that Danes and Swedes consider themselves closer tied to Finns than to the Dutch or German ethnicities even though they have no shared linguistic and probably less shared genetic ancestry with the Finns. I am not sure the article in its current form commits this mistake, so the point may well be moot. I think that what we should focus on now is making this article into an article instead of mere listings and to include ample discussions of the the historical contexts of ethnicities. For example the emergence of the nation state seems to me to be the single most important aspect of ethnicity in Europe because this gave rise to allmost all of the modern ethnicities. I think this is important to include because folk beliefs often greatly exaggerate the historicity of modern ethnicities (e.g. believing that there were an ethnicity such as spanish or italian before the establishments of the modern states).·Maunus·ƛ·17:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if I am crossposting, but I have been wondering for some time about the extent to which "ethnicity" and "race" (or, maybe better, "skin colour") overlap with each other. Could a person of African or Eastern Asian descent who was adopted as a child by, for instance, French people be considered a member of this European ethnic group? Iblardi (talk) 18:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, it looks like the jury is still out on this. ;) I find that the problem of how to define ethnicity itself is prone to extensive discussions (in my own experience at least, coming from Dutch (ethnic group)) - depending, perhaps, on whether you follow a more "nominalistic" or a more "realistic" approach. Iblardi (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure what you are getting at when you say that "If you start out with a completely heterogenous group (say, utterly disparate mtDNA haplogroups) and have them intermarry for 200 years, you'll end up with an ethnic group sharing a common ancestry". Let's take the example of African-Americans again, they are a good group to use as an example because we have a good idea that they have a relatively recent ethnogenesis and have a diverse ancestry. One might argue that African Americans have a common ancestry, but only in the sense that they have a common ancestry with both Europeans, Africans and subsequently with each other. We cannot differentiate any African-American on the basis of their genes, African Americans are not a genetically distinct group. For us to be able to distinguish any group on the basis of genetics we would need complete reproductive isolation for very many generations, but this has never occurred in human populations, which have shared their genes in both recent times and into the distant past. Human genetic variation is marked by isolation by distance and not by sharp ethnic divisions. This means that we cannot tell a person's ethnicity from their genes, and we can not predict their genes from their ethnicity. Genetic variation is clinal and marked by gradual change over geographic distance. There is no evidence that ethnic groups are, or have ever been completely endogamous, even if the folk ideas of origins claim such. The very title of Rosser et al.'s paper from 2000 says it all "Y-Chromosomal Diversity in Europe Is Clinal and Influenced Primarily by Geography, Rather than by Language" We need to be very careful that we do not say things that genetics papers do not say, if geneticists sample populations by ethnic groups, this is not evidence that ethnic groups represent genetically discrete populations, indeed the results of the genetic work done on European human populations generally show that even Y chromosomal diversity in Europe is distributed by geography and not by ethnic identification. For example, if a man belongs to haplogroup N3 then we can guess that he probably has paternal ancestry from northern Europe, but it's not certain, N3 has it's highest frequencies in Finland and northern Scandinavia, the individual could have patrilineal ancestry from Russia, or Finland, or Lapland or Norway or Sweden, we can't tell their ethnicity. Furthermore the person might actually have paternal ancestry from the other side of the Urals, from Siberia. Indeed this individual may be totally unaware of this ancestry and may identify as belonging to an ethnic group totally unrelated to any of these groups. The importance of this observation is apparent when one considers that Y chromosomes are much more divergent than autosomal genetic markers. Autosomal genes get mixed up a great deal more, so the differentiation is far less pronounced when autosomal markers are used. Even on a global level it is difficult if not impossible to differentiate between two individuals. Witherspoon et al. in their 2007 paper "Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations" make this case very strongly. Human genes are so much shared between even distant population groups that one must use a very great number of genetic markers even to distinguish between individuals from very geographically diverse populations.
Thus the answer to the question "How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?" depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity and the populations being compared. The answer, ω, can be read from Figure 2. Given 10 loci, three distinct populations, and the full spectrum of polymorphisms (Figure 2E), the answer is ω ~ 0.3, or nearly one-third of the time. With 100 loci, the answer is ω ~20% of the time and even using 1000 loci, ω ~ 10%. However, if genetic similarity is measured over many thousands of loci, the answer becomes "never" when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations..On the other hand, if the entire world population were analyzed, the inclusion of many closely related and admixed populations would increase ω..In a similar vein, Romualdi et al. (2002) and Serre and Pääbo (2004) have suggested that highly accurate classification of individuals from continuously sampled (and therefore closely related) populations may be impossible...The population groups in this example are quite distinct from one another: Europeans, sub-Saharan Africans, and East Asians. Many factors will further weaken the correlation between an individual's phenotype and their geographic ancestry. These include considering more closely related or admixed populations, studying phenotypes influenced by fewer loci, unevenly distributed effects across loci, nonadditive effects, developmental and environmental effects, and uncertainties about individuals' ancestry and actual populations of origin...The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes.
I would echo what Witherspoon is saying, ethnicity is not about ancestry and it is certainly not about genetics. Genetics tells us little about about ethnicity and ethnicity tells us little about the genetics of a population or individual. If individuals from geographically distant parts of the world are often more similar to each other than they are to individuals from their own population, then how much more similar must individuals from a single continent be? Most variation is within groups and not between groups. Knowledge of a person's Y chromosome cannot tell us which ethnic group an individual comes from, the best it can do is to give us a probablistic idea of the general region the person's patrilineal ancestry may come from. Ethnic groups are not "breeding populations" and it is erroneous to claim that they are. When you say that ethnic groups share ancestry, this is correct, but the whole of humanity shares ancestry, and probably shares a quite recent common ancestry at that, probably much more recent than you realise. If you are claiming that individuals within an ethnic group share a greater proportion of their recent common ancestry with each other than they do with individuals whithout the group, well this is probably true sometimes and not true other times, individuals and populations share a greater proportion of their ancestry with those individuals and populations that live geographically close to them, irrespective of ethnicity, this is why geneticists say that the distribution of human diversity is marked by isolation by distance. When discussing how genetically distinct human populations are, then reference to geography is more important than reference to ethnicity. Ethnic groups are not endogamous (even if they often claim to be) and even if they display endogamy for short periods of time (several generations) ethnic groups do not exist for long enough for this process to produce any notable genetic divergence for the group relative to those groups in close geographic proximity to it. Ethnic groups are transient entities based on shared culture, this transience mitigates against any discernable genetic divergence between groups. Let's not make claims for genetics that geneticists do not make, we really need to be careful to say what our sources say and not what we think they "prove". Alun (talk) 11:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
"physical appearance" section
I am glad we are finally discussing the actual article content. "irrelevant" and "synthesis" tags have been added to the "physical appearance and genetic origins" section, with an edit summary of "this section misrepresents science and does not make sense".
It is perfectly unclear in what way the section is supposed to "misrepresent science". Please elaborate. Nor has it been made clear how the section can be argued to be "irrelevant". First of all, let me point out that the sentence
The vast majority of Europe’s inhabitants are of the European (or Caucasoid) geographic race, characterized by white or lightly pigmented skins and variability in eye and hair colour and by a number of biochemical similarities.
is a direct quote of the currentEncyclopedia Britannica article on "Europe, The people" .
The remainer of the section elaborates on this. Since this article is the corresponding article to EB's "Europe, The people", unless some coherent explanation is given how this is 'irrelevant' or 'original synthesis', I will remove the tags again as unsubstantiated.
Now, what is going on here? In my opinion, the hysteria we see surrounding anything that concerns a physical description of Europeans (gods forbid!) is due to blatant systemic bias.
We give physical descriptions and genetic details on any ethnic group except for "Caucasoid" ones, where suddenly people put up long-winded agnostic apologies of how we don't know what we "really" mean by "ethnic" and that it is potentially questionable to describe the "appearance", or (gasp) genetic makeup of ethnic groups. I merely point out that this sort of thing is only likely to ever crop up in articles on "Caucasians". I argue the bias is obvious, and I intend no more and no less than to counter it, in the spirit of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. --dab(𒁳)07:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
"I merely point out that this sort of thing is only likely to ever crop up in articles on "Caucasians"." I have addressed this. If bad science is added to other articles, it too should be deleted. Two wrongs do not make a right. By the way, I do not see any hysteria, and I see no bias except you - whereas others have argued that material should be added because it reflects a notable point of view from a reliable source (and "Encyclopedia Brittanica" is not enough, we need to know who wrote the article and what year; it may be an out-dated view; it may be a view which is now minority or fringe), your argument is "other people get to do this bad thing so I should be able to do it too." This kind of reasoning is proof of bias. Slrubenstein | Talk11:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Specific problems with physical appearance and genetic origins
There are specific problems with the section headed "Physical appearance and genetic origins".
The most glaring problem is that this section does not appear to relate to any ethnic group in Europe whatsoever. This article is about the ethnic groups of Europe, whereas this section discusses Europeans as a continental population, it's genetic structure and makes some mention of "geographic race". But there is no attempt to explain why a section about the distribution of genetic variation is relevant or important in an article that is about the various ethnic groups of Europe. We need to explain just why a section about the physical anthropology/distribution of genetic variation in the European continent is relevant to an article about cultural groups, indeed we need more, we need a reliable source that can discuss how this discussion is relevant to the ethnic groups of Europe. Currently this section sits in the article and makes no reference to any ethnic group whatsoever. This applies to the whole section.
The vast majority of Europe’s inhabitants are of the European (or Caucasoid) geographic race, characterized by white or lightly pigmented skins and variability in eye and hair colour and by a number of biochemical similarities. .
The Encyclopaedia Britannica is a poor source, what is it's reliability? What's a "geographic race"? The only mention of this I can find in the Race (classification of human beings) article is from Ernst Mayer, and he uses it as a synonym for subspecies, but the concept of human subspecies is not accepted by taxonomists, or else we would not all be Homo sapiens sapiens. This needs better explanation from a more reliable source than EB. Variability in eye and hair colour exist in all human populations, what is distinctive about Europeans? Who says it is characteristic of Europeans and why is it important? Does it define Europeans? Is Hair/eye variation linked to ethnicity somehow? What are the biochemical similarities? How are these important to ethnicity?
Genetically, the main substructure within European populations is between the Atlantic ("Basque"), the Balkans ("Near East") and the Northern ("Finnic") poles. The main components in the European genomes appear to derive from ancestors whose features were similar to those of modern Basques and Near Easterners. The lowest degree of either Basque or Near Eastern admixture is found in Finland, whereas the highest values are, respectively, 70% ("Basque") in Spain and more than 60% ("Near Eastern") in the Balkans.
I don't know who wrote this, but it doesn't really reflect what Dupanloup et al. actually say. The paper cited makes no reference to "Atlantic" or to "Finnic" "poles". Dupanloup et al. wrote a very elegant paper, but their interest was in estimating admixture in the distant past. They used several different genetic markers to do this and made several assumptions. One of their assumptions was that there were four contributing populations to the European gene pool, then they sampled the modern day peoples who live in the regions where these putative populations may have come from, and compared them to several current European populations. Essentially they are trying to find out how similar Europeans are to (1) North Africans (2) Near Easterners (3) Northern Asians and (4) an "indigenous population" putatively taken as represented by the Basque population. The purpose is to estimate admixture proportions for the current European population, but of course it makes quite a number of assumptions that cannot be taken at face value. Without explaining these assumptions and caveats in the text of the article it makes the analysis presented here a "fact", this is a highly speculative paper with many ifs and buts. Inclusion of the results of this paper requires far greater discussion of the methodology or it's a synthesis.
A 2007 study using samples exclusively from Europe found an unusually high degree of European homogeneity: "there is low apparent diversity in Europe with the entire continent-wide samples only marginally more dispersed than single population samples elsewhere in the world." The main component of genetic differentiation in Europe was found to occur on a line from the north to the south-east (northern Europe to the Balkans), with another east-west axis of differentiation across Europe.
Whereas a full and frank discussion of the conclusions of Seldin et al. (2006) and Bautchet et al. (2007) would of course be a requirement for any article that discusses genetic variation within the continent of Europe, do the observations presented here represent anything approaching the main conclusions of the papers? Bautchet et al. report six European clusters, with the most interesting observations relating to the apparent differentiation of Iberian, Basque and Finnish samples relative to other samples, possibly indicating that these groups represent somewhat divergent groups relative to the other groups sampled. Bauchet is also full of qualifications because although the paper uses very many genetic markers (10,000) it uses a very small number of samples, presumably due to the high cost of using microchip technology for genotyping. Seldin et al. identify three distinct clusters, probably reflecting their use of less genetic markers. They speculate about demic diffusion in the neolithic, just as the Dupanloup paper does. The analyses of these papers presented here seems to be very odd, and seems to have specifically been cherry picked to show that (1) Europeans are genetically "special" and (2) that northern Europeans are more "special".
How can a haplogroup "account" for a population? What does that mean exactly? This sentence makes no sense. Besides only men carry Y chromosomes, so the conclusions cannot be applied to the "population" only to men within the population.
How do we define "common"? Frequencies of R1b are more common in Germany than frequencies of I are, yet here we claim that I is common in Germany but not that R1b is common in Germany. According to Semino et al. (2000) "The genetic legacy of paleolithic Homo sapiens sapiens in extant Europeans: A Y chromosome perspective" Frequencies of R1b in Germany are 50%, whereas frequencies of I in Germany are 35%, and yet we claim that I is common in Germany but not that R1b is common in Germany. This section does not accurately describe the distribution of Y chromosome haplogroups in Europe.
Ummm.... any observations and conclusions? This section doesn't explain why these observations are relevant at all.
On the whole these sections are irrelevant to discussions of European ethnic groups, they make no reference to ethnic groups or ethnicity at all, no evidence is presented that any genetic data correlate with specific ethnic identity, and no explanation is given as to what these genetic data tell us about ethnicity. What is the justification for the inclusion of these sections, what are their relevance to any European ethnic group(s)? Alun (talk) 07:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree completely with Aluns concerns, and am frankly a bit taken aback with dabs insinuations that our insistence on using definitions of ethnicity that are used in social studies and only include material about genetics that have specific bearings upon ethnicity is in fact an ill hidden ethnocentric bias. I can proudly say that I have written articles about more than ten different (non-caucasian) ethnic groups and in none of them I apply definitions of ethnicity different fromthose that are used in social anthropology and in none of them I have found any need whatseoever to describe genetic or physiognomical makeups of those ethnic groups. (Why? Because the literature on those groups does not warrant it).·Maunus·ƛ·07:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
You are essentially arguing that this is the List of ethnic groups of Europe article, and no discussion of European populations in context is appropriate. In other words, you argue that this article should remain a glorified list, never mind the European peoples, European Ethnology, Historical ethnic groups of Europe or Indigenous peoples of Europe redirects. That's arguable, you are essentially saying you want a {{split}} to keep the list separate. Your agenda, then, is to separate all articles dealing with ethnicity completely from all articles dealing with physical appearance or genetic origin for the simple reason that you're interested in social anthropology but not in physical anthropology. I am speechless.
As for "The Encyclopaedia Britannica is a poor source, what is it's reliability?" give me a break. As an editor who has invested considerable effort in keeping the really crappy sources out of these articles, I daresay the EB is a respectable tertiary source. Whenever we are inundated with secondary sources, we need to look to tertiary sources like the EB for guidance. Of course I do not insist on the term "geographic race" at all, call it what you like, the point is that a section on "physical appearance and genetic makeup" is justified in the first place. Once we're agreed on that, we can begin fine-tuning the seondary sources cite. --dab(𒁳)07:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
STRAWMAN. Genetic makeup is NOT the only perspective from which to discuss the ethnic groups of Europe, I have personally come with multiple suggestions of important discussions of ethnicity in Europe. Alun is only saying that in so far as genetic material is used in this article it should be used in a way that relates to ethnicity - not one that just describes the genetic material found in Europe. I am about to leave on a three day holiday trip without internet acces so I will be unable to participate in further discussion at this point, but I trust it that I have made my concerns sufficiently clear (at Talk: Ethnic groups and on this page) and that they will be taken into account when forming consensus.·Maunus·ƛ·08:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
you forgot the colon:
STRAWMAN: Genetic makeup is NOT the only perspective from which to discuss the ethnic groups of Europe
I never said it was. The section in question is one of half a dozen, and not the most important one at all. I have been faced with strawman misrepresentations of my position throughout this discussion (although not coming from Maunus), and I find it wryly ironic to be accused of putting up strawmen myself now. --dab(𒁳)08:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
The thing is that you are arguing against something noone is saying and accusing your opponents of hidden motives that they don't actually advocate. Noone is saying that ethnicity or ethnic groups should be treated completely separate from physical and biological material but what we are saying is that physical and genetic material should be used where it relates directly to ethnicit, and as Alun has shown none of the material in that sections relates the genetic facts to ethnicity in any way. If it did so it could for example use the assertion of the apparent homogeneity of european genes to conclude that European ethnic groups have an especially close relation to eachother and that they have a long history of coexistence and intermarriage - but it doesn't draw those conclusions. Either because they are not really supported by the material or because the material from which the quotes come doesn't deal with ethnicity at all but only with population genetics. ·Maunus·ƛ·08:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
good. So you agree we should keep the section, and we can now discuss its content.
at Talk:Ethnicity you yourself have cited sources stating that "ethnicity" and "race" overlap and are problematic to keep apart. I have cited multiple definitions of the term "ethnicity" that include race as one (one, just one out of three or four) components. Guess what, this section is dedicated to discussing that aspect of "ethnicity". Your claims that "genetic facts" do not relate to "ethnicity" are rather dubious in the light of this. No, it doesn't concern individual ethnicities. The genetic makeup of Albanians should, of course, be discussed at Albanians, not here. What we should give here instead is the genetic makeup and physical appearance of the European population as a whole. Do you dispute that there is such a term as "Ethnic European" that refers to such commonalities?
Why the hell should it be problematic to discuss (a) the commonalities and (b) the substructure of the genetic makeup of the populations of Europe? I still fail to see why we are having this discussion. Alun was alleging that it was invalid (synthesis) and irrelevant (offtopic) at the same time. Which is it? Am I trying to "misrepresent science"? Or am I discussing a valid topic, but at the wrong place? I might find the latter arguable, if you adopt a very narrow, postmodernist social sciences, concept of "ethnicity". In this case we should just split the article into, say European populations and list of European ethic groups. I will be more than happy to agree to such a split if it will allow me discuss the topic in peace from constant distractions and interruptions with topics of social science I never touched upon in the first place. Why can't you just discuss your social discourse of "defining ethnicity" in peace, and let me document population genetics, in peace. I never the social sciences stuff was offtopic just because I wasn't into discussing it. dab(𒁳)08:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the section is not necessarily irrelevant yes, but I find that in its currenstate it does not demonstrate its relevance. I am not saying that genetic facts do not relate to ethnicity - I say that they do not relate directly. This means that in order for them to relate to ethnicity they should be trying to say something about ethnicity not someting about genetic material of populations. If you want to make claims about the European population as a whole then I believe that it should first be demonstrated that there is a european ethnicity (something I don't see the article do in its current form although that would be highly relevant) and in this way justify that it makes any sense to talk about what they look like. If the meaning of this section is to explain that europeans are whiteskinned then I would dispute that this has anything to do with ethnicity - and say that it instead has to do with what we agreed was "neolotihic ancestry", in Europe of today people have many colours of skin without being less european for it. As for your "why the hell ..." the answer is in your question it is not problematic to discuss the commonalities and substructures of the genetic markup of Europe - but it IS the wrong place to do it UNLESS it is clearly demonstrated that it relates to the construction of ethnic boundaries in european populations. I think that probably a good idea would be to make a separate article on European population genetics and move the content there - while retaining a section here that relates the genetic material explicitly to ethnicity. Then you would also be free from our annoying interruptions. You never said that the social science stuff was off topic when dealing with ethnicity because it isn't - we also don't say that population genetics is off topic... unless it is.·Maunus·ƛ·08:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi dab, I'm going to reply to you point by point for clarity:
Your agenda, then, is to separate all articles dealing with ethnicity completely from all articles dealing with physical appearance or genetic origin completely from all articles dealing with physical appearance or genetic origin for the simple reason that you're interested in social anthropology but not in physical anthropology. I am speechless.
My "agenda" as it stands is to be certain that the sources we cite are actually relevant to the article and actually make the claims we ascribe to them. The sources cited in this section do not discuss ethnicity or ethnic groups, they discuss the genetics of Europe, this article is not about the genetics of Europe, it is about European ethnic groups. If we want to discuss the genetics of European ethnic groups, then let's use sources that discuss the specific genetics of specific ethnic groups. So far all we have are sources that discuss the genetics of Europe as a whole. Largely ethnicity is not relevant to physical anthropology and genetics, I don't know of any physical anthropologist or geneticists who would claim that they can identify members of a specific ethnic group entirely by their genetics or physical anthropology, these articles should not be separated due to the "agenda" of any editor, but simply because no academics that I know of have ever equated any specific genetic or physical characteristics to any specific ethnic groups. I suggest that it would be appropriate to introduce sources relevant to the genetics of European ethnic groups (if any such sources exist) rather than sources that discuss the genetic structure of Europe that make no reference to ethnic groups or ethnicity at all. A population as defined by population genetics is not the same as an ethnic group.
Guess what, this section is dedicated to discussing that aspect of "ethnicity". Your claims that "genetic facts" do not relate to "ethnicity" are rather dubious in the light of this.
The sources cited do not make this claim, non mention either "race" or "ethnicity", they only discuss the distribution of genetic diversity within Europe. Claiming that these sources are included to cover the so called "overlap" between "race" and ethnicity is to make claims for these sources that these sources do not make and do not support. provide evidence from these sources that this is indeed what they do. The distribution of genetic diversity in any extant human populations has got very little to do with "race" and geneticists avoid using terms like "race" and "ethnicity" when they write papers about human genetic variation, because they know that these terms are not relevant to human genetic variation.
Why the hell should it be problematic to discuss (a) the commonalities and (b) the substructure of the genetic makeup of the populations of Europe?
Well on Misplaced Pages generally it should not be problematic. In this article it is problematic for the simple reason that this article is not about either (a) the commonalities or (b) the substructure of genetic makeup of the populations of Europe. It is about the ethnic groups of Europe isn't it? None of the papers cited discuss the ethnic groups of Europe, they just discuss the distribution of variation in Europe. Some don't even do that, one is discussing a model to explain a demic diffusion in the neolithic, how is this relevant to ethnic groups?
Alun was alleging that it was invalid (synthesis) and irrelevant (offtopic) at the same time. Which is it?
Both, these are not mutually exclusive claims.
Or am I discussing a valid topic, but at the wrong place?
Yes.
if you adopt a very narrow, postmodernist social sciences, concept of "ethnicity".
I don't know how you conceive ethnicity dab, but my conception is that it has got nothing to do with genetics, furthermore it is irrelevant what you or I think is the conception of ethnicity. None of the genetic sources cited claim that their work defines any ethnic group from a genetic point of view, as such what is the relevance of the sources? You are adding a synthesis because you are making claims for the sources that they themselves do not make. Furthermore genetic substructure in Europe is not distributed by "ethnic group", as you appear to be claiming, and non of the papers cited claim that it is, most claim that substructure is distributed by geography and not by ethnicity. But here you are claiming the opposite to what your sources claim. Then you make quite offensive comments about the "motives" of other editors. If you found some sources that specifically equate ethnicity to genetics/physical anthropology, then you would have a good point, so far though all we have is a synthesis on your part that makes claims about genetics and ethnicity that the sources do not support.
let me document population genetics
This article is not about population genetics. Besides even the population genetics claims for these sources is incorrect (see my comments above), the claims in the article as they stand are not supported by the papers, I'd guess that whoever wrote these sections either didn't read the sources or didn't understand them.
I never the social sciences stuff was offtopic just because I wasn't into discussing it.
I don't quite know what you mean by this. Something is off topic if it is not discussing the subject of the article. Any paper that discusses European ethnic groups is on topic. Any paper that discusses the genetics distribution of variation within Europe is only on topic for this article if it is specifically referring to ethnic groups and their genetic composition, it is not on topic if it is discussing neolithic demic diffusion, or clustering analyses, because these are not about ethnic groups, they are about genetic substructure, and the papers do not claim that they are discussing the genetics of ethnicity.
I have made some specific criticisms of the content in this section above, but you have chosen to ignore these criticisms, preferring instead to make comments about editors rather than content. I suggest that you pay attention to my specific concerns about the content of this section so we can move forward, rather than this degenerating into impugning other editors "agenda". Alun (talk) 11:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Two obviously very knowledgable editors find some material extremely problematic, both in its accuracy and relevance. I believe that this material should be removed. dab has interpreted these criticisms thusly: "You are essentially arguing that this is the List of ethnic groups of Europe article ... " I assume he means that all that would be left is a list, not a real article. I do not see how he can rationally sustain this claim. There is much more to be done to make this a good article on European ethnic groups, and it certainly wouldn't be a list. As even dab has agreed, ethnicity is often largely about language and customs - we can add information about the language and customs of each ethnic group. Much research suggests that ethnicity is a kind of identity that can change over time; moreover, the salience of ethnicity can change over time - we should add more information about how ethnicity has become more or less important over time, and how ethnic identities have changed over time. Finally, much research suggests that ethnic identity is actualized through ethnic boundaries i.e. the boundary between two groups - we can discuss changing boundaries, how boundaries may come into being or disappear. I do not think anyone is arguing that this just be a list, aside from dab. Alun, Maunus, are either of you arguing that this should just be a list? I am not. Slrubenstein | Talk11:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I support the removal of this section. On the other hand I don't see any reason why a link to Genetic history of Europe (where this information correctly belongs) should not be included in the "See Also" section. I don't think this article is a simple list, nor that it necessarily should be. But even if it were, I don't understand why that should necessarily be a problem if it reflected the consensus of the community. Is there supposed to something innately "bad" about list articles? Either way, I'm more interested that articles that discuss human population genetics remain on topic and accurately reflect the the scientific content any sources they use. Alun (talk) 12:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
By the way, if it is not crystal clear to everyone, I state explicitly: I have no opposition at all to a section on "ethnicity and genetics" as long as the section does not violate WP:NOR and presents an account of research that is specifically and explicitly on ethnicity and genetics. For example, here are two articles on just this topic:
Koertvelyessy, TA and MT Nettleship 1996 Ethnicity and mating structure in Southwestern Hungary. Rivista di Antropologia (Roma) 74:45-53
Koertvelyessy, T 1995 Etnicity, isonymic relationships, and biological distance in Northeastern Hungary. Homo 46/1:1-9.
And there are other articles like them. The research is sound, the conclusions well-informed. Unfortunately my library does not subscribe to these journals but my point is that there are reliable sources that discuss ethnicity and genetics in Europeand I have no objection to providing an accurate account of such research in an appropriate section of this article. Slrubenstein | Talk13:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
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. PR08:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
-ise being "more European" than -ize is a myth. It depends on where you look. See -ize. frites isn't English, be reasonable. --dab(𒁳)21:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Malta
I made a change in the historical populations list to reflect Maltese' uniquely Semitic European heritage: this has been made to refer to 'creoloid' mixing. While I don't have a problem with this as such, it backs up an (erroneous?) similar claim on the Maltese language talkpage. Which prompted my doubts. Feedback? Cheers, The roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
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 (r=0.71 for PC1 versus latitude; r=0.72 for PC2 versus longitude; after rotation, r=0.77 for ‘north–south’ in PC-space versus latitude, and r=.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) Naturedoi:10.1038/nature07331. Alun (talk) 09:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Reversion by Mathsci
This 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 .
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)
In 2006, an autosomal analysis comparing samples from various European populations concluded that “there is a consistent and reproducible distinction between ‘northern’ and ‘southern’ European population groups”.
Measuring European Population Stratification using Microarray Genotype Data
.svg){kind=small}
Ankara
Kırklareli
Edirne
Tekirdağ
Çanakkale
Balıkesir
Bursa
Yalova
Istanbul
Kocaeli
Sakarya
Düzce
Zonguldak
Bolu
Bilecik
Eskişehir
Kütahya
Manisa
İzmir
Aydın
Muğla
Denizli
Burdur
Uşak
Afyonkarahisar
Isparta
Antalya
Konya
Mersin
Karaman
Aksaray
Kırşehir
Kırıkkale
Çankırı
Karabük
Bartın
Kastamonu
Sinop
Çorum
Yozgat
Nevşehir
Niğde
Adana
Hatay
Osmaniye
K. Maraş
Kayseri
Sivas
Tokat
Amasya
Samsun
Ordu
Giresun
Erzincan
Malatya
Gaziantep
Kilis
Şanlıurfa
Adıyaman
Gümüşhane
Trabzon
Rize
Bayburt
Erzurum
Artvin
Ardahan
Kars
Ağrı
Iğdır
Tunceli
Elazığ
Diyarbakır
Mardin
Batman
Siirt
Şırnak
Bitlis
Bingöl
Muş
Van
Hakkâri
Done --
