Talk:European emigration

Untitled

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.

Orphaned references in Emigration from Europe

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":

• From China: Field Listing – Disputes – international, CIA World Factbook
• From Morocco: "Morocco". World Factbook. Central Intelligence Agency.
• From Afghanistan: "Background: Afghanistan". The World Factbook. CIA. Retrieved 24 June 2010.

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)

What about...

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)

You are welcome to contribute to the article by adding relevant, referenced, secondary source material. Wikipedia is a not a finished project. It is developed by volunteers and is not compulsory. We welcome new editors to improve articles. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the article isn't complete. There are 50,000 Americans and a sizable population of Europeans in Japan. The number of westerners resident in Japan range between 250,000 to half a million. Japan may be homogeneous (95% ethnic Japanese), but you have to realize a community of European descendants live in Japan. There's some westerners also in South Korea including the 37,500 U.S. armed forces troops based there. The U.S. is a multiracial country, but we're discussing European descendants for the most part. 71.102.1.95 (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Early emigration

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)

Jews included in European diaspora

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)

Unlike other articles, we aren't saying anything about the beginnings of each people here. I think it makes sense to use a looser definition of "European" and include them. Musashiaharon (talk) 06:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand, there is no mention here of peoples with a similar non-native relationship to Europe, like the Romani and European Pakistanis. Since Jews are similarly not native to Europe, they should also not be included. This seems to be a stronger argument than my previous. Musashiaharon (talk) 09:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

On the third hand, Jewish still features in the religion section of the infobox and I'm not going to remove it without a proper discussion as to who should be included and who should not.

I don't believe this to be an issue for local consensus on this article, and suggest that it be taken to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. Musashiaharon, the issue of Romani people has been discussed in multiple venues (see this discussion as an example), and would suggest that the article should be expanded to include them in the article rather than exclude them. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:00, 16 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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

If you care to read the numerous articles on ethnic groups in Europe, you find that many of them were formed as a result of 'migration' from outside of Europe and, as a result of coexistence and intermarriage with indigenous populations over centuries actually formed ethnic groups in Europe. The question of Jewishness is, as you would be aware, a complex one. Perhaps you're able to explain how so many blue-eyed Jews came about. Unless you're prepared to parse DNA data on individual members of any ethnic group in Europe, how can you account for their own ethnic self-perception when any one person would have other ethnic DNA markers in their immediate ancestry without being aware of it themselves? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

You know, part of the problem here is that Jews have always been both part of their surroundings and distinctive from them. So sometimes it seems to be appropriate to include them (full disclosure: us) and sometimes not. In the context of European diaspora, for example, consider the various waves of Jewish migration from Europe to the (now-) United States:

1. Migrations before the American Revolution, and then on about 1820. This group was mostly Sefardic. Part of this migration was a purely Jewish event, including Jews who had migrated to Brazil, and then to other Dutch outposts in the Western Hemisphere. Many of those who came directly from Europe came from the Netherlands, and tended to travel along with others who were looking for religious freedom.
2. Migrations from 1820 or so to 1880 or so. These were mostly German Jews, and they migrated to the US along with many non-Jewish Germans, seeking relief from the revolutions and other strife in the Germanies of the mid-nineteenth century.
3. Migrations from 1880 or so to 1920 or so. This was to a very great degree a Jewish migration from Eastern Europe, but there were more than a few non-Jewish Eastern Europeans who came at the same time to escape the Russian, Austrian and Ottoman Empires.

So it seems to me that the Jewish diaspora during that period is part of the phenomenon of the European diasporas, but also to some extent separate. But it should stay here. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons that I consider that the WP:BURDEN is on any editor wanting to exclude European Jews to provide WP:RS for such an exclusion. Certainly, in more recent times, the post-Soviet exodus from ex-Soviet nation-states includes Jewish Russians and ethnic Russians, Ukrainian Jews and ethic Ukrainians, etc. Such a phenomenon fits in with your descriptions above. While I can only attest to a WP:PPOV experience, I live right in the hub of what was the Jewish community in Melbourne, Australia. The community has expanded at an exponential rate to include all of these Eastern European ethnics... and they function as one entity (which is why this area has become their preferred area of residence). The lingua franca remains Russian, and community and cultural life is mutually inclusive. Self-identification as being Russian or Ukrainian is the prominent feature. Visually, you couldn't begin to guess who is what. What exists at the fore is a continuum of a long standing Eastern European culture. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:23, 18 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)

Hi, IP 2601:647:4C00:4D00:64E4:94E3:2A33:6D81. Not a problem. I've left a welcome message on your IP talk page with a direct link to the sign-up form for an account. I suspect that you have a dynamic IP, therefore, even for a sense of continuity in discussion and identification, it would be far easier for all of us if you created an account. I'll respond to your observations separately. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Iryna's comment about blue eyes was a shocking display of ignorance. Blue eyes are hardly exclusive to native Europeans, as many examples among the Arabs, Yezidi, Samaritans, Druze and Jews show. Even if they were, such admixture could never negate the indigeneity of any people. This complete denial of a people's very identity and the core of their common heritage is nothing short of offensive in the extreme.

Given previous unequal treatment of Jews on Wikipedia, claims that Jews are anything but indigenous to the Middle East should be viewed with utmost suspicion as a relic of a less-openminded era. The level of suspicion leveled against a source denying Jews to be Middle Eastern should be similar to the suspicion applied to Holocaust denial, as both facts have mountains of RS, and their denial is a clear sign of BIAS. For example, this discussion bears clear evidence of previous, racist double standards on Wikipedia when it came to classifying Jews. It's up to us to fix this and ensure that such double standards are never applied again. Musashiaharon (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@Musashiaharon: Please constrain yourself to commenting on content not the contributor. Do not assume bad faith as it reflects badly on you and sets up an antagonistic atmosphere for the purposes of discussion. I did not give the example in order to invoke 'race' wars, but to point out that anomalies in haplogroups are just that: anomalies that are not indicative of the norm. The only purist argument here is yours, so please don't take the discussion down this route. I have most certainly not argued that this the only factor at issue here, but have attempted to nod to various issues of self-identification, cultural identification, etc. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:00, 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)

PA Math Prof, all of this is understood and is why "European Jews" is wikilinked to History of the Jews in Europe. Do these arguments, however, usurp WP:COMMONSENSE in order to exclude Jews as if Jewishness and Jewish culture were something that exists in a vacuum? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Any vacuum within which Jewish culture exists comes from (at least) two sources: Jewish tribal initiations (e.g. how to join the Tribe, which, unlike Christianity, does not apply to just anyone on "faith" alone), and external restrictions on Jewish movement, culture, belief systems, language, and more (e.g. Constantine and his successors' distinguishing between Jews and non-Jews). In fact, it was Constantine and his successors who made some of the most influential, as well as racist (as Jews are an Ethnocultural/Ethnoreligious group for which both their ancestral lineage/heritage and cultural beliefs/customs are intertwined) and painful, contributions to the ethnocultural distancing from and isolation of much of Jewish culture and gene pools:

"Eusebius of Caesarea, The Life of the Blessed Emperor Constantine"

"...it appeared an unworthy thing that in the celebration of this most holy feast we should follow the practice of the Jews, who have impiously defiled their hands with enormous sin, and are, therefore, deservedly afflicted with blindness of soul..."

"Let us then have nothing in common with the detestable Jewish crowd..."(Chapter XVIII)

"...I have enumerated than in any other, but also that it is most fitting that all should unite in desiring that which sound reason appears to demand, and in avoiding all participation in the perjured conduct of the Jews." (Chapter XIX)

"HE also passed a law to the effect that no Christian should remain in servitude to a Jewish master, on the ground that it could not be right that those whom the Saviour had ransomed should be subjected to the yoke of slavery by a people who had slain the prophets and the Lord himself. If any were found hereafter in these circumstances, the slave was to be set at liberty, and the master punished by a fine." (Chapter XXVII)

"ROMAN IMPERIAL LAWS concerning Jews (329-553)" adapted from Amon Linder, The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation (Wayne State Univ. Pr., 1987).:

"Confiscation of the Properties of Christian Converts to Judaism. Emperor Constantius II, July 3, 353":

"If someone shall become Jew from Christian and shall be joined to sacrilegious assemblies, we decree that his property shall be vindicated to the fisc's [state treasury's] dominion once the accusation has been proven."

"Prohibition of Christians from Participating in Pagan, Jewish, and Manichaean Cults. Emperors Gratian, Valentinian II, and Theodosius I, May 21, 383":

"We punish the crime of Christians passing over to altars and temples by abrogating their power to bequeath in testament. Also those who despised the dignity of the Christian religion and name and polluted themselves with the Jewish contagions shall be punished for their disgraceful acts."

"Prohibition on Intermarriage. Emperors Valentinian II, Theodosius I, and Arcadius, March 14, 388":

"No Jew shall take a Christian woman in marriage, neither shall a Christian marry a Jewess. Indeed, if anyone shall commit something of the kind, his crime shall be considered as adultery, with the right to accuse allowed the general public."

"Against God-fearers and Conversion to Judaism. Honorius and Theodosius II, April 1, 409":

"Some people, moreover, oblivious of their and their position, dare to transgress the Law to such an extent, that they force some to cease being Christian and adopt the abominable and vile name of the Jews. Although those that have committed this crime shall be legally condemned under the laws of the ancient emperors, still it does not bother us to admonish repeatedly, that those imbued in the Christian mysteries shall not be forced to adopt Jewish perversity, which is alien to the Roman Empire, and abjure Christianity. And if someone should believe that this be willfully attempted, we order that the instigators of the deed with their accomplices shall sugger the punishment decreed in the former laws, for it is graver than death and crueler than massacre when someone abjures the Christian faith and becomes polluted with the Jewish incredulity. We order, therefore, that [...] and legislate in a decree devoted to God, namely under this instruction, that if someone shall attempt to rise against this law, let him know that he shall be punished for high treason."

"Protection of Synagogues and the Jewish Sabbath. Honorius with Theodosius II, July 26, 412":

"No one shall dare to violate or seize and occupy what are known the names of synagogues and are assuredly frequented by the conventicles of the Jews, for all must retain what is theirs with unmolested right and without harm to religion and cult. Furthermore, since the ancient custom and usage preserved the day of the Sabbath, sacred to the said people of the Jews, we decree that this too must be avoided..."

"Allowing Jewish Converts to Christianity to Return to Judaism. Emperors Honorius and Theodosius II, September 24, 416":

"It had been ordained, in the old laws as well as in ours, that, since we have learned that convicts of the Jewish religion want to join the community of the Church in order to escape their crimes and out of various necessities, this is done not from devotion to the Faith, but as a false simulation. Let the judges of the provinces in which such crimes are said to have been committed know, therefore, that our laws are to be obeyed in such a way that those people whom they shall observe as not adhering to this cult in the constancy of their religious profession, nor to be imbued with the faith and mysteries of the venerable baptism, are to be allowed to return to their own law, for it is of greater benefit to Christianity."

"Exclusion of Jews from Public Service. Emperors Honorius and Theodosius II, March 10, 418":

"As for those, however, who are subject to the perversity of this [Jewish] nation and are proven to have entered the Military Service, we decree that their military belt shall be undone without any hesitation, and that they shall not derive any help or protection from their former merits."

"Policy on Synagogues. Emperors Honorius and Theodosius II, February 15, 423":

"It seems right that in the future none of the synagogues of the Jews shall either be indiscriminately seized or put on fire. If there are some synagogues that were seized or vindicated to churches or indeed consecrated to the venerable mysteries in a recent undertaking and after the law was passed, they shall be given in exchange new places, on which they could build, that is, to the measure of the synagogues taken. Votive offerings as well, if they are in fact seized, shall be returned to them provided that they have not yet been dedicated to the sacred mysteries; but if a venerable consecration does not permit their restitution, they shall be given the exact price for them. No synagogue shall be constructed from now on, and the old ones shall remain in their state."

"Policy toward Jews, Heretics, and Pagans. Emperors Honorius and Theodosius II, April 9, 423":

"However, these Jews shall be condemned to confiscation of property as well as to perpetual exile, If it shall be established that they have circumcised a man of our Faith or ordered him to be circumcised."

"Policy in Regard to Jews, Samaritans, Pagans, and Heretics. Theodosius II and Valentinian III, January 31, 438":

"This law orders in particular that no Jew and no Samaritan shall attain any honor of State government or administration, and that on no account shall they receive the office of Protector, nor by prison guards, lest perchance they dare molest Christians, or even priests, under pretext of any office, and lest the above mentioned who are enemies of our law, presume to condemn people or judge them under our laws. They shall not dare to construct anew any synagogue. For if they shall do so they shall know that this building shall benefit the Catholic Church and the builders of that building shall be fined fifty in gold weight. But let them know that this is allowed them, that they should repair the ruins of their synagogues. This, however, is particularly comprehended in this law, that no Jew shall dare to transfer to his law a Christian, slave or freeborn, by any persuasion whatsoever or be punished by death and loss of property."

"Church Property and Non-Christians From the Code of Justinian, Chapter XIV, March 18, 545":

"...if the Jews shall dare to build a new synagogue, the holy church of the place shall vindicate the buildings to its ownership."

As per the Fiscus Judaicus and the events relating to Roman Imperial persecution of Jews, Austin Simmons analyzes the texts relating to and the inscriptions of the "Franks Casket":

"SECTION 11 - Back Side, Lower Left: Judgement Under Vespasian: There is no escaping Roman authority. We pass now to the scene on the back lower left (fig. 12), the imperial court where father and son sit and lay the dom or 'judgement' upon the Jewish race" (page 32).

"Josephus says that Vespasian 'laid a tribute upon the Jews wheresoever they were, and enjoined every one of them to bring two drachmae every year into the Capitol, as they used to pay the same to the temple at Jerusalem'" (pg. 32).

"Says Josephus: 'and as for the rest of the multitude that were above seventeen years old, he put them into bonds, and sent them to the Egyptian mines. Titus also sent a great number into the provinces, as a present to them, that they might be destroyed upon their theatres, by the sword and by the wild beasts; but those that were under seventeen years of age were sold for slaves... now the number of those that were carried captive during this whole war was collected to be ninety-seven thousand'" (pg. 33).

Roman Historian, Suetonius, described the Roman/European/non-Jewish Imperial persecution of Jews in the form of Emperor Domitian's implementation of the Fiscus Judaicus tax:

“Besides the exactions from others, the poll-tax on the Jews was levied with extreme rigour, both on those who lived after the manner of Jews in the city, without publicly professing themselves to be such [822], and on those who, by (490) concealing their origin, avoided paying the tribute imposed upon that people. I remember, when I was a youth, to have been present [823], when an old man, ninety years of age, had his person exposed to view in a very crowded court, in order that, on inspection, the procurator might satisfy himself whether he was circumcised. [824]."

In bold, some of the most important pieces of legislation and analyses show how the Romans purposefully and institutionally imposed racial/ethnocultural/ethnoreligious—of being Jewish ethnically, culturally, and religiously—restrictions on Jews of all kinds, and aimed to highly distinguish the non-Jewish population from the Jewish population, most especially through their use of their institutionalized form of Christianity.

Please read through the excerpts when you can. They very much apply to how Jews cannot be apart of the European diaspora because, the Europeans—from the British, to the Visogoths, to the Spanish, to the Greeks, to the Nazis, to the Russians, to the Polish, etc. (As well as the Arab/Muslim Empires (Mamluks, Ottomans, etc.) through Islam (see Dhimmi)—effectively dispersed Jews and their Middle Eastern ethnocultural customs from their Middle Eastern homeland (The Land of Israel, formerly known as Canaan), because Jews were and continue to remain not European and not Arab/Muslim. As opposed to the European diaspora, which entails ethnic Europeans (non-Middle Eastern, non-South Asian, non-Black, non-East Asian, non-Latino, etc. peoples) emigrating from Europe (the differences about which Iryna Harpy (talk) noted herself above) and not on the basis that they were not racially/ethnoculturally European/Christian. Jeffgr9 (talk) 09:02, 19 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)

I do take arguments for exclusion here as being valid. To cut to the chase, however, I throw my hat in with StevenJ81: exclusion is seriously politically problematic. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

StevenJ81 's argument was that ethnic Jews migrated out of Europe on multiple occasions, we have addressed the reasons why they migrated, many of which relate to how Europeans did and still do not consider Jews as "ethnic" Europeans. Therefore, it seems to me that with 4 out of 6 editors, 4 of which who have given vast and specific cited content supporting the argument that the Jewish diaspora is primarily a Middle Eastern diaspora and not European, the Jewish diaspora should no longer exist on this Wikipedia page of European diaspora. Jeffgr9 (talk) 01:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Also—at the very least in the United States—During and before 1910, the United States Congress passed a bill that defined "Armenians, Assyrians, and Jews" as "Asiatics," while still approving their claims to citizenship. The declaration, while not rescinding their citizenship, affirmed the ethnic origins and identities of Armenians, Assyrians, and Jews as "non-white." For Jews in particular, this idea remains quite frequent throughout history and all over the globe—the European and Arab nations have some points said they "accepted" Jews, but in the end, they used Jews as scapegoats, appointing them into high positions—particularly in handling the nations' finances—so that the poorer classes will associate their own social standings and misfortune with the Jews instead of with the dominant upper class. (See Court Jew, Dreyfus affair, and New World Order (conspiracy theory)).

Thus, because the majority population of Jews belong to their own Diaspora and because the dominant European and Arab classes appointed to certain Jews specific positions of power to create both the illusion of Ethnoreligious group Ethnocultural acceptance of the Jews, and the illusion of Jews' reaching higher statuses to the lower classes, Jews, as well as other similar oppressed ethnically foreign minority groups of Europe, i.e. the Romani (South Asia) and the Armenians (West Asia), should have no inclusion on this page, which is for "white people ancestry," and not "Middle Eastern/North African/South Asian ancestry." If anything, the page should have a reference to how these people faced much persecution (more than any ethnically European group) for being considered "non-white" through massacres like Pogroms, the Holocaust, the Spanish Inquisition, Slavery, conspiracy theories and hate crimes against Jews and other Middle Eastern/North African/South Asian minorities, and more.

For now, until a new section is created addressing the racism perpetuated against groups, like the Jews, who later gained some levels of acceptance, but only to lose almost everything by racial genocide, I propose to remove the ethnic Jewish groups from the "European diaspora" page, but leave "Jewish" in the Religions section, because non-ethnic Jews may still "Join the Tribe," or "convert" to Judaism, even though they cannot find roots to ethnic Jews (a minority Middle Eastern Ethnoreligious group). Jeffgr9 (talk) 08:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Refereces 5 and 19 - errors

Xx236 (talk) 06:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed Thanks for the alert, Xx236. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Religion Section "Addition"/Clean-Up

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)

List

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)

Turkey

Map shows Armenia, Israel etc. but why not Turkey? 2003:6:1136:2212:4D88:A311:22FD:2D45 (talk) 13:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Original research?

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)

I'm certainly not aware of any RS that discuss this concept of a "European diaspora", and this talk page attests to that fact. Parsing whether Jews from Europe are or aren't "European", the list of "Contemporary European diasporas", and whacking on an "Early emigration" section is pure fantasy designed to tie it together as a realistic topic. Essentially, if an article can shift dramatically dependent on who is editing (dictating the content) at any given time in its existence (as opposed to RS dictating the content), there's a flawed premise at the bottom of it. It's SYNTH at best. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, Iryna Harpy. I've tried to search for reliable sources that discuss or refer to a "European diaspora", and the best I've come up with is The European Diaspora in Australia: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, a collection of papers that originated at a 2014 academic conference, published by "Cambridge Scholars Publishing", a new humanities press that appears to be trying to trade on the reputation of Cambridge University Press. The essays appear to be, like this article, about the various European ethnic diasporas, not about a thing called the "European Diaspora".

I'm going to ping the other registered editors who have been most active in editing this article. Perhaps one of them can help me see my error before I nominate the article for deletion. @Puertorico1, Iñaki Salazar, Nika de Hitch, Dbachmann, Hmains, Keraunos, Ccrazymann, Tookpointtt, and Opinoso: Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah, interesting, Malik Shabazz. One of the editors of that publication, Dr Sonia Mycak, is an old friend, and ex-colleague, and certainly a highly respected academic globally.

It's an unnatural stretch to qualify this publication, or its intent, as being parallel to the concept being portrayed in this article. Over the last 10 years or so, the Group of Eight (Australian universities) have received funding from the EU to set up 'Centres for European Studies'. Australian universities stopped being predominantly funded by the Australian government by 2000, and funding had to be found elsewhere. Ultimately, Australian universities opted to remained both research and teaching driven (as opposed to the US, for example, where many higher learning institutions are broken down into being research or teaching driven). Both in their teaching modules and their research, these 'European Studies Centres' focus on various aspects of individual European diasporic groups (although there are aspects such as the post-war refugee experience having a literary impact), not on a concept of Europeans somehow being an en masse ethnic group. If you take a look at the chapters, you'll find that they deal with aspects of separate European diasporic communities. The subject title, as I understand it, is a logical umbrella title for convenience, not a reflection of the existence of composite group widely known as the 'European diaspora'.

Governmental policy on expectations of immigrants has evolved in different ways throughout the world. Australia went through various transitions culminating in multiculturalism being brought in as policy by Al Grassby in the early 70s, usurping the policy of 'assimilation' as the norm and expectation. The publication is related to articles surrounding multiculturalism or the individual ethnic groups dealt with on as regards Australia, not some sort of cohesive group known as a 'European diaspora' as is the nature of this article would suggest. (Apologies for sliding on and off topic: hope I haven't bored you). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:21, 29 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)

This has nothing to do with laziness. WP:NOR is a fundamental principle. How does your title satisfy the scope of the article? For starters, colonization and emigration are being conflated from the outset of the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

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)

@Puertorico1: While I can appreciate that you're trying to salvage the article by moving it into the direction of early modern to modern history, I think it's making a bigger jumble of ideas than improving it. For example, the statistics for those of European descent have now become misleading simply because most of the census and other research RS deal with the entirety of those who hark from colonialist ancestry. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Numbers

"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)

Nomination of European diaspora for deletion

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)

Move discussion in progress

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)

Anatolia and South Caucasus

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)

Turkish people are generally not considered European

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 is not mentioned

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)

Turkish statistic

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)

Number for Canada is inaccurate for purposes of this article

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)

A week on, and no-one has commented, so I've been bold and delted the inaccurate number for Canada; replaced with "N/A". Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Australia total number is original research

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)

"Full European ancestry" is a racist approach in this article

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)

To the extent we can find hard numbers for emigration from Europe over the past five centuries, that seems a relatively objective standard. However, trying to determine the number of people of European ancestry in countries outside of Europe today whiffs of racism. There are no generally accepted objective standards, and the concept of full European ancestry ignores the basic fact that people have children in mixed ethnic backgrounds. Trying to determine people of "full European ancestry" for that infobox is just not acceptable, and there is not hard data to support it. That entire infobox should be deleted, in my opinion. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I've now gone through the article and deleted several additional examples where the text assumed that only White people counted as people of European descent. Several of the entries for Central and South America made that assumption, completely ignoring the Mestizo populations, which also have European ancestry. I have left in passages which refer to both White and Mestizo populations, which do recognise that "non-Whites" may have European ancestry.

The more I work with this article, the more I think that the attempts to state current levels of European ancestry is fundamentally misguided, both for racism grounds, and the extremely shaky statistics. The article should just focus on the history of European emigration, not try to analyse current levels of European ancestry. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I think to include a notice in the infobox that declares something along the lines of "May or may not include people with partial European ancestry, see each country's section for details" could solve this problem. Pob3qu3 (talk) 19:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

That says to me: "Wikipedia put a lot of effort into identifying whites of European descent. Wikipedia doesn't really care about identifying brown people of European descent." Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Mexico total number is original research

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)

As you have cited above, Wikipedia's synthesis policy states: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. In this discussion we are dealing with a source that outright, textually states that nearly half of the surveyed population is White, thus it can't be considered to be a synthesis in any way. You know this, which is why the reason you gave in your edit summary the last time you tagged it was on the lines of "it only surveyed adults, thus it can't be used to calculate the total of White Mexicans in the country" not taking into consideration that nearly all surveys and censuses conducted in the world survey only people older than 18, this is an overreach and an example of WP:HEAR, as is you claiming that sources that give percentages can't be used either as you don't know what the total base population was at the time. Finally, your argument about not knowing what methodology was used doesn't makes much sense, no section in this article other than Mexico's goes in detail about what the methodology used was as well as the reasons for which it's been used. Hope this clears it up. Pob3qu3 (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I hear you. I disagree with you. Those are two different things.  :) Sounds to me like you are confirming you are doing original research. You're taking a population stat from one of the articles (which one?), you're then multiplying it against a population number (which one?), from an unknown source (where?). That is exactly what the rule against original research prohibits: performing synthesis from two different sources to get a result that is not in the cited sources. The reader can't verify the number directly from the sources cited.

Since we seem to have reached an impasse here, could I suggest we take the discussion to the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I was googling around to try to educate myself more on this issue of Mexico's population break-down, and came across the Wikipedia article White Mexicans. It says that the population "Estimates range 11 million to 59 million" and give four different cites, including two of the ones given on this page. Now, Wikipedia is not itself a reliable source, but if it is citing such a wide variance just in the category of "white Mexicans" of European ancestry, I think that the prohibition on Original Research really comes into play for this article. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 22:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Already brought the issue to said noticeboard myself [1], don't worry. Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

wrong numbers

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)