Template talk:European Americans/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

If someone is qualified in this field, it might be nice to also include Serbian-American in the list, since we do have a category for Serbian-Americans and all. Michael 05:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyone? Michael 22:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It appears that "Luxembourg-American" is actually more common. Any ideas? Michael 22:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The more important question is... was Loretta Young really "Luxembourgian"? Really? She is listed but this seems very weird... Mad Jack 01:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard that. Weird... Michael 02:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Although I am responsible for the article currently being at 'Luxembourg American', I'd rather it were at 'Luxembourgian American'; not only does the latter fit into the scheme, but it avoids making it seem as though 'Luxembourg' is the adjective (which it isn't, and really p***es me off). However, when the only website devoted to Americans of Luxembourgian descent calls them 'Luxembourg Americans', I can't see how any other form can be adopted.

Loretta Young is Luxembourgian; see [1] and [2].

Bastin

08:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I've seen those sources on Young, but I'm trying to figure out "how" Luxembourgian she is. Obviously she's not 100%. Was it one of her parents, a grandparent? Mad Jack 17:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

To ascertain the answer, I've corresponded with Joan Wester Anderson, who is a Luxembourg American biographer (and acquaintance) of Loretta Young. She couldn't remember Young having talked of herself as being Luxembourgian, but couldn't be sure. Kindly, Mrs Wester Anderson contacted Loretta Young's son, Chris. Although he doesn't know of her ancestry, he did say that Young's maternal grandfather's name was 'Royale' (which, presumably, he changed). Therefore, if it is true that Young was a Luxembourger, it's probable that her grandfather was the closest Luxembourg-born relation.

Bastin

12:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Should

I must admit that as a European I *really* don't understand why some Americans choose to use these labels. Okay, I can understand for first generation immigrants, or maybe even second; but surely after like the third generation you have many "ethnicities" in your makeup. My grandfather is German, but I don't go around calling myself 'German British' or 'German English British'. His grandmother was (likely) Polish, but does that make me Polish-German-English-British? If I add in all the other parts of my makeup then describing my "ethnicity" would become a small essay of itself. Surely everyone is American, without the need for qualifiers to mark oneself as distinct? --Neo 20:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion is the same criteria as for anything else in Wikipedia. A reputable source must refer to the person as "X-American" or "X". Not that their grandfather was X, but the person themselves. This indeed helps weed out those with distant ancestry Mad Jack 07:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking that the US Census Bureau is a reputable source, and they say that there are 1m self-identified British Americans. Surely, this is a no-brainer.

Bastin

13:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Neo, if this is for self-identification, you needn't worry. Nothing is being said that wouldn't follow your own belief on this matter. Michael 06:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Unless the ethnic group can be found in EUROPE (i.e. Jews, Basques, or Faroeses) do not add them to this template, if you feel the that a group should be added refer to the

I really belive that one or both articles should be included in teh template because most likely, (about 90%), have ancestors that orignated in Germany.--23prootie 03:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The

European American

article has this for a heading:

"A European American, or a Euro-American, is a person who resides in the United States and is either the descendant of European immigrants or from Europe him or herself."

So its valid to include them.--23prootie 03:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If they are from Rhine, why can't they be discussed under Germany?? If we make an entry for every single region of Europe there will not be an end. Why not Parisian Americans, Lomdardian Americans etc??? If not, the template will become an article on to itself.. Baristarim 03:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Because they're Americans that's why. Its obvious. And unlike Parisian Americans, Lomdardian Americans etc... They have a real history in the United States. --23prootie 03:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I am still not getting it. If they are originally from a region in Germany (and Germans anyways - if they belonged to a different ethnicity I could understand), wouldn't it make sense to include them under German-Americans?? Nobody said that they were not Americans, but the question is simplicity as well. In fact, come to think of it, I still don't understand why Jewish Americans have been included in there. Tribe of Israel is not from Europe, and for those Jews who immigrated from Europe, they can be discussed under their respective country articles.. Puzzling this template is :) Baristarim 03:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Most importantly, Jewish people do not claim to be originally from Europe for the most part. There are German Jews etc, but in that case the primary concern that trumps to make them European is the fact that they are from Germany, not that they are Jewish.

I also agree with the fact that Amish et al have mutated to ethnic groups in the US. They were not as such when they had immigrated. Their original ethnic origins can be covered in "German-American" etc articles.. Baristarim 03:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You are QUITE wrong! The people of Brittany, especially those who still speak Breton, are very proudly Bretons ethnically, and French nationally.

While I understand that

French American. Unlike the Basques in Spain people from Brittany would rarely define themselves as a seperate "ethnicity" than just French. If I am wrong then please feel free to correct me. Anyone is welcome to put their input in and let me know how you feel about this issue, otherwise if no one (besides the person who put Bretons onto the template) disagrees then I will remove Britons from the list in 2 weeks.--Joebengo

22:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This debate should really be held on the talk page for that article, rather than here. So long as there is an article on Breton Americans, there ought to be a link. However, it should be given as a subdivision of French Americans to reflect the fact that all Breton Americans are French Americans by definition (similarly English/Scots-Irish/Scottish/Welsh Americans being British Americans and Sicilian Americans being Italian Americans). Basques, sadly, set a precedent in that they don't belong necessarily to either the French or Spanish American categories. This, though, should be stressed as an exceptional case on that sole basis.

If the debate must be had here, I'll declare that I have reservations about the term as long as it has no references. The creation of country-specific (i.e. sovereign state) articles is fine, since they are pretty much automatically above question (unless there is literally not a single Vatican American). Notwithstanding that, sub-national divisions are more of a problem; sub-national ancestry groups that don't cite sources (preferably the US Census Bureau) ought to be shot on sight.

Bastin

23:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Are those from Turkey actually classified as European? This is often in dispute. Michael 06:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but I still don't see why Jewish Americans isn't an appropriate cat here. A large majority of American Jews are distinctly European American in the same sense that everyone else listed here is - even Sephards. Just because not every single American Jew is European does not mean that should not be here. Some people who are "Irish Americans" or "German Americans" may have most recently come from an African or Caribbean country, or even from a South American one, yet they still would classify themselves as Irish Americans. Should I then remove the Irish and German cat from the table? Mad Jack 06:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[In response to the above stsatement, "doesn't that make me English-British-German.". The fact is, yes it does. Yet the truth is obviously hidden that you are none of the above, but a human being living on the face of the earth. No matter where you are from or where you are at you, you will always belong in the category of human. So to iterate, the day has come to destroy the boundaries of this earth. Their is no longer any need for them beside way of political control over another group of people. How more thna likely are related to them at some time if not now. Thanks Chaoco.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.110.215 (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You'd have to qualify it as an ethnic group. Yes, I agree that it is one, but is this template to be based on a national or ethnic standpoint? Michael 06:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well Basque isn't a country, and if we had an article on Gypsy Americans I would say we include it, so it should be based on both. But someone brought up the interesting idea that Jewish Americans be included in European, Asian, and a few other templates because there are large Jewish communities all over the world, so I don't see why we don't just do that. Mad Jack 06:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, well, Turkey is defined as Eurasian, so I presume that keeping it here would be fine. It appears to be in a situation similar to that of Russia. Michael 06:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Then, is there a reason not to include it as such, Jack? Michael 06:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Reason not to include what as what? :) Mad Jack 06:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

That was in response to your post about the Jewish inclusions. Michael 06:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

No, no reason that I can see, we should include it in almost all of the templates Mad Jack 06:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but do not over-use it... Michael 06:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Clearly Mad Jack 06:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, the overwhelming majority of American Jews are of European ancestry. It would be grossly misleading to exclude them from this template for the sake of the small minority of Jews from India or Arab countries.--Runcorn 18:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

If that is included (I think it should be), it's possible that others will try to have other religious groups included, which could be problematic, opening the door for a plethora of disputes. Michael 20:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit dubious to say that we shouldn't do the right thing because it's possible that others will try to do something which could be problematic.--Runcorn 21:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I agree it should be done. However, I wonder whether this will be used as an excuse in the future to include other religious groups which may truly have their roots in other areas of the world. We need to establish some sort of official qualification factors here. Michael 21:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but there is a clear difference. "Other religious groups" are not, in fact, ethnic groups and have never claimed to be. Jews/Ashkenazis/Sephards unquestionably are, so there is a strong difference. Mad Jack 04:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

We don't have articles on Ashkenazi or Sephardic Jews-just one generic article on all Jewish-Americans. Michael 04:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Well you get the point. No one can claim any other religion is an ethnicity. Mad Jack 05:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but that hasn't stopped people in the past...They may add a Taoist-Americans link to the list, claiming there are some Taoists in Europe. I agree with you about including the Jewish people, but at the same time, it is something that applies to multiple continents (its origins were not even in Europe). Michael 05:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Well the words Sephardic and Ashkenazi usually directly refer to European countries. And since these are the majority of American Jews... Mad Jack 05:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

But not all of them...That's where the problem may lie. I'm just stating arguments that could be used against inclusion. I do agree, however, that Jewish-Americans are vastly of European descent. Michael 05:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't find these arguments terribly convincing. Nobody will claim that more than a small minority of Taoists are from Europe. Actually, in English law Sikhs are regarded as an ethnic group, but of course they are Indians. If someone comes and argues that any other group should be included, we can argue that case on its merits.--Newport 12:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe those arguments, either, though they could very well be risen. Standards need to be established so as to limit and permit for such. Michael 23:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to propose that a new category titled "Central Europe" be created since east and west are term mostly associated with the Cold War era. We could possible keep Belorussian, Bulgarian, Romanian, Russian, Rusyn, and Ukrainian Americans in the Eastern Europe category, and place the remaining nationalities (Czech, Hungarian, Polish, and Slovak) into the new Central Europeans category. Please discuss, thanks (Eddie (talk) 03:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC))

Are there such thing as Liechstenstein Americans? If so, there needs to be an article on them. Gringo300 (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

As

Hi, I removed Turkey from the list. Turkey is not a European country either geographically or ethnically. There are a few Turks we would consider "white" (i.e. Nordic traits) but these are as a result of either kidnappings from the Ottoman era or descendants of rape victims, NOT INDIGENOUS to the region which is Turkic, Eurasian, Arabic and Semitic. And arguing that Turkey is European based on geography would be analogous to saying Spain is an African country because of its enclaves of

Rape victims? Yes, and this is coming from someone from Germany? Why am I not surprised? The vast majority of Turkish migrants in Germany are of Kurdish descent. I'm of Turkish ethnicity, and everyone in my family looks European. I've also been to Turkey many times and every ethnic Turk that I've seen has white skin. You're confusing Turks with Kurds, which is why I'm putting Turks back on the list. By the way, where on earth did you get this whole "rape victims" idea from? Onur (talk) 10:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, and may I add that comparing the European part of Turkey to Ceuta and Mellila is awfully daft, because whilst Ceuta and Mellila are just tiny, insignificant little islands, Turkey's European part constitutes about 3% of Turkish land, and about 1/7 of Turkey's people live there, making it an extremely important part of Turkey. Turkey's largest city, Istanbul, is in both Europe, as well as Asia. Onur (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

How you look and how you feel is redundant. Turkey is not ethnically, culturally or geographically a part of Europe, never has been. I love how every Turk nationalist fool that comes here and argues that "we are white too!" brings up Kurds and how they are the dark, reviled group of people that don't really belong in Turkey. Not only are you ignorant about ethnicity, but you are also a racist. I'm not confusing anyone, I've been to Turkey on several occasions and I definitely know the racial make-up. Whatever your appearance, the origins of the Turkic people and Kurds lie in West Asia, geographically you have no case whatsoever and culturally Turkey is backwards and distant. I'm glad your government is now destroying what the Greek Atatürk founder of the republic implemented 50 years earlier. Makes your case for accession in the EU even less likely. But why do you see yourself as European, don't you have your own identity? You seem kind of pathetic.

Me, nationalist? On the contrary, my German friend, generalising Turks like that is very misleading, because German Turks are unique in that they have a huge problem with integration, whereas I consider myself both British and Turkish (unlike in Germany, Britain actually allows dual citizenship). Turks and Kurds have absolutely nothing to do with each other apart from the fact that they're both mainly Muslim. Kurds are an Indo-Iranian people, whilst Turks are Ural-Altaic, descended from a nomadic tribe from Mongolia. And how am I a racist? I could say exactly the same thing about you, why do you object so much about Turks being considered European? After all, looking at your contributions, I can see that you're totally fanatic about the whole issue of Turkey being considered a part of Europe or of Turkey joining the European Union. Turkey has important land in Europe, and therefore its also European. Punkt. And why do you support the gradual Islamisation of Turkey? That's a bad thing, but since you're so anti-Turkish, you actually support it. Why? Almost every single insult that you've called me applies to you as well. If I'm racist and ignorant, then you're probably racist at a

KKK level. Turks are both European and Asian, just accept that, although looking at your racism it doesn't seem like that's even possible. Onur (talk

) 16:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I insist on them being considered European because they live in Europe, as well as Asia. Most Europeans are of Indo-European descent, right? So arguing that Turks aren't European on an ancestral basis is absolute rubbish because then virtually nobody in Europe can be European because they're Indo-European, and therefore they really come from India, right? See, look how stupid you sound just arguing that Turks aren't European because of their ancestry. I have no intention of "elevating" myself above Kurds, I'm simply just making a distinction between Turks and Kurds. Turks are not Arab, either, so drop your "Arab League" suggestions because that's just a generalisation of Muslims and just pure racism against not only Turks, but Muslims in general - not all Muslims are Arab, you know, and Turks don't speak Arabic, either. Why on earth would I envy Armenia? Or is that just one of your many racist, closed views about Turks? And calling me a name-caller or a troll is just hypocrisy on your part. I haven't done anything wrong at all, but all you're doing is just attacking me as if I'm Osama bin Laden or something. You think I'm racist? Gimme a break, you're just fanatically attacking me for no reason other than the fact that you hate Turks and that you relish such racist attacks. If anyone doesn't have a valid argument, here, it's you. There's absolutely no valid reason why Turks cannot be considered both European and Asian. I find it extremely hard to believe that you've been to Turkey at all considering how ignorant your views are about it. Onur (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"Because they live in Europe"? Case closed, thanks for the entertainment but please don't waste my time like that again. I'd recommend a very basic lecture in anthropology.

See, you have no argument. NOW the case is closed. Onur (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You haven't provided anything to discuss but "I'm pasty therefore I am European". That shouldn't even had dignified a response but I am known to feed the trolls out of a morbid curiosity.

Shut up, you troll! I did not say "I'm pasty therefore I am European", you just can't take the fact that I'm right and you're wrong (and racist and ignorant and just plain immature), so all you can resort to is misquoting me. What does it feel like to lose an argument, Koalorka? Onur (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Since you continue to offer nothing, let me try to stimulate the eh.. "debate".

- Turkey is culturally, economically and socially far away from Europe.

- Turkey has an unstable and unreliable economy.

- Turkey is NOT a European country; Turkey’s main landmass is in Asia.

- Literacy rates in Turkey are far below European Standards: more than 22% of Turkish women are illiterate (Source: CIA Country facts).

- Turkey’s average annual income is far below EU average: $2,530 (EU 25 lowest = $3,230 LV-Latvia. Source: World Bank).

- Turkey has been violating Human Rights for centuries and it keeps doing it. (Source: UN)

- Turkey illegally invaded Cyprus in 1974 and it still occupies more than half of the island’s territory (soon to be EU territory).

In May 1st 2004 Turkey will be having thousands of occupation troops on EU soil.

- Turkey has never stopped torturing the Kurdish minority which amounts 20% of the country’s total population.

Turkish membership will the Union:

- The integration process will stop.

- The little European feeling that exists today in Europe will fade away

- More and more people will turn against the EU.

- Unemployment will rise as 72 million Turks will be able to work freely in our Union.

- We will have to reduce the aid to some of our poor EU regions in order to give priority to Turkey’s ruined economy.

- Turkey will be among the most important decision makers in the Union since it will be one of the most populated members.

- There are huge security risks: The EU borders will extend to on of the most unstable and dangerous areas of the planet. Turkey borders with the most unsafe countries in the Middle East. With Turkey in the Union it will be much easier for drug and weapon smugglers to reach Europe.

European leaders do not have the democratic legitimacy to start accession negotiations with Turkey. European citizens are against it.

European leaders will be violating the law by starting accession negotiations. The European Treaties state clearly that any EUROPEAN State that shares the values can join the Union. Turkey is neither a European State nor does it share our values.

I am however in favour of Turkey’s partnership with the EU. I am in favour of humanitarian and financial aid to Turkey.

Just face it, you have no valid argument. Turkey is European (as well as Asian) and that's final. Onur (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Because you said so....? Is this a joke, are you someone I know attempting to pull a prank on me? This is not the place for that.

Koalorka (talk

) 18:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No not because I said so, because we both know so. Turkey has land in Europe, therefore it is European as well as Asian. Why do you have such a problem with that? Turkey's accession to the EU is irrelevant in this case, anyway, because this whole argument is supposed to be about whether Turkey is a European country or not, and as Turkey has important land in Europe, it is European. All you're doing is fanatically attacking me in a racist fashion, tying in the European Union with your "argument" even though it has nothing to do with this template! Switzerland's not in the EU, and neither is Russia, yet they're considered European countries because they're in Europe. It's exactly the same with Turkey. Can't you just accept that Turkey's both European and Asian? Seriously, it's not like it's going to be the end of the world if you do. Can I please request unprotection of the template and add Turkish Americans to it, now? I'm sick and tired of arguing with you. Onur (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm of the honest opinion that you have no idea what you're talking about. Since this discussion page pertains only to the descendants of ethnic groups from Europe now residing in the United States, on the basis of ethnicity alone, you have no argument. You've admitted that the majority of Turks can trace their lineage back to Mongoloid nomadic tribes of Central Asia, which are not indigenous to Europe. How could they then be considered European? The ancient Indo-Iranians (though research on this group is far from conclusive) were not of the Mongoloid extraction, and those that did settle in Europe transformed through thousands of years of divergent evolution to what would become the various indigenous races of Europe, such as the Celts, Basques etc. Turks share no such history and no commonality with Europe. The small outpost in Continental Europe is an artificial and recent colonial conquest, just like Ceuta and Melilla. The British Empire had territorial possessions scattered all around the globe, Macao, Singapore, Hong Kong, do we ever call the United Kingdom referred to as a British and Asian nation? You're reasoning is flawed and naive. You have yet to provide a single example of why Turkey should be considered European.

• Oh, I know exactly what I'm talking about, now enough of this nonsense, this is simply preposterous! You are so blatently anti-Turkish! Turkey lies on the European continent, therefore it is European. End of story. What have you got against that? Why are you so against the inclusion of the Turkish American article on this template? Onur (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not against Turkey, I'm against including deliberate misinformation and nationalist-inspired lies. Now, could you at least attempt to provide one argument that would challenge anything I said, the page is locked until the dispute is resolved.

What deliberate misinformation? What nationalist-inspired lies? If anyone's being misinformative here, it's you. I've looked at your edits and I've noticed that you just keep on removing any mention of Turkey from every Europe-related article. And what part of "Turkey lies on the European continent, therefore it is European" do you not understand? Why are you so against that? Onur (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Because it's tantamount to saying that Spain is African based on its colonial outposts. Turkey has absolutely nothing in common with Europe, save Lepanto and Vienna in 1683.

No it isn't, because Turkey's European part is not a colony! For God's sake, just accept that Turkey is European as well as Asian, OK?! Onur (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a colony, the result of armed conquest and re-population and Islamicization. The people on Turkey's Balkan outpost are either imported from the Anatolian peninsula and/or Greeks, Macedonians, who are native European. Your theory does not hold.

No it isn't! It's directly connected to the Asian part of Turkey, as you must know, since you claim to have been there! It's not classified as a colony, but a part of Turkey, OK?! Just please answer my question: Why are you against Turkey being classified as a European (as well as Asian) country? What is your ulterior motive? Onur (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no land connection if that is what you are referring to, that alone would not even provide the basis for a reclassification. Ceuta and Mellila are also not considered colonies but firm Spanish possessions populated with Spanish populations. My motive? Simple. The truth. Turkey is not Europe. There are no geographical, historical, cultural, religious, or whatever other grounds to admit Turkey.

Koalorka (talk

) 19:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at this map and just look at how close the European and Asian sides are to each other, although I'm sure you would know, since you've "been to Turkey"</end of sarcasm>. I didn't say that there was a land connection, but there are bridges connecting the two. Your motive is not the truth, but merely to spread your racism and misinform everyone. Its a widely accepted fact that Turkey lies both on Europe and Asia, but all you're doing is fanatically removing any mention of Turkey being in Europe. Turkey has geographical grounds to call herself European, and that on its own is enough for it to be considered European. And by the way, first you called Ceuta and Mellila colonies and now you don't? Care to explain, please? Onur (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

So now we are to believe Turkey is a European nation based on a simplified political map of the world and the fact that two bridges span the Bosporus Strait? I thought this discussion was to be centered around ethnicity alone, because geographically, it is quite clear that Turkey has no claim to Europe. Turkey should be proud of its unique past and geography without attempting to claim European heritage, which only makes Turks seem desperate and pathetic. So you're saying Spain is an African country?

NO!!! FOR GOD'S SAKE, GET IT INTO YOUR TINY LITTLE BRAIN THAT TURKEY LEGALLY OWNS LAND IN EUROPE AND THEREFORE TURKEY IS EUROPEAN AS WELL AS ASIAN, AND THAT COLONIALISM, PROPAGANDA, ETC. HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! Onur (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The Bosporus Strait:

Yes, its the Bosphorus Strait, your point being what? Onur (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You're entire argument is based on proximity of the Asia Minor landmass to Continental Europe. You're going to have a heck of a time trying to convince anyone else if this is your argument.

Koalorka (talk

) 19:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

As you can clearly see from this entire debate, it isn't. Onur (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're trying to convince me that Turkey is ethnically a Eurasian country, I have never contested that. There's sound reasoning behind it. Tukey's population is genetically most related to the people of Turkmenistan and the Southern Caucasus. By no means does that mean that it is European. Geographically, Turkey's claim is extremely weak, but we're debating the ethnic etymology for the sake of the template remember?

No we're not, we're supposed to be debating whether Turkey is classified as a European country or not, and as Turkey has land in Europe, it is European, OK? Onur (talk) 19:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This has more to do with an ethnic classification than geography, European American is an ethnic classification. Turkey's geographic claims have already been defeated several times on other pages. You haven't offered any anthropological evidence to support your assertion.

In the

European American article, it clearly states "A European American (Euro-American) is a person who resides in the United States and is either from Europe or is the descendant of European immigrants.". There is no mention of "European ethnicity", there. Besides, as Turkey fulfills the Copenhagen criteria (which actually allows Turkish accession to the European Union in the first place), it is recognised as partially European by the European Union. End of. I've actually given you evidence that Turkey is European. Happy, now? Onur (talk

) 20:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that EU accession has anything to do with this, I'm saying that Turkey is recognised by the EU as a European country. In addition, the

European American article also states that Turks fit the definition of "Southern European". Onur (talk

) 20:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Rumeli and Trakya are historically Greek/Macedonian land, but they were invaded by the Ottomans a very long time ago, and as such, Turks have fully established themselves in those areas, therefore they're Turkish, and as they're located in Europe, they're also European. The other definition only refers to European ethnicity rather than actually belonging to the continent. Onur (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, can we please carry on arguing tomorrow? I'm logging off Wikipedia, now, I'll probably be back on tomorrow to continue this debate. Onur (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The Turkish presence is an artificial and recent implant on European soil and is therefore not sufficient to be considered European. I don't think there's much left to debate.

I'm back, and I highly beg to differ. You have no proof to say that the Turkish presence on European soil is artifical or recent, and not only that, but everything you've said in this debate has been your original research against my concensus. Original research is not allowed on Wikipedia, and as such you have no right to make such baseless assertions or to claim that Turkey is not European. End of discussion. Onur (talk) 10:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Look up the definition of consensus. You have the minority view, you're the one introducing controversial changes, it is up to you to prove your assertions. Like you said, no original research.

Koalorka (talk

) 13:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I know what concensus means, I'm not stupid. Never in my life have I heard anyone call the European part of Turkey a colony, or the Turkish presence in Europe artificial or recent. Show me concensus that this is true, and maybe I'll change my mind. Turkey legally has territory in Europe, and as such it is European. End of discussion. Onur (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, here we have the "because I said so" mentality again. Good luck with that, you won't achieve much here with such an arrogant nationalist attitude.

Look, see! There you go, again! You have no proof, all you have are your own, original statements! I don't have a "because I said so" mentality, but a "because everyone on the entire planet except for you knows so" mentality. Or is it just because you don't want it to be that way, you just can't accept that Turkey is European fair and square. Seriously, end of discussion, I'm requesting unprotection, now, this "debate" has gone on long enough. Onur (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

More "I'm right because I say so". So far you have not challenged a single premise that I have put forth, Turkey is neither geographically, ethnically, culturally a European nation. The vast majority of Turkey's historical and original landmass lies on what is INTERNATIONALLY recognized as the Asian continent (

No, I've challenged everything you've said. If anyone's not challenging, here, its you. I've already told you that Turkey is geographically a European nation, as per consensus; ethnic reasons are completely redundant; and culturally it is also European (you would know that considering the fact that you've actually "been to Turkey", before, right?). Yes, the vast majority of Turkey lies in Asia, but so what? That doesn't make it exclusively Asian, does it? And considering Turkey's size, 3% is not tiny, and as a matter fact, one of Europe's (yes, Europe's) largest cities lies on that "tiny" part of Turkey. Yes, it may be small, but its extremely significant. And for God's sake, you have no evidence to say that Eastern Thrace is a colonial outpost, because its not. Don't go comparing Eastern Thrace to colonist examples, or saying "Turkey being in Europe is just like Denmark being in Africa". NO! That's just stupid, because Denmark is nowhere near Africa and doesn't have territory in Africa, either, unlike Turkey. FOR THE LAST TIME, TURKEY ISN'T "OCCUPYING" EASTERN THRACE, YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE TO SAY THAT THAT IS THE CASE. Just face it, you don't have any consensus or evidence for anything you've said at all, all you've done is made original "research" and baseless statements. Onur (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What consensus? Please, do show me. Where else has the discussion concluded that Turkey is geographically in Europe, when it is located in Anatolia? How could that be? Ethnicity? according to Wikipedia's definitions of European, ethnicity is a completely valid descriptive trait, and again, there is no connection here between Europe and Turkey. You fail once again. Culturally and historically Turkey has nothing in common with Europe as I have both studied the history of the region and traveled throughout Turkey, this I can say authoritatively, but my opinion is immaterial since no original research is permitted. The vast majority and the original territory of Turkey are located in Asia, therefore Turkey is geographically Asian with a mixed Eurasian population. Eastern Thrace is a colonial outpost, a vestigial holding from the Ottoman Era, are you saying that this is a original Turkish possession, the birthplace and ancestral grounds of the Turkic people? It is not. I agree, the comparison between Belgium/Denmark/Spain is stupid, and that's why your argument fails. No evidence that Turkey is occupying Eastern Thrace? How about the invasion of 1352 which left entire Thrace occupied for five centuries until the Ottomans were defeated and declined to a small outpost in

Koalorka (talk

) 18:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't need to show you, because it states everywhere - in books, on TV, on the internet, everywhere that Turkey is both European and Asian. Turkey is not just located in Anatolia. The Europe#Definition article doesn't say anything about ethnicity. Where did you get that definition from, the European ethnicity article? Seriously, I don't know why I waste time dealing with idiots like you. Its not an original territory of Turkey, but then again, none of Turkey is, remember, after all of your "study" in the region. I, as a Turk, can wholeheartedly say that none of modern-day Turkey originally belonged to Turks. So what? What are you going to do about it? Deport all of us back to Mongolia? Get real. As such, ethnicity is completely redundant in our argument, so stop bringing that argument forward. Now, how about you keep NPOV in mind and actually agree with the general opinion of things rather than bringing forward baseless assertions and original research? And stop misquoting me, as well. I only said that Turks were white and that you were probably confusing that with Kurds, but you just immediately accuse me of racism when I haven't been racist at all, all I did was make a distinction between Turks and Kurds. Seriously, some people... Onur (talk) 18:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Please keep

Koalorka (talk

) 19:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You are such a hypocrite. For God's sake, how many times do I have to say this? I am not a nationalist, I don't have an agenda, and I don't work for the Turkish government, OK? I'm just an ordinary guy who's trying to peacefully contribute to a free encyclopedia. But you, you just jump straight to conclusions by arguing that consensus is wrong by stating, without evidence, that Eastern Thrace is a colonial outpost, thereby stating, without consensus, that Turkey isn't even geographically European, and whilst doing all that, you keep using ad hominems and insults against me, even though I haven't said anything of the sort to you. You want a scholarly source that classifies Turkey as European, you got one: Turkey -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia. I'm sure I could find a lot more scholarly sources stating the same thing, too. And to further prove that my views are international consensus, lets ask what everyone else in Wikipedia has to say, shall we? How about we request for comment and ask everyone "Is Turkey European or not?" I'm sure everyone will agree by saying that Turkey is both European and Asian. Onur (talk) 11:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

So to summarize: I claim that Turkey has no ethnic and cultural commonality with Europe, both factors critical to be considered European and geographically, the small territorial holding on in East Thrace (the name implies Greek/Roman origins) on Continental Europe is a recent and artificial addition and its minute size and nature do not qualify Turkey as European. You on the other hand concede that ethno-cultural origins are irrelevant and the small strip of land called Rumelia/Rumeli is enough to qualify Turkey as a European nation on this basis alone. BTW, Britannica is not a scholarly source or valid reference, please look up the definition. You also seem to be unaware of the meaning of consensus, please look it up. Let's let others comment.

Koalorka (talk

) 13:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Small strip?! One of Europe's largest cities, plus a couple of other cities (among them Edirne, Kırklareli and Tekirdağ), just happen to lie on that "small strip". It may be small compared to the rest of Turkey, but that doesn't mean its just puny and insignificant. And you have no proof whatsoever to say that Turkey's European territory is artificial or recent, all you have are your closed, racist views. Turkey's European territory has belonged to Turkey ever since the Turks invaded it hundreds of years ago, therefore its not artificial, and most certainly not recent, either. For goodness sake, I know what consensus means, which is why I didn't give you a scholarly source, I gave you Britannica, which (thankfully), unlike Wikipedia, cannot be edited by racist idiots like you, but is written by experts, and as such it is very reliable, unlike Wikipedia, which, unfortunately, has been poisoned by your racist and baseless edits. Want more consensus? Well, then, let me give you some:

• BBC News|Country Profiles - Turkey
• The Library of Congress Country Studies - Turkey (look at the GEOGRAPHY section)
• CIA World Factbook -- Turkey
• Foreign & Commonwealth Office Country Profile: Turkey

Need I say more, apart from the fact that they don't say anything about "artifical and recent outposts"? Onur (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Your references don't introduce anything new. You're arguing that Eastern Thrace alone is enough to qualify Turkey as European, I've been arguing that by attempting to blur the boundaries of what is European, one can equally credit Spain as an African country. It just doesn't add up. BTW your sources all describe Turkey as Asian with a European possession so that isn't necessarily helping your argument. Now, let others comment and desist with the random insults.

No they don't, they say stuff like "straddling two continents". So what is your point? That countries can only belong to one continent? Russia can be both European and Asian at the same time, I don't see you complaining about that. Onur (talk) 09:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we should put Turkey in the "other" section. bornfury (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, Turkey is in Template:Countries of Europe, as well as Template:Countries of Asia, so therefore it belongs to both the European American AND Asian American templates. Runningfridgesrule (talk) 09:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Look also in {{Template:Asian Americans}}, Turkey is also in the other section rather than Southwest Asia. bornfury (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's only common sense to place Turkey where it's heritage and majority of the landmass lie.

Koalorka (talk

) 16:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but why do you object so much to keeping it on both templates? There's no rule saying that countries can only belong to one continent. Runningfridgesrule (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I've explained it already. For the same reason I object to calling Spain and African country. It's simply incorrect.

Koalorka (talk

) 16:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No, its completely different. I've already gone over and tackled your arguments which try to back this up, and once again may I clearly state to you that Turkey's presence in Europe is neither artificial nor recent. Also, Ceuta and Melilla are called "outlying territories" for a reason. Runningfridgesrule (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The page is now protected for 5 days. During this time, please try and find common ground and arrive to a version that all can live with. If you cannot, this is a good time to pursue

Folks, it sure looks like you need outside opinions in order to reach a consensus. Try asking for them!

GRBerry

13:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

An editor asked me to unprotect, but I do not see any agreements reached. May I suggest you place a [[WP:RFC]requests for comments]? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that you all refer to this section of the Europe article before making any decisions.--Joebengo (talk) 02:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If geographic subdivision is used, it ought to conform to an objective externally-evalutated system. The one that I have applied to prevent further degeneration of the template is that used by the United Nations. In my edit summary, I gave a link to the

It's a concept that is extremely outdated now. In an age when the European Union spreads to the borders of Russia, and countries like Poland are fully democratic and catching up economically, where exactly is 'Eastern Europe' and 'Western Europe'? Any subdivision is now arbitary. So for example, Estonians would be counted as 'Eastern' on that map, but now stress their afinity and cultural links with their North European neighbours. The Hungarians and Czechs stress their common history with Germany as part of Central Europe. (Besides which, Europeans move around withing their continent, so if you are an American descended from a Polish family that had been living in France, are you 'Eastern' or 'Western'?) This kind of terminology is falling out if favour here in Europe because it has become meaningless. There is an argumnent for just dropping the subdivisions on that table altogether. Indisciplined (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Firstly being of Jewish origins what does this mean? You can hardly include Jewish Americans when this encompasses Israel which is not a European country (even if it did sneak its way into the Eurovision Song Contest), therefore you need to think in terms of what the Jewish means, is this in the same manner as Romano Europeans? if we are referring simply to the religious background it does not constitute its own category, we may as well add Catholic Americans and Lutheran Americans then, Jewish Europeans are Jews by religion not race. As for Turkey, it is not recognised by the EU or the European Community as a European country, only a small percentage of the country is jutting into the "Europe" part, the rest is completely in Asia. Turkey should not be added into Europe as they are not a European country. Cyprus however is. Also I do believe you missed out Andorra, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Malta which are all part of Europe. Piecraft 01:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, not so simple. Turkey is partly in Europe (only 5% though) where as Cyprus does not geographically lies in Europe at all (just off the coast of Israel, it's so far to the south-east it's actually classed as part of the continent of Asia geogreaphically, but Europe culturally and politically). Geographers also disagree over whether Armenia geographically falls within Europe, but again it's culturally and politically European. (I believe Wikipedia classes both Cyprus as Armenia as being in Asia). As for Turkey not being 'recognised by the EU or the European Community as a European country', also old news I'm afraid. The EU has begun accession talks with the Turks, which means they may indeed be part of the European Union soon. Complex isn't it? The concept 'Europe' is just a bit fuzzy and ill-defined around the edges, so open to interpretation. Indisciplined (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems that people are convinced that Turkey is, apparently due to its conquest of Constantinople, a European country. It is not really new that they think that the Jews are European, because they migrated there in major numbers from Western Asia and were supposedly mixed with Europeans. That is more or less understandable, and one could be accused of anti-Semitism if one attempts to argue with that. But why include Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, particularly into Eastern Europe, whereas whatever miniscule or altogether non-existent territories they have in Europe are in its extreme South, and quite far from the Eastern border in the Urals? Not to mention that Azerbaijan is basically Turkey under a different name. Humanophage 22:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

"Azerbaijan is basically Turkey under a different name"!!!! News to the Azerbijani's I think? That's like saying Norway and Iceland are the same country because they are both Lutheran and speak related languages. All the countries that Humanophage has an objection to participate in a number of European political and cultural organisations, so we Europeans regard threm as European. The definiton of Europe is just fuzzy around it's Southern and Eastern edges, so open to interpretion. Get over it. Indisciplined (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The Caucasian countries are all in Asia. If Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan are "European" because they are former Soviet Republics, why isn't Kazakhstan considered part of Europe by Wikipedia's definition? If they are included because of cultural, religious, or ethnic similarities, than Turkey and Azerbaijan should be removed OR Turkmenistan should be added. Can someone please tell me why I'm wrong?--eskimospy (talk) 10:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

That message is coming from this template. I checked several articles where it's used, to make sure. Someone please fix it. I'll give it a try in a day or two if there's no response by those who've worked on it. Thanks. SamEV (talk) 06:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I saw the template and I don't know why Basque and Catalan americans are not placed in parentheses next to Spanish americans, like frisians or Sicilians. It must be corrected. PD: As you see for my writing, I am not native-english speaker. --85.53.178.73 (talk) 19:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I had the same idea ! Furthermore I think that the Scandinavian nations should be grouped behind the item 'Scandinavian'--84.149.217.201 (talk) 15:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I've just reverted an IP's move of Albania from Eastern to Southern Europe, but I can understand the point the anon was making. Perhaps the CIA category of South-eastern Europe should be added to include many countries in this area. Dbfirs 08:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

In particular, I believe that the British and Frisian nationalities should be moved from "Western Europe" to "Northern Europe", but there's still a lot of issues. From a purely geographic (directional) point of view, Greece and Cyprus should go under "Southeastern Europe", and it is unclear why Albania is listed there but not Greece. Shanoman (talk) 04:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I know. That's why I linked them to make sure people even know what those mean; if you have a different (maybe completely different) way of sorting these, g'ahead. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I think we should distinguish between ethnic groups (

These populations are of east Mediterranean/west Asian origin, now, there have been some attempts to remove Jewish Americans, but removing them without removing the others is cherry picking/hypocrisy, either they're all going to stay, or be removed, especially in the case of Jews, Cypriots and Armenians who are genetically related and are pre Islamic east Mediterraneans/west Asians. Guy355 (talk) 08:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems like now the Ashkenazi Jews are in central Europe and the Sephardi Jews are in southern Europe, yet the Cypriots and Armenians are gone, that's hypocrisy on the other side, so I suggest that the AJs and SJs will either be removed, or the Cypriots and Armenians will be added again. Guy355 (talk) 05:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The reason for the removal of these populations is that their origin, genetic, cultural and religious is from the middle east i.e west Asia, which therefore means they belong in the overseas Asian template rather than the European one, however the Cypriots, Armenians and even the Turks weren't removed, which was hypocrisy, considering the fact that in the same standards they're just or even more west Asian than Ashkenazi Jews, so I removed them too. Guy355 (talk) 05:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Eupator keeps adding Armenian Americans to the template even though Armenians are not Europeans. Never have been. Whatever the council of Europe for political reasons might state as Armenia like some other non-Euro nations tries to get in Europe, that's another thing, and has nothing to do with geography and ethnicity. The nation of Armenia lies completely in Asia and not is not for a single amount transcontinental or something alike that that could make it acceptable for it to be added to the template such as Georgia, Turkey, and Azerbaijan. Eupator claims with his edits that Armenian Americans are considered European on a "federal level",[3] yet has never provided a source to back this up. If he refuses again to post any reference about this, we will have bring it to ANI unfortunately, for ungrounded unsourced POV pushing, especially regarding the fact that I've been waiting for a reply for weeks.

Armenia and Cyprus are both fully in Asia, so why adding the European American template/categories?

I quote once again, from the

So, please provide if you're still convinced that you're right, a reliable source that states that Armenia lies in Europe or that Armenian Americans are considered European. I left a note on Eupator his talk page weeks ago with the same thing, yet he did not reply.[4] He only "reacted" after weeks when I reverted his edit on the