![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 26 February 2017. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What a confuse article. Emigration from Europe isn't what is described here; Germany, Italy, or Ireland had no colonial empires in America, and yet there was very intense emigration from these countries to the Americas. Ninguém ( talk) 23:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Can anyone help this article and give references as to the total population size around the world that have European descent. The European diaspora is absolutely massive and even though this has a good title I'm not sure if this should be called emigration from Europe..but called European diaspora..as the examples below are all diasporas. There is a page called European people but it's only a link page...that would be another article ofcourse.
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Emigration from Europe's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "CIA":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
My simple question is: WHAT ABOUT NEW FRANCE IN NORTH AMERICA, the French Canadians or Quebecois who represent around 8 millions of French-speaking people in the Province of Quebec...? What about Acadia in New Brunswick, Louisiana, the Metis and the Haitian...? Very bad article! And the Americans finding their family roots in French Canada? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.51.152 ( talk) 09:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
This doesn't include Romans who ruled over most of southern Europe, Middle East and North Africa and had Romans in them ruling over the provinces.
It also doesn't include the Tocharian people who were a European people that settled in China.
Also no reference to the lost legions of Rome who later migrated to Central Asia to the village in Central China called Lichien.
Also, Greeks have genetic legacy on the Pashtun people of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Possibly Kalaash do too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zibran 2 ( talk • contribs) 09:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Because Jews have their own Jewish diaspora, Armenians have their own Armenian diaspora, and both groups, according to many studies found on their pages, are inherently Middle Eastern, or West Asian, it occurs to me that neither Jews nor Armenians belong on this page, or associated with any of its Category links.
What do you all think? Jeffgr9 ( talk) 05:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
On the fourth hand, such a discussion on other articles already exists—On the Talk page for "Category:American people of Jewish descent," for example: /info/en/?search=Category_talk:American_people_of_Jewish_descent#Americans_of_Southwest_Asian_Descent Furthermore, not every Jewish person is religious, many are secular, or simply just ethnoculturally Jewish (they may keep certain customs, i.e. performing social justice/charity work (see also Tikkun olam) in solidarity with other groups as an oppressed people, but not necessarily relating to a belief in G-d). So to categorize Jews solely as a religion proves erroneous. We have reached an agreement that Jews, being an Ethnocultural group population originating in the Middle East, can not be included in this article, and the categories attached, as this article pertains to the *original*, white peoples of Europe, of which Jews——as proven by the Spanish Inquisition, Pogroms, the Holocaust, and more persecutions by ethnic Europeans——clearly do not represent. Jeffgr9 ( talk) 16:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
In addition, the History of the Jews in Europe page already explains some of the ways in which Jews "migrated" to Europe, which also proves how Jews cannot be a part of the European diaspora, especially on this website. Jeffgr9 ( talk) 16:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry if my editing looked suspicious before, but I don't know how to make an account here (if anybody could help with that, I'd appreciate it). All of that aside, I don't think they should stay on this article, because it seems to refer exclusively to ethnic European diasporas, meaning populations whose ethnogenesis occurred in Europe. European Jews belong to the larger Jewish diaspora, which is a Middle Eastern one. Including them here would imply that they are indigenous to Europe, which is not only not true, but an increasingly popular argument among antisemites. And that's something I'd rather not encourage. As for the blue eyes comment, there are many Middle Eastern populations have blue eyes as well. And our culture is pretty much a hybrid of traditional Jewish culture and the cultures of populations we came into contact with. The examples you've mentioned are interesting, but so long as they belong to the Jewish community and identify as such, they are part of the Jewish diaspora (and thus Middle Eastern). If these Jews individually identify as Russians, Ukrainians, or what have you, they would belong to European diasporas on account of them self-identifying as members of ethnic groups indigenous to Europe (e.g. Russians and Ukrainians). But if they also self-identify as Jews and belong to the Jewish community, they are also part of a Middle Eastern diaspora. It's possible to belong to more than one diaspora, obviously. However, including European Jews qua Jews on this article is inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4C00:4D00:64E4:94E3:2A33:6D81 ( talk) 00:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Since this article is dealing with the diasporas of people of European origin, those who were in a diaspora that took them TO Europe should not be included. By grouping them as "European", you paint a false picture of their origin. I think the distinction that some people are failing to recognize is that other groups (Germans, etc) may have some origins outside of Europe, but the people in question assimilated, and blended into the society they became part of in Europe. This involved both intermarriage, leading to genetic mixing, and more importantly, adopting the culture of the local people, or blending the cultures. Jews, by way of contrast, amintained their own culture within the larger society. They also had low rates of intermarriage. And when they did,, those who married out and whose spouses did not convert were no longer considered part of the Jewish community. Outsiders who convert to Judaism are considered part of the Jewish people, and tend to marry into the existing population, so their descendants still show a majority of Middle Eastern genes. More importantly, they assimilate into the Jewish culture, not the other way around. PA Math Prof ( talk) 14:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Now that I have an account (see my post above), I'd like to reiterate my earlier position. I agree with most of the other editors in here that it is problematic to put Jews on this article. We must remember that the term "diaspora" refers to the scattering of a population from its respective homeland. This is why any Jew living outside of Israel (it hardly needs pointing out, but Israel is not in Europe) is considered to be part of the 'Jewish diaspora', and European Jews are certainly no exception (unless one believes in the oft-repeated, but thoroughly discredited canard about European Jews being "converts" or "fakes" with no connection to the Israelites). By listing any type of Jews on here, you are suggesting that their homeland is actually in Europe, not the Middle East. Individual Jewish persons in Europe, or with recent European ancestry, identifying as European isn't beyond the pale by any means, but such an inclusion would be on account of their personal identification with their host countries, not by virtue of being Jews who inhabited Europe at one point or another. Any possible group they would identify with is already listed on here, so it's not necessary (and is perhaps rather superfluous) to list Jews on this article. Artsakhforever ( talk) 20:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artsakhforever ( talk • contribs) 19:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
References
Xx236 ( talk) 06:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I noticed that "Jewish" and "Muslim" were not hyperlinked. And "other" already existed to mean "Other Religions." So, in style of this entire page, I labeled the add-on groups (those added after Christianity and "Other Religions" in the "Religion" section) as "Non-European Ethnocultural affiliations:" because those groups (i.e. Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc.) did not begin in Europe—but, rather, Europeans (e.g. or "white people") have and may join those groups and further the concept of the European diaspora into the "non-white" groups—most especially backed up by the above laws that the Roman Empire constituted, as well as the laws of the individual non-European Ethnocultural groups. Jeffgr9 ( talk) 23:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
The list is wrong brazil have 1700000 people with white ancestry according to the source because parda category is about mixed people between black and white. The list also have a similar problem with mexico. Being mixed don't eliminate the white acensetry of people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.230.73.19 ( talk) 18:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Map shows Armenia, Israel etc. but why not Turkey? 2003:6:1136:2212:4D88:A311:22FD:2D45 ( talk) 13:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Are there any reliable sources that refer to a "European diaspora", or is this entire article an example of synthesis? — MShabazz Talk/ Stalk 12:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Why not just change the name of the article to one that satisfies all the references and sources given in the article..it has taken a long time to gather all the information and to just suggest to get rid of it is "lazy"... nobody would say this about an African diaspora...there certainly is a European component around the world and the sources attest to that.. this article was named "Emigration from Europe"..now that makes sense... Puertorico1 ( talk)
If that title doesn't satisfy the scope of the article and references given..then there needs to have a title re-think, that's all. Surely we can come up wirh one, like many other articles. Most of the information is sourced but some parts do need help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.147.94 ( talk) 21:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
"after 1890 never intended to remain permanen tly and returned to their home country. Temporary movements in search of higher wages often over long distances and across frontiers, was an established tradition in many of the regions from which the new immigrants were drawn. Net immigration in Argentina over the period 1881-1930 reached 3.8 million. Uruguay attracted nearly 600,000 immigrants during th e same period. More or less the same number remained in Cuba between 1902 and 1930. Whereas 200,000 people went to Chile only 25,000 immigrants en tered Paraguay and Mexico"
Why Chle has only 60.000??? according the article, 200,000 went to Chile...and only 25.000 in Mexico and Paraguay— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
138.36.253.9 (
talk)
19:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article European diaspora is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European diaspora until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Prisencolin ( talk) 06:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Immigration to the United States which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 22:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Are the dominant ethnic groups that constitute these two regions (Turks, Georgians, Armenians, Azerbaijanis, Kurds) ethnically Europeans? I know that the former four are frequently classified as European ethnicities while the latter is not, which I don't know why. Kurds share similarities to the four aforementioned groups in terms of culture and genetics, so why are they classified as fully Asian while the other four are classified as European? But that isn't my point. I want to know if the five ethnicities that I brought up in the first place should be considered ethnically European, and evidence to why they should be considered European. Because Anatolia and South Caucasus countries, despite being geographically located outside of Europe, are part of European organizations like UEFA and Eurovision, but does that mean they're truly European countries? Epitome of Creativity ( talk) 01:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Chule87 ( talk · contribs) You need to give a page number for your source stating that 24 000 000 Turks are ethnically Europeans. This article is also about people identifying with exclusive European descent, and Turks are not considered a European ethnic group. Pastore Barracuda ( talk) 10:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Newfoundland did not become part of Canada until 1949, and therefore its population and immigrants would not be included in Canadian figures prior to 1949. Is there any source anyone can find that will give Newfoundland data? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 05:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Where does the "24,000,000 people of European descent" figure for Turkey come from? Turkey has around 80,000,000 people, with about 60,000,000 citizens being ethnic Turks. Does 24,000,000 represent the number of ethnic Turks with Balkan ancestry, whose ancestors fled the Balkans (Serbia, Romania, Greece) after the First World War? 2601:883:4201:2720:D0CB:CE5:B03:3B67 ( talk) 01:26, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
The entry for Canada in the infobox gives a figure of 25,111,695, from a Stats Can publication from the 2011 census. Using that number is a significant overcount, if the purpose of the article is to identify Canadians of European ancestry. The 2011 Stats Can document distinguishes between "Non-immigrants" and "Immigrants", with "Non-immigrants" being defined as "a person who is a Canadian citizen by birth." That definition says nothing about the national origins of the "Non-immigrants", and certainly does not mean that the number of 25,111,695 represents European immigrants. For example, if a couple immigrates to Canada from China and then has a child, that child will be a 'non-immigrant" for the purposes of the Stats Can numbers, but will not be a non-immigrant of European origin. Similarly, individuals of First Nations and Inuit background will be included in the "non-immigrant" category by Stats Can, but would not be of European origin. Using this particular number of 25,111,695 is misleading.
Note 2 is similarly misleading, since it says that the totals are based on "official census results", but no-where in this article is there a Stats Can number citation given for 25,111,695 being the number of Canadians of European origin, other than this misleading one. The discussion under "Canada" uses a different number, but then qualifies it by saying it is an "undercount". Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 19:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
There is a disagreement on the use of the number 19,600,000 as the total of Australians of European descent in the infobox. I think it's original research; John beta disagrees. The source currently given for this figure is "Leading for Change", an Australian study of demographic representation in the upper levels of private leadership. Nowhere that I've been able to find does this study give the number of 19,600,000, which it is being cited in support of. That's why I've reverted it.
John beta, in his revert of my revert, relies on the estimates that the report gives: that 58% of Australians are of Anglo-Celtic background, 18% are of other European background, and states "adding two figures (58% + 18%) and performing a simple calculation (76% x total population) does not constitute "original research" ". There are a few problems with this.
First, nowhere in the Report does it give a total population of Australia. John beta is therefore using a population figure from some source other than the cited source, and combining the two by a mathematical calculation. However, that is exactly what is not allowed under the Original Research rule: it is Synthesis of published material:
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here.
Second, we don't know the source of the total Australia population John beta is using. Is it the official Australian census? Don't know. Is it for the same year as the demographic estimates given in the study cited? Don't know. Are the statistical methodologies used in the study cited, and the source for the total population, consistent with each other, so they together provide a reliable source? Don't know.
Third, as a result of the lack of data as to the source of the total population used by John beta, we don't even know what the number was that John beta used to multiply against the 76% rate. By a reverse calculation, the number appears to be 25,789,473, but that is nowhere stated in the source report, to support the number of 19,600,000.
Fourth, the report itself highlights that official statistics on the issue of ethnic origins of Australians are hard to come by, which it states at p. 07:
Providing definitive statistics about the cultural diversity of the Australian population is a difficult task. There are no official statistics on the ethnic or cultural composition of the population. The Australian Bureau of Statistics, through the Census, collects data on people’s place of birth, languages spoken at home, and self-identified ancestry. However, none of these variables alone provide a satisfactory measure of cultural diversity.
Given this lack of official data, and the fact that the authors of the report repeatedly refer to their demographic percentages as "estimates", it is very difficult to rely on those estimates, which have no official backing, and multiply them against a total population source of unknown provenance.
Overall, I think that the number of 19,600,000 is both original research and not a reliable source, and therefore have reverted it. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 14:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
This article uses the term "full European ancestry" as part of its baseline analysis, as the lead line in the infobox, and in the map later on. As well, the population numbers cited seem to trend towards being about white people in the various countries. In my opinion that is a racist premise. If this article is truly about European emigration to other parts of the world and its impact, then there is no reason to tie the analysis only to people of "full European ancestry." That is implicitly saying that only those who have "full European ancestry" (whatever that is) qualify as part of the subject matter of this article. Other people who can trace their ancestry to Europe, but aren't of "full" European ancestry don't count as part of the analysis of European ancestry. In other words, this article is just about white people. -- Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 18:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
The same dispute about original research that came up above in relation to the number for Australia has now come up with respect to the figure given for Mexico's European population in the infobox, this time between me and Editor Pob3qu3. I'm pinging @ Pob3qu3:, so that we can discuss the issue here.
The number given in the infobox for Mexico is 59,000,000. There are four citations given in support of that number. None of the four articles given in those four citations include that number of 59,000,000.
Editor Pob3qu3 states in their edit notes that it is acceptable to take some of the percentages (unspecified) from those articles, multiply them against some (unknown) population figure, and that's sufficient for a reliable cite.
My position is that type of editor calculation fails the basic requirement for Wikipedia:Verifiability. A reader following those cites will not find the number 59,000,000, will not know how that number was derived, and will not know what population number was used to derive that number of 59,000,000.
I'll repeat the quotation from the Wiki Guide to No Original Research, which I quoted above in the Australia section. That type of combining two different numbers from different sources is exactly what is not allowed under the Original Research rule: Synthesis of published material:
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here.
That same concern arises here. In their edit note, Editor Pob3qu3 says that the articles "... do mention percentages (from which said number can be easily calculated)." They don't say what methodology they are using to perform that calculation. They don't say which percentages they are using from the articles. They don't say what base population number they are using for that calculation. They don't say the source of that base number.
A reader who wants to verify the population number in the infobox by checking the citation is left unable to do so, which defeats the purpose of the citation and goes contrary to the Wikipedia:Core content policies.
That's why I've marked that population number, and many others in the infobox, as "failed verification" and "original research". Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 21:39, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Australia according 2016 Census in Australia was (76% European or 17.8 million people) and 24% others and not 23.5 million Ostrich2Emperor ( talk) 15:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 26 February 2017. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What a confuse article. Emigration from Europe isn't what is described here; Germany, Italy, or Ireland had no colonial empires in America, and yet there was very intense emigration from these countries to the Americas. Ninguém ( talk) 23:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Can anyone help this article and give references as to the total population size around the world that have European descent. The European diaspora is absolutely massive and even though this has a good title I'm not sure if this should be called emigration from Europe..but called European diaspora..as the examples below are all diasporas. There is a page called European people but it's only a link page...that would be another article ofcourse.
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Emigration from Europe's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "CIA":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
My simple question is: WHAT ABOUT NEW FRANCE IN NORTH AMERICA, the French Canadians or Quebecois who represent around 8 millions of French-speaking people in the Province of Quebec...? What about Acadia in New Brunswick, Louisiana, the Metis and the Haitian...? Very bad article! And the Americans finding their family roots in French Canada? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.51.152 ( talk) 09:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
This doesn't include Romans who ruled over most of southern Europe, Middle East and North Africa and had Romans in them ruling over the provinces.
It also doesn't include the Tocharian people who were a European people that settled in China.
Also no reference to the lost legions of Rome who later migrated to Central Asia to the village in Central China called Lichien.
Also, Greeks have genetic legacy on the Pashtun people of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Possibly Kalaash do too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zibran 2 ( talk • contribs) 09:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Because Jews have their own Jewish diaspora, Armenians have their own Armenian diaspora, and both groups, according to many studies found on their pages, are inherently Middle Eastern, or West Asian, it occurs to me that neither Jews nor Armenians belong on this page, or associated with any of its Category links.
What do you all think? Jeffgr9 ( talk) 05:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
On the fourth hand, such a discussion on other articles already exists—On the Talk page for "Category:American people of Jewish descent," for example: /info/en/?search=Category_talk:American_people_of_Jewish_descent#Americans_of_Southwest_Asian_Descent Furthermore, not every Jewish person is religious, many are secular, or simply just ethnoculturally Jewish (they may keep certain customs, i.e. performing social justice/charity work (see also Tikkun olam) in solidarity with other groups as an oppressed people, but not necessarily relating to a belief in G-d). So to categorize Jews solely as a religion proves erroneous. We have reached an agreement that Jews, being an Ethnocultural group population originating in the Middle East, can not be included in this article, and the categories attached, as this article pertains to the *original*, white peoples of Europe, of which Jews——as proven by the Spanish Inquisition, Pogroms, the Holocaust, and more persecutions by ethnic Europeans——clearly do not represent. Jeffgr9 ( talk) 16:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
In addition, the History of the Jews in Europe page already explains some of the ways in which Jews "migrated" to Europe, which also proves how Jews cannot be a part of the European diaspora, especially on this website. Jeffgr9 ( talk) 16:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry if my editing looked suspicious before, but I don't know how to make an account here (if anybody could help with that, I'd appreciate it). All of that aside, I don't think they should stay on this article, because it seems to refer exclusively to ethnic European diasporas, meaning populations whose ethnogenesis occurred in Europe. European Jews belong to the larger Jewish diaspora, which is a Middle Eastern one. Including them here would imply that they are indigenous to Europe, which is not only not true, but an increasingly popular argument among antisemites. And that's something I'd rather not encourage. As for the blue eyes comment, there are many Middle Eastern populations have blue eyes as well. And our culture is pretty much a hybrid of traditional Jewish culture and the cultures of populations we came into contact with. The examples you've mentioned are interesting, but so long as they belong to the Jewish community and identify as such, they are part of the Jewish diaspora (and thus Middle Eastern). If these Jews individually identify as Russians, Ukrainians, or what have you, they would belong to European diasporas on account of them self-identifying as members of ethnic groups indigenous to Europe (e.g. Russians and Ukrainians). But if they also self-identify as Jews and belong to the Jewish community, they are also part of a Middle Eastern diaspora. It's possible to belong to more than one diaspora, obviously. However, including European Jews qua Jews on this article is inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4C00:4D00:64E4:94E3:2A33:6D81 ( talk) 00:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Since this article is dealing with the diasporas of people of European origin, those who were in a diaspora that took them TO Europe should not be included. By grouping them as "European", you paint a false picture of their origin. I think the distinction that some people are failing to recognize is that other groups (Germans, etc) may have some origins outside of Europe, but the people in question assimilated, and blended into the society they became part of in Europe. This involved both intermarriage, leading to genetic mixing, and more importantly, adopting the culture of the local people, or blending the cultures. Jews, by way of contrast, amintained their own culture within the larger society. They also had low rates of intermarriage. And when they did,, those who married out and whose spouses did not convert were no longer considered part of the Jewish community. Outsiders who convert to Judaism are considered part of the Jewish people, and tend to marry into the existing population, so their descendants still show a majority of Middle Eastern genes. More importantly, they assimilate into the Jewish culture, not the other way around. PA Math Prof ( talk) 14:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Now that I have an account (see my post above), I'd like to reiterate my earlier position. I agree with most of the other editors in here that it is problematic to put Jews on this article. We must remember that the term "diaspora" refers to the scattering of a population from its respective homeland. This is why any Jew living outside of Israel (it hardly needs pointing out, but Israel is not in Europe) is considered to be part of the 'Jewish diaspora', and European Jews are certainly no exception (unless one believes in the oft-repeated, but thoroughly discredited canard about European Jews being "converts" or "fakes" with no connection to the Israelites). By listing any type of Jews on here, you are suggesting that their homeland is actually in Europe, not the Middle East. Individual Jewish persons in Europe, or with recent European ancestry, identifying as European isn't beyond the pale by any means, but such an inclusion would be on account of their personal identification with their host countries, not by virtue of being Jews who inhabited Europe at one point or another. Any possible group they would identify with is already listed on here, so it's not necessary (and is perhaps rather superfluous) to list Jews on this article. Artsakhforever ( talk) 20:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artsakhforever ( talk • contribs) 19:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
References
Xx236 ( talk) 06:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I noticed that "Jewish" and "Muslim" were not hyperlinked. And "other" already existed to mean "Other Religions." So, in style of this entire page, I labeled the add-on groups (those added after Christianity and "Other Religions" in the "Religion" section) as "Non-European Ethnocultural affiliations:" because those groups (i.e. Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc.) did not begin in Europe—but, rather, Europeans (e.g. or "white people") have and may join those groups and further the concept of the European diaspora into the "non-white" groups—most especially backed up by the above laws that the Roman Empire constituted, as well as the laws of the individual non-European Ethnocultural groups. Jeffgr9 ( talk) 23:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
The list is wrong brazil have 1700000 people with white ancestry according to the source because parda category is about mixed people between black and white. The list also have a similar problem with mexico. Being mixed don't eliminate the white acensetry of people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.230.73.19 ( talk) 18:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Map shows Armenia, Israel etc. but why not Turkey? 2003:6:1136:2212:4D88:A311:22FD:2D45 ( talk) 13:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Are there any reliable sources that refer to a "European diaspora", or is this entire article an example of synthesis? — MShabazz Talk/ Stalk 12:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Why not just change the name of the article to one that satisfies all the references and sources given in the article..it has taken a long time to gather all the information and to just suggest to get rid of it is "lazy"... nobody would say this about an African diaspora...there certainly is a European component around the world and the sources attest to that.. this article was named "Emigration from Europe"..now that makes sense... Puertorico1 ( talk)
If that title doesn't satisfy the scope of the article and references given..then there needs to have a title re-think, that's all. Surely we can come up wirh one, like many other articles. Most of the information is sourced but some parts do need help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.147.94 ( talk) 21:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
"after 1890 never intended to remain permanen tly and returned to their home country. Temporary movements in search of higher wages often over long distances and across frontiers, was an established tradition in many of the regions from which the new immigrants were drawn. Net immigration in Argentina over the period 1881-1930 reached 3.8 million. Uruguay attracted nearly 600,000 immigrants during th e same period. More or less the same number remained in Cuba between 1902 and 1930. Whereas 200,000 people went to Chile only 25,000 immigrants en tered Paraguay and Mexico"
Why Chle has only 60.000??? according the article, 200,000 went to Chile...and only 25.000 in Mexico and Paraguay— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
138.36.253.9 (
talk)
19:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article European diaspora is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European diaspora until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Prisencolin ( talk) 06:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Immigration to the United States which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 22:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Are the dominant ethnic groups that constitute these two regions (Turks, Georgians, Armenians, Azerbaijanis, Kurds) ethnically Europeans? I know that the former four are frequently classified as European ethnicities while the latter is not, which I don't know why. Kurds share similarities to the four aforementioned groups in terms of culture and genetics, so why are they classified as fully Asian while the other four are classified as European? But that isn't my point. I want to know if the five ethnicities that I brought up in the first place should be considered ethnically European, and evidence to why they should be considered European. Because Anatolia and South Caucasus countries, despite being geographically located outside of Europe, are part of European organizations like UEFA and Eurovision, but does that mean they're truly European countries? Epitome of Creativity ( talk) 01:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Chule87 ( talk · contribs) You need to give a page number for your source stating that 24 000 000 Turks are ethnically Europeans. This article is also about people identifying with exclusive European descent, and Turks are not considered a European ethnic group. Pastore Barracuda ( talk) 10:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Newfoundland did not become part of Canada until 1949, and therefore its population and immigrants would not be included in Canadian figures prior to 1949. Is there any source anyone can find that will give Newfoundland data? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 05:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Where does the "24,000,000 people of European descent" figure for Turkey come from? Turkey has around 80,000,000 people, with about 60,000,000 citizens being ethnic Turks. Does 24,000,000 represent the number of ethnic Turks with Balkan ancestry, whose ancestors fled the Balkans (Serbia, Romania, Greece) after the First World War? 2601:883:4201:2720:D0CB:CE5:B03:3B67 ( talk) 01:26, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
The entry for Canada in the infobox gives a figure of 25,111,695, from a Stats Can publication from the 2011 census. Using that number is a significant overcount, if the purpose of the article is to identify Canadians of European ancestry. The 2011 Stats Can document distinguishes between "Non-immigrants" and "Immigrants", with "Non-immigrants" being defined as "a person who is a Canadian citizen by birth." That definition says nothing about the national origins of the "Non-immigrants", and certainly does not mean that the number of 25,111,695 represents European immigrants. For example, if a couple immigrates to Canada from China and then has a child, that child will be a 'non-immigrant" for the purposes of the Stats Can numbers, but will not be a non-immigrant of European origin. Similarly, individuals of First Nations and Inuit background will be included in the "non-immigrant" category by Stats Can, but would not be of European origin. Using this particular number of 25,111,695 is misleading.
Note 2 is similarly misleading, since it says that the totals are based on "official census results", but no-where in this article is there a Stats Can number citation given for 25,111,695 being the number of Canadians of European origin, other than this misleading one. The discussion under "Canada" uses a different number, but then qualifies it by saying it is an "undercount". Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 19:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
There is a disagreement on the use of the number 19,600,000 as the total of Australians of European descent in the infobox. I think it's original research; John beta disagrees. The source currently given for this figure is "Leading for Change", an Australian study of demographic representation in the upper levels of private leadership. Nowhere that I've been able to find does this study give the number of 19,600,000, which it is being cited in support of. That's why I've reverted it.
John beta, in his revert of my revert, relies on the estimates that the report gives: that 58% of Australians are of Anglo-Celtic background, 18% are of other European background, and states "adding two figures (58% + 18%) and performing a simple calculation (76% x total population) does not constitute "original research" ". There are a few problems with this.
First, nowhere in the Report does it give a total population of Australia. John beta is therefore using a population figure from some source other than the cited source, and combining the two by a mathematical calculation. However, that is exactly what is not allowed under the Original Research rule: it is Synthesis of published material:
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here.
Second, we don't know the source of the total Australia population John beta is using. Is it the official Australian census? Don't know. Is it for the same year as the demographic estimates given in the study cited? Don't know. Are the statistical methodologies used in the study cited, and the source for the total population, consistent with each other, so they together provide a reliable source? Don't know.
Third, as a result of the lack of data as to the source of the total population used by John beta, we don't even know what the number was that John beta used to multiply against the 76% rate. By a reverse calculation, the number appears to be 25,789,473, but that is nowhere stated in the source report, to support the number of 19,600,000.
Fourth, the report itself highlights that official statistics on the issue of ethnic origins of Australians are hard to come by, which it states at p. 07:
Providing definitive statistics about the cultural diversity of the Australian population is a difficult task. There are no official statistics on the ethnic or cultural composition of the population. The Australian Bureau of Statistics, through the Census, collects data on people’s place of birth, languages spoken at home, and self-identified ancestry. However, none of these variables alone provide a satisfactory measure of cultural diversity.
Given this lack of official data, and the fact that the authors of the report repeatedly refer to their demographic percentages as "estimates", it is very difficult to rely on those estimates, which have no official backing, and multiply them against a total population source of unknown provenance.
Overall, I think that the number of 19,600,000 is both original research and not a reliable source, and therefore have reverted it. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 14:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
This article uses the term "full European ancestry" as part of its baseline analysis, as the lead line in the infobox, and in the map later on. As well, the population numbers cited seem to trend towards being about white people in the various countries. In my opinion that is a racist premise. If this article is truly about European emigration to other parts of the world and its impact, then there is no reason to tie the analysis only to people of "full European ancestry." That is implicitly saying that only those who have "full European ancestry" (whatever that is) qualify as part of the subject matter of this article. Other people who can trace their ancestry to Europe, but aren't of "full" European ancestry don't count as part of the analysis of European ancestry. In other words, this article is just about white people. -- Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 18:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
The same dispute about original research that came up above in relation to the number for Australia has now come up with respect to the figure given for Mexico's European population in the infobox, this time between me and Editor Pob3qu3. I'm pinging @ Pob3qu3:, so that we can discuss the issue here.
The number given in the infobox for Mexico is 59,000,000. There are four citations given in support of that number. None of the four articles given in those four citations include that number of 59,000,000.
Editor Pob3qu3 states in their edit notes that it is acceptable to take some of the percentages (unspecified) from those articles, multiply them against some (unknown) population figure, and that's sufficient for a reliable cite.
My position is that type of editor calculation fails the basic requirement for Wikipedia:Verifiability. A reader following those cites will not find the number 59,000,000, will not know how that number was derived, and will not know what population number was used to derive that number of 59,000,000.
I'll repeat the quotation from the Wiki Guide to No Original Research, which I quoted above in the Australia section. That type of combining two different numbers from different sources is exactly what is not allowed under the Original Research rule: Synthesis of published material:
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here.
That same concern arises here. In their edit note, Editor Pob3qu3 says that the articles "... do mention percentages (from which said number can be easily calculated)." They don't say what methodology they are using to perform that calculation. They don't say which percentages they are using from the articles. They don't say what base population number they are using for that calculation. They don't say the source of that base number.
A reader who wants to verify the population number in the infobox by checking the citation is left unable to do so, which defeats the purpose of the citation and goes contrary to the Wikipedia:Core content policies.
That's why I've marked that population number, and many others in the infobox, as "failed verification" and "original research". Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 21:39, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Australia according 2016 Census in Australia was (76% European or 17.8 million people) and 24% others and not 23.5 million Ostrich2Emperor ( talk) 15:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)