Talk:European Americans/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Add Turkish Americans to the list

Not including Turks as 'European-American' while they are considered being it by the US state and included in this category of population calculation is simply racism. I clearly see no difference between Turks or Greeks or Italians, all of them are considered Southern European. I've seen them added several times by users, but some people remove them by no reason at all. This is wikipedia and should provide proper information, you cannot edit it the way it fits your image of the Turkish people. The most important thing is, Turkish people are calculated as 'White' and 'European American' by the US state. They are included in the number of US Americans of European heritage. Removing it simply means providing inaccurate information. Some moderator should fix this issue and stop people from deleting it every time its included in the graph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.209.133.224 (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

How can they be included as "European-American" when they are from Asia? It is not racist. It is a fact. That is why it is fixed every time you attempt to vandalize it.Presidentbalut (talk) 22:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

What about Turks who lived in Eastern Thrace? They're not from Europe?

Turkish peoples were nomadic and are not indigenous to the Mediterranean, having originated near Mongolia. DNA testing shows virtually no connection to Europe save some limited admixture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.242.121.108 (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually Turkish people have a lot of Mediterranean and Balkan DNA. They did not wholly replace the previous Greek inhabitants, a lot were just Turkified. The genetic contribution from central asia is also extremely minimal (middle eastern and mediterranean/balkan DNA is the largest contributor). I also don't see you applying this argument to Hungarians, who migrated to Europe from beyond the Ural mountains.173.67.18.125 (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Armenians, Turks, and Georgians are NOT European Americans

Armenians are not Europeans. They are considered Indo-Europeans though Europeans have evolved from natural selection to be physically different from their Indo-European cousins. Genetic mutations such as light skin pigment and light eye pigment are not common in Armenians as they are with most Europeans. European maps never include countries like Turkey, Armenia, and Georgia because they are historically different from Europeans. It has been set and written down by the ancient Romans and Greeks, that Turkish, Armenians, and Georgians are part of Asia not Europe. For further clarification on these three groups you may contact a European Union official or a European historian to provide uncanny data to prove that Armenians, Turks, and Georgians are NOT European. If not satisfied with the arguments then please compare DNA of a European to an Armenian. They are small differences and these small differences justify European identity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.140.73 (talk) 01:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yes they do. > http://www.ajhg.org/AJHG/fulltext/S0002-9297(07)60950-1?large_figure=true . 134.121.247.116 (talk) 08:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Is there a source that have the ancient Greeks and Romans say they're apart of Asia? (Cluker (talk) 06:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC))
  • LOL I'm sorry to have to laugh; but the original meaning of Asia, in both Latin and Greek, refers expressly to Anatolia and Persia, i.e. everything beyond the Bosporus and east of Suez (west of which was Africa, or course). To the ancients of Greece and Rome, the world was in three parts - Europe, Asia and Africa. Asia Minor was Anatolia (Turkey) and Asia Major was Mesopotamia and Persia and parts beyond, though India was somewhat consiered a separate world-realm again and China was virtually unknown. The modern co-opted sense of Asia, which tends to be associated with China even more than India, is virtually a complete malapropism. Other than the Bosporus, the other boundary between Europe and Asia was the Caucasus Mountains, and Georgia and Armenia lie to the south of that of course. They are not part of Europe, though historically they are one of the earliest and most resilient sectors of Christendom. But they are in Asia.. Turks did originate in Central Asia, part of Asia Major, but today's Turks are for the most part in Asia Minor (along with the Georgians and Armenians). There is no need to cite this, but if you really want one Herodotus would suffice.Skookum1 (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Armenians and Georgians are indeed European. Georgians are just Russians. Armenians are biologically European. The only part of your little argument I agree with is that Turks are not European. You obviously don't know what you are talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikoz78 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Neither do you. Modern Turks are an ethnic amalgam and include many Islamized Europeans from the Balkans who were "patriated" to Turkey in the wake of the national wars, just as many Greeks and others who were patriated in the other direction were "Asian" (in the geographic sense, being from Asia Minor i.e. Anatolia). Also, long-time Istanbullus in particular, but also in other historical centres of the Ottoman Sultanate, are teh descendants of people pulled from all over the Empire, either brought in as yeni seri, slaves, concubines or merchants; "Turk" post-Greco-Turkish War came to mean anyone who had become Moslem...but whose lineages might have been ethnically Italian, Croatian, Polish, Ukrainian etc. As race was not a factor in marriageability (or concubinage) in Ottoman society, but rather religion was, those European bloodlines - if converted - readily mixed with Turkic, Persian, Arab, Ossetians and others. Armenians are so anciently distinct from all other peoples in the Caucasus and Mid-East and, until the collapse of their once-high position within the Sultanate, were rarely seen in Europe, and did not generally intermarry with Europeans. One of hte main problems nowadays is that "European" has comr to be a p.c.-manque for "white" but it wasn't too long ago that Greeks and Sicilians weren't considered "white" by northern European standards either. And if your position on the Turks were to be made across the board, ultimately Hungarians aren't Europeans either. Georgians, well, that's dicey because of the ancient linkage with Greece..but in strict geographic terms Georgia is not part of Europe, which begins to the north of the Caucasus and to the west of the Urals. Where that puts the Chechens in this equation I'm not sure....the problem is really teh articial division of ethnicity by "European" and Asian". Turks are both, and at one time so were Greeks. And Arabs, actually (Spain before 1492, and southern France for at least a few centuries also...)Skookum1 (talk) 22:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Turkish people are in the European Council and all the other European associations (except EU). They are considered as European by most of the Europea and have a similar culture to other European countries located in the Balcans. The most important part is, in the American population calculations, they are counted as 'White' and out of 'European' heritage. Now if you personally don't believe Armenians, Turks and several other people aren't European, that's fine, but this is Wikipedia and discalculating a group that are calculated in the category names 'European Americans' is flawed. This site is ment to portray the truth and that is Armenians, Turks and Georgians are calculated in this category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.209.133.224 (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Neither Armenians nor Turks are considered white or Europeans in Europe. Turks are more like Arabs or Persians than Europeans, if you don't want to accept this fact and want to live in your make-believe world then it is your own decision. Somebody above said that Turks are like Greeks or Italians which is not true, most of the Greeks and Italians are more fair skinned and have very fine facial features. Many Arabs, especially those from north Africa and Syria, look more Europeans than the Turks. I know (actually the whole Europe know) that the Turks are obsessed with Europe and Europeans and hate Arabs and Persian with whom they have so much in common-like religion, food, family values, their physical appearance, mentality, you name it. Anyway, apart from that tiny part of Turkey that lies in Europe, almost 95% of its landmass lies in Asia. It is a fact, even if they vehemently deny or ignore it. Domasch (talk) 21:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Quite simply....how can Asians be "European-American"??? Presidentbalut (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Hungarian-Americans

I've noticed that the chart of the 2000 census does not show the numbers for Hungarian-Americans. Perhaps this should be remedied. According to the 2000 US Census, there are 1,398,724 Hungarians in the United States at the present time.

"Original Research"

This should only be added to an article to query something when this is properly justified; things in the public domain and widely available or accepted as common knowledge do not need to be cited repeatedly - otherwise wikipedia becomes nothing more than a giant hyperlink directory. In this article I have removed a long list of "OR" comments from the population section - the figures used in this section are readily available in an article that is cited at the bottom of the page. I fear "OR" comments are used as 'blocking' tools by those who object to an insertatation - they don't feel able to delete it, but make over-zealous use of a tool that should be used only when something is severely shortcoming.

And now the same things are removed repeatedly without explanation.. even though they now link to a JSTOR article from Demography from which material has been drawn!

References

This needs references. and used by who? When? Where? All we have is the why... --Sketchee 02:10, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Use of this term seems to ignore historical treatment of some European immigrants to the United States, such as Irish Roman Catholics until recently and Germans during the First World War. Acjelen 01:22, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've only ever encountered this term in connection with white supremacists like David Duke, who describes himself as a "European-American civil rights lawyer". --Angr 09:53, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The derisive comments on this page only underscore the need for European-Americans to unite in much the same way ALL other ethnic groups but we have. We have no voice, no leader representing our issues. What conceivable relevance has the treatment of Irish Catholics -- a canard also used in the immigration debate to justify mass (often illegal) immigration -- to the discussion of a satisfactory nomenclature for our people? ANY discussion of white identify results in the speaker's being tarred as a "white supremacist."

I had to look up canard in my dictionary. I'll remember to use it often as a euphemism. The danger with the term "European American" is that it can only accurately describe some group of Americans during the 20th century (and probably the later part of it). Prior to that, Americans the majority of whose ancestors lived in Europe were not part of a single "ethnic group". History must deal with the individual nationalities coming to this country from Europe. Indeed, Europe as we now consider it is a relatively recent idea. Happily, those German-Americans, Polish-Americans, Hungarian-Americans, Ashkenazi-Americans, Roma-Americans, English-Americans, Scots-Irish-Americans, etc. let go of their Old World strife and have intermarried to such an extent that we now have European-Americans.

I find the term much more satisfactory, personally, than "non-hispanic white," as I've been asked to identify myself on countless government forms.

This article is somewhat inaccurate. It says that the "European-Americans" are also called white or caucasian. It sort of gives people the idea idea that white or caucasian only means European, when "white" or "caucasian" also refers to white-Americans who are of non-European background such as Turks, Iranians, Syrians, Lebanese, Armenians, etc.--Gramaic 09:28, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Turks are European and Europe in the sense of the Roman Empire and Macedonian Empire (no relation to the country by the same name or its people) due to cultural exchange and interaction, is also the Middle East and North Africa. Those regions today are still remotely European.

Turks Why exactly do we have Turks here as Europeans? Not many "whites" "Europeans", ext include Turks as Euro americans.

IRON RANGE, CULTURE-NO, MINNESOTA IS NOT DEVELOPING CULTURE-YOU MISSED THE WHOLE MELTING POT ON THE IRON RANGE-THE ITALIANS, JEWISH PEOPLE AND ALL THEIR BUSSINESSES, BIG SLAVIC POPULATION, SERB AND CROATIAN-ALONG WITH THE FINNISH, GERMAN, DANES, ENGLISH, NATIVES...NEW? 1994 AN DUNDER-HMONG, NOW, MORE AFTICANS AND NEW EUROPEANS-SOMESCHOOLS IN MPLS. SPEAK 73 DIFFERENT LANGUAGE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.91.184.187 (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

problems

I have several problems with this page:

1. It gives the impression that this is a common term in the United States, at least, which is most certainly is not. I have lived in the U.S. since birth (31 years) and have rarely heard this term used in general conversation or even in official designation. The main times I remember hearing it used were ironically either used by white racists, such as Duke, or were used in satire, apparently in an attempt to make fun of or denigrate other "hyphenated American" terms. Regardless of whether this intended satire has any legitimacy or truth to it (I personally think it does), the usage of the term in actual life in the U.S. is misrepresented here.

I think Americans with European ancestry have reached a level of integration which brings about a desire for their own identity and an easier way to talk about the history of European immigration to the United States and the prior colonies (as well as the unique experiences of these immigrants and their descendants). Americans without ancestry from the British Isles may also wish to use the term to bring attention to the fact that in the past the study of American history hardly included them anymore than Americans with African, Asian, or Mexican heritage. Since the WASPy nature of "white" America is now nostalgia and provencialism, we may need another term to discuss this segment of the population. -Acjelen 9 July 2005 04:57 (UTC)

Since when does "a level of integration bring about a desire for...identity and an easier way to talk about the history of...immigration"? I'm "European American", and I don't find any desire in myself to "find a shared identity" with anyone and everyone descended from non-British European immigrants. Is it now impossible for someone to feel that they're truly American without becoming hyphenated?? How is it possible that this group (or any such group) is deserving of identity *now*, when they are *more* assimilated into American culture, than when they were previously?? It just seems to me that all this hyphenation and "group identity" happening in this country is a result of current political and social trends, and does little to actually understand history. Believe it or not, it's quite possible to learn about African, Asian, and Mexican immigration history to the United States without having to conjure up "identities" like "African American", "Asian American", or "Mexican American". In fact, these "identities" actually get in the way, as they arbitrarily bunch together a group of people who have *individual* stories and histories regarding their ancestry and immigration.

But this is besides the point. My main point is that this term is not used much in the United States, except by white supremacists, and to most Americans, it conjures up pictures of David Duke and white racists more than anything else. I may not agree with terms like "African American", either, but at least these are widespread and adopted terms, which this one is not. The article does not reflect this. Revolver 9 July 2005 10:20 (UTC)

It is called "cultural identity". Get over yourself. Not everyone thinks like you. I think you are the one who sounds ridiculous. Though it's fine with me if you want to be who you want to be. As for me, and many others? My family is German. After the Great Persecution of the German Peoples during the 20th century, which resonates until today, our people were forced to integrate, with punishments of imprisonment, property seizure, sterilization, and death. Now as other cultures pour into America, such as Mexicans and Middle-Easterners, we are forced to accept their culture, leaving us feeling devoid of our own. I as well sought out my people's culture. This is certainly a growing trend in America today. Do not disregard it simply on the grounds of being a bigot. Presidentbalut (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

2. "Europe" is itself a relatively recent social construction in terms of identity, so I see little justification for the use of the term, personally. But then again, I have the same opinion and criticisms about the term African American, and this term seems to have caught on (unfortunately, IMHO). Europe itself is (like Africa and black Americans of African descent) a place of extremely varied cultures, ethniticies, histories, and identities.

And, of course, recent immigrants to America from Europe may wish to use the term to distinguish themselves. -Acjelen 9 July 2005 04:57 (UTC)

Distinguish themselves *from what*?? We're all distinguished from each other at some level. This is just a politically motivated attempt to forge divisive group identities under the guise of historical scholarship. Revolver 9 July 2005 10:20 (UTC)

3. The picture seems misleading. Where do the data come from? The info with it gives the impression that it refers to "whites", whereas the article says this is different from "European American". This should be cleared up and clarified.

4. The link at the bottom (as of 8 July) is to a website that appears racist and only confirms my first point. One of the main articles listed at this site questions whether "Zionists and Jews" are running the country into ruin. Revolver 9 July 2005 00:31 (UTC)

Caucasian-American

As all of you are aware, Caucasian-American redirects to this article. Caucasian-American should be a seperate article, because the term "Caucasian" also refers to non-Europeans such as Middle Easterners and North Africans. It's a big mistake having Caucasian-Americans redirect to this article! --Gramaic | Talk 08:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Is it really used that way? I've seen Caucasian and Caucasian-American used to refer to European-descended individuals, but I don't know any people of Middle-Eastern descent who wouldn't rather be called Middle-Eastern-descended.--Nectarflowed ^T 10:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the term goes beyond European. In fact, take a look at Race (U.S. Census) which is a copy of the real U.S. Census definition, and the definition of White/Caucasian would be; a person that descends from the original people of Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa. You could also look up the word Caucasian in the dictionary and the defintion would be; person who is the original inhabitant of Europe, Southwest Asia, North Africa, and Indian Sub-Continent.

<quote>I don't know any people of Middle-Eastern descent who wouldn't rather be called Middle-Eastern-descended.<quote/> Actually most (if not all) Middle Easterners in the United States refer to themselves as White or Caucasian-American. Yes there are some Middle Eastern people who would rather not refer to themselves as Caucasian, but as just Middle Eastern. In fact, I've seen some Italians who are of course White and European-Americans refer to themselves and referring to all Italians as non-White, but that doesn't mean that Italians are actually non-White. So that's why Caucasian-American should be a seperate article, rather than be a redirect to this article. --Gramaic | Talk 20:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of the definition; I was speaking regarding a discrepancy between official usage and popular usage.--Nectarflowed ^T 21:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I think Caucasian is used in the United States as a euphemism to refer to Whites and give them a more anthropological-sounding label. It is probably often used to refer to Americans who look white but don't "qualify" (so to speak) as being of European descent. Like so-called European Americans, Americans of west Asian and north African descent have only recently (if at all) thought of themselves as a single, coherent group requiring a handy label. It seems a disturbing trend in the United States that its people feel compelled to join (or restructure) one of its outdated and inadequately limited "racial" groupings. -Acjelen 20:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Caucasians are from Europe, Asia, and Africa. Overlapping with whites, bit not the same as European.Presidentbalut (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Expansion

This page needs to be expanded. European Americans are the most important racial group in the country, yet the "African-American" page is several times longer.--80.186.137.142 21:34, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, that`s an important point: I don't think that "European Americans" are a racial group (there are no human races in the biological sense, though people of african descent of course look different from other people with asian or european roots). It refers to Americans who originally came from the culturally-geographical defined region of Europe. Of course there are differences between the ethnicities of europe, who are devided by culture, languages etc., but there are also a lot of similarities. So I would say it is a term which includes all the different ethnical groups (or ancestry groups) like Irish-American, German-American etc. And the differences of these groups in America are slighter than the differences between the ethnicities in europe. (Sorry for my bad English).

Matthias

One reason the African American article is longer is because African Americans have existed as a group much longer than European Americans (the 17th century versus 1940s) Moreover, European Americans did not emerge until the general lessening of segregation in the United States along social, economic, and ethnic lines. In fact, that very flattening of American society made such a group as "European Americans" possible. But an unsegregated society makes it difficult for European Americans to create unique cultural, social, or political contributions. For example, more European Americans died in the Vietnam conflict, but they did so in an integrated military. European Americans are important in the history of popular music, especially rock-n-roll, but that would have hardly existed as it does today without the contributions of African Americans. The stereotypical hippy movement of the 1960s is European American. Generally one could consider the current field in Nashville-sound country music, Evangelical Christianity, and the rise of the contemporary Republican Party as contributions of the European Americans. White flight, of course, and suburban sprawl will be one of the lasting contributions of this group. -Acjelen 22:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you came upon a 1940s date for the start of the "existence" of European Americans, but I do not agree with that. Americans of different European ethnicities have been intermarrying from the start of colonization. Yes, there were more "pureblood" whites before the 20th century, but that had more to do with the fact that many of these people had recently passed through Ellis Island and had not had much of an opportunity to intermarry outside their ethnic group. In the South, where immigration rates were lower, whites had largely discarded their old ethnic labels well before the Civil War; they were less "Scottish," "English," "German" et al. and more "Southern." 24.192.17.34 07:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Sense of adjective

It should be pointed out that the adjective in European American is used in the narrow biological sense. The U.S. Secretary of State, for example, wears European fashions, speaks a European language, and occasionally gives recitals of European music on a European instrument. In this broader sense, nearly everyone in the United States is a European American. -Acjelen 04:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Christina Aguilera

The article makes a point to distinguish between latin american and euro american, that while some people from both might be considered white in the census their ethnicities are different. So my question is, why does the article include Christina Aguilera as european-american when she is latin-american. Her father is from Ecuador. So, any comments? Cjrs 79 03:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The article does not make a point to distinguish between Latin Americans and Euro Americans. It just talks about Euro Americans. Latin American does not negate her being classified as a European American, because she was born in the USA and has origins in the original peoples of Europe.--Dark Tichondrias 01:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree with the previous statement. Any person who has origins in the original peoples of Europe qualifies, regardless of what territory their ancestors emigrated from. In fact, about 35% of Latin Americans have ancestral origins in Europe, see article White Latin American. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emanuel Kingsley (talk • contribs) 17:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Are Italians Hispanic?

If some dictionaries include Portuguese people, language, and culture under the term 'Hispanic', then since Italy was part of the Spanish Empire, Italians are Hispanic, too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.76.144.224 (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Actually, they are not. The term "Hispanic" comes from the Latin word "Hispania," which refers to the Iberian peninsula. People of Portuguese origin are considered Hispanic because Portugal is also in the Iberian peninsula. However, Italy is not, so Italian-Americans are not Hispanic. Equating the word "Hispanic" with "Spanish" is a mistake, even though they have the same etymological origin. Portugal is a part of Hispania, too, but Italy most certainly is not.

Actually, the term Hispanic is very broad. If Bolivians are considered Hispanic, while 90% have no Spanish blood, then Italians, Dutch, and Moroccans all can be Hispanic as well, since they don't have any Spanish blood either. Like Bolivia they were part of the empire, and have no genetically ancestry. The only way this can get by is because the word Hispanic is the most misused word in the United States of America. Casey14 02:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

90%?? your are way off in your calculations, there is a large amount of people of no Spanish blood but is more in the 20%'s, and then mestizos that look native which make about 35%. the rest are whiter mestizos, blacks, asians and whites. --76.89.151.106 (talk) 05:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

On that note, the first paragraph states, 'European Americans have the lowest poverty rate . . . after Cuban-Americans'. The majority of Cuban Americans are of European descent, so the comparison is not very useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.10.23.224 (talk) 05:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly Italians ARE just as Hispanic as Mexicans or Filipinos. You can even Wiki it! https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Spanish_Empire_Anachronous_en.svg Presidentbalut (talk) 17:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Italians and Filipinos are not Hispanic. The term was coined in the 1970s for Spanish speakers, so it's Spain ,most of Central & South America, but not Brazil or Suriname, and only some of the Carribbean islands. Brazilians are considered Latonos, as are Hispanics of the New Word, because "Latino" (coined in the 1800s) signifies those areas colonized by Latin-language family speaking countries. If Italians had set up colonies in the New World, they'd be Latinos, but they didn't so there aren't any. Boneyard90 (talk) 01:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I can`t find Serbian-American on the list

Why?

Because you didn't add it. This is wikipedia. Please sign your comments with four tildes. JesseRafe 04:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Who uses this term at all?

The term European American is more specific than White American in that these terms in their official usage...

and

It should, however also be mentioned that the term "European Americans" is sometimes used as a synonym for White Americans in certain government publications.

What official usage? I've never seen either European American or White American in any government publication. Care to provide some examples?

The term was coined in response to the increasing racial diversity of the United States, as well as in recognition of this demographic diversity moving more into the mainstream of the society in the latter half of the 20th century.

Is there a reference as to how it was coined? Nathanm mn 13:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow Wikipedia is just glorified grafiti and this article is a perfect example of what i mean... this term is practically non-existent in common or academic usage --62.245.143.34 13:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is the only example of use of the term that I have ever seen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.28.15 (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You are fos. thanks, go away.

This is the most ridiculous article I have ever read. I am 42, was born and have lived in the United States my whole entire life and I can guarantee you wiki-people that the term "European-American" is NOT used here. Trust me on this. No government forms, questionnaires, Census forms, etc. include "European-American" as a choice. Sadly the whole "-American" thing has gotten out of control. I will explain how it works here in the United States. Normally if a person, who was born in the United States, and has parents or grandparents born, in for example, Italy - if asked what they are, they will either say 1) American, or 2) Italian. Normally, a person wouldn't say they are "Italian-American". They for sure as hell wouldn't say they were "European-American". If the person says they are "Italian", it is understood that he/she wasn't actually born in Italy, but that their heritage is Italian. Anyway, this article should be deleted, it is like some European decided to create a new classification that does not exist in the U.S. It is amazing how many innacurate entries I have read on wiki relating to American-centric things that were obviously written by non-Americans (and when I say "American", I obviously mean those people living in the United States.98.116.88.18 (talk) 05:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)AR

Well, take a look at the previous person's comment. Fascinating! Thanks for enlightening us at to "how it works" in the US. So based on you anecdotal references, this article should be deleted because most US friends of yours or government forms make no use of it. So what? It doesn't matter if anyone you ever knew uses the term. Besides, what YOU say what is what's ridiculous, and not because it's not true. So, based on your logic, we should rename the "Italian American" article just "Italian" which should mean, in your pea-sized view of the world, those folks born in the US whose ancestors come from Italy? uhh... what about those in Italy proper? I know! We can rename that article "Euro-Italians"! The only thing wrong with the "European-American" article is that it excludes folks from other parts of the American continent (say Argentina, or Canada) whose ancestors came from Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emanuel Kingsley (talk • contribs) 21:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Euro-American redirects here

Euro-American redirects here, which I've got an issue with because of the USAcentricity of this page; the reason it's USA-centric is because of, well, the ethno-biased p.c.-ism of rehashed histories of Canada and other New World countries where "Euro-American" or "European" is substituted for "white", "Scottish", "Irish", "French" and so on; in Canada's case it's used by politically-conscious/pretentious historical writers to get around the distinctions between American-origin whites and British-origin whites, compounded by (especially in frontier areas) actual European-origin whites who are not American or British. Confusing? Yeah, I know, and a pain in the ass too. Obviously this page is fine as it is - "European American" - though it's not a common-usage term; I just want to submit that some kind of disambig seems necessary on "Euro-American" because of that term's usage in other contexts.Skookum1 17:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Turks

Aha.. If some people have got issues with Turks, that them somewhere else please. Such statement bordering on racism is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Have a look if you would like to learn the origins of Turks and those of the seperate Mongolians. Keep it down, and please do not post borderline-racist notes that can only contribute to the creation of a hostile working environnement.Baristarim 03:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this brings into to question the whole racist nature of categorizing peoples like this to begin with. I mean how is this guys comment any more racist than the entire concept of the page to begin with. He is mearly arguing a point, even if his facts are incorrect(and the whole thing is rather subjective really). Anyway, you sure are quick to through out the term racist and start preaching. You sound like you have been to one to many tolerance training classes or something. Like the comment about "hostile work environment", I don't know about you but I'm not getting paid to be here. Also, what's so bad about the mongols that that's an insult? Whatever... In conclusion, please be less of a moron in future posts. - Arch NME 00:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • haha, how much I love Greeks? They are funny. BTW we increased 40% in last ten years. That is scary, man. That is the highest increase from Europe.

ı cant understend why always says"turks originally from Mongolia"İts imposible mogolians and turks always be enemy Turkish race name: Europid/Turan and Greeks are Turkish minority and They dont have clear DNA,Yes Turkish race arnt belong sothern bloc accordingly we are Whitest then European mediterreanans,They Always says Turks come From MOGOLIA,Its not true.

• Why does this definition include Turkey?? They arent culturally, linguistically, or ethnically white/european-they are relatevily recent arrivals from central asia and they have been migrating to asia minor for centuries. I know the Turkish people article says the turkic population HAS MOSTLY Y CHROMOSOMES THAT ARE FOUND IN OTHER EUROPEAN POPULATIONS, but Y chromosomes are only the MALE lineage of the population..the some Turk articles on Wikipedia say this >> fromDemographics_of_Turkey#Ethnic_groups "http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Demographics_of_Turkey#Ethnic_groups", and this quote from the Turkish people article >> "The researchers found that interbreeding between Europeans and Asians occurred much earlier than previously thought. They also found DNA sequences similar to those in present-day Turks, supporting the idea that most of the Turks originated in Central Asia. Interestingly, this paternal lineage has been, at least in part (6 of 7 STRs), found in a present-day Turkish individual (Henke et al. 2001). Moreover, the mtDNA (female linkeage) sequence shared by four of these paternal relatives (from graves 46, 52, 54, and 57) were also found in a Turkish individuals (Comas et al. 1996), suggesting a possible Turkish origin of these ancient specimens. Two other individuals buried in the B sector (graves 61 and 90) were characterized by mtDNA sequences found in Turkish people (Calafell 1996; Richards et al. 2000)."

DONT CONFUSE PHENOTYPE WITH A SPECIFIC GENOTYPE! (phenotpye is superficial-as about as good as using LANGUAGE to find someones ETHNICITY) from Turkic peoples: "The Turkic peoples possess physical features ranging from Caucasoid to Northern Mongoloid. In western Turkic lands, such as Turkey and Azerbaijan, a great many people look "European" and "Mediterranean"." I know not all Turks resemble mongolians, PHENOTYPE is different from GENOTYPE because phenotype is very malleable is subject to selective pressures (they have lost their asian features from natural and sexual selection), but in essence they are still asians. This can be seen on Dr. Sforza and Piazza's The Geography of Human Genes where he compares the genetic distances of many populations. The results concluded that Turks cluster very closely to Amerindian populations and NOT WITH EUROPEANS, which makes sense because they come from the same parent population (mongolians)>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/94/Cavallisforzageneclusters.jpg - they are close to europeans on ONE dimension but are markedly different on others.. heres another study that has similar results >> http://vetinari.sitesled.com/euroaims.pdf . WHATEVER THE REASON (DOESNT MATTER REALLY) TURKS CLUSTER FAR FROM EUROPEANS AS FAR AS GENETICS IS CONCERNED. Also cultural differences (esp. religion) prevented them from mixing heavily with european populations- note on that study what was plotted was North Turkish (no doubt european turkey) and wouldnt be considred european in that way either.. Norway considers Turks as Asians (according to the 'Asians' article and so do the vast majority of the British population (laymen) dont consider them as White people. So I dont see any reason to consider the Turks as European on this article; scientists wouldnt consider them "white" and evidently neither do the general population..as for the Turks themselves-they dont conform to the "white"-"non-white" labels. But from what I hear the turkic people dont want to have their country admitted to the EU. So finally, why are they on this article??? It contradicts other Wikipedia articles. -- 134.121.247.116 (talk) 08:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Before making racist and infantile comments about Turks, look at this (http://racialreality.110mb.com/tatc.html) and then you will realize how stupid your claim that scientists would not consider Turks "white," even though they have always consider them "white." The only "Europeans" who do not consider Turks white/European are Islamophobic Nordicists like Norman Lowell and Nicolas Sarkozy, not rational human beings. Besides N. Turkic people from Centeral Asia have grown genetically distant from Turks and Azeris as a result of mixing with neighboring populations over time. -- Muhammad al-Assad

Turkey is in Asia. Nothing racist about that. Simply a fact. Presidentbalut (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Greeks

Greeks are not European. They came from ethopia and genetic testing has shown them to be related to ethopians. Cyprus is in the middle east next to freaking lebanon. They invaded what is now greece and stole the land from the macedonians. Now they shamelessly to pass macedonian history as greek. Alexander is macedonian and always will be!

First of all, Greeks are European, Mediterranean, and originally shared cultural and historical ties with people of the lands Alexander the Great conquered, until Europe went into chaos thanks to the Roman's lead poisoned water and the yet uncivilized invaders of Europe known at that time as barbarians to the civilized ancient world. Now, we have this picture of Jesus as a light skinned -- light complexioned caucasian, dispite no one of true Mediterranean origin could pass as such. The lead poisoned water coming from the Roman's lead pipes turned the Roman Empire into a self-destructive and defenseless empire. Slavs such as yourself are delusional from all the brainwashing that's been done to you. Do us all a favor and don't try to rewrite history. 68.248.229.10 17:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Muhammad al-Assad

Have you ever seen a Greek, have you ever seen an ethiopian? Have you ever seen a statue of an ancient Greek?

Yeah problem solved

All humans came from the region of Ethiopia and neighboring areas (if you believe in Evolution, that is). So? :) Baristarim 01:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

yes all Mediterranean people come From North of Africa(except Turkey) and some of them mixed with europeans,only Turkish people come from Eastern europe/central asia

A further note, lead poisoning did not lead to the decline of the Roman Empire. ➳ Quin 09:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• That is an OUTRAGEOUS CLAIM. You are refering to a DEBUNKED study done by Skopkian historical revisionists that was published in an obscure magazine that doesnt show its methods and which has some names attached to it that would definately be suspicious. That study only used one genetic marker, by that study-Japanese are also subsaharan african-funny. It has been debunked and is propoganda for political gain-anyone with any intelligence at all would be able to see that that was a bogus pseudo-science study (i hope). All humans came out of Africa, thats all that study proves >> THE STUDY IS DEBUNKED HERE ON RACIALREALITYBLOG >> http://racialreality.blogspot.com/2004/09/study-clarification-ii.html . The articles I cited on my post showing that turks dont cluster with europeans also shows THAT GREEKS DO CLUSTER WITH EUROPEANS> ALL EUROPEANS ARE VERY CLOSE BECAUSE THEY ALL EXPANDED OUT OF SOUTHERN EUROPE IN THE IBERIAN, ITALIAN, AND GRECIAN REFUGIA AFTER THE LAST GLACIAL MAXIMUM. IM SICK AND TIRED OF PEOPLE EQUATING PHENOTPYE WITH GENOTYPE, they dont correspond. Chinese and Japanese have similar phenotpyes, yet they are very different genetically. Also skin color is determined by sexual selection and distance from the sun (varies on a North-south clinal relationship). Unless you know anything at all about human evolution stop spouting off about retarded and racist stuff like 'Porteugese look like gypsys, therefore they must be/mixed with gypsys', etc nonsense. I cant believe how many morons dont know the story of the human journey out of africa or the slightest bit about human evolution/diversity. Pick up a book and read it...use you HEAD, and if you cant let Wikipedia fill in for it >> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/94/Cavallisforzageneclusters.jpg . DONT BRING THIS UP AGAIN. -- 134.121.247.116 (talk) 09:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Last I checked Greece is still in Europe. Presidentbalut (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Map is absolutetely arbitrary

British Isles not Western Europe? etc. I am deleteing this arbitrary map. Veritas et Severitas 02:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Question about accuracy of numbers

How did america lose 40 million euro-americans in 10 years? Something is wrong with this page.

Total 210,181,975 84.2% 171,801,940 60.7% decreased 18.3%

It is a consequence of the new term "AMERICAN" included in by the U.S. Census Bureau as another ethnicity. In fact, taking into account that Americans are NOT considered Europeans when they arrive to Europe, the term "AMERICAN" will increase during the next decades. I am European and I don´t know about anybody which when meeting a group of Americans in Europe think about them as Europeans. We only think about them as Americans (basically a Germanic ethnicity like the Dutch) And the same happens when a group of black Americans arrive to an African country: they are easily recognised as AMERICANS not tswanas, tsonas, xhosas, fangs or any other tribe. Americans look different, speak different and behave different. They are neither Europeans nor Africans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.26.56.130 (talk) 02:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for signing your post, but back to the question, yes it is possible to lose 40 million euro americans because of the way in which people claim themselves on the US census, the people arent "lost" they just didnt declare themselves the same way on both census's.--Joebengo 03:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Joebengo as I am one of those missing Americans, I haven't physically gone anywhere. I just decided the idea of race in general was stupid as it leads to separatism and tons of other problems. So I just don't check the boxes on anything anymore. I would encourage everyone else to do the same. I'm kinda committed to the idea that if everyone just forgets the whole concept of race America would be a better place. It's not that I want to forget who I am it's that I just don't think I need to contribute to racial ideology every time I fill out some government paperwork. As to the argument that European-American is a geographic origin and not a race, it's complete nonsense and ever sane person knows it. Same old shit, new politically correct name. It's nice to see that maybe 40 million other Americans agree with me. I move this whole page be deleted for the good of humanity. - Arch NME 01:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The 'European' undercount is actually from the English-British group and very well known among demographers, until 2001 English-Americans were the largest self-reported ethnic group then for some reason the government decided to add the category 'American', subsequently most English-Americans self reported as such due to the length of time they have inhabited America; however, it has caused some hiccups with German-Americans now claiming wrongly that they are the largest ethnic group in the US. I have added four cites and a paragraph laying out why there is a serious European undercount. Twobells (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Template

Out of all the European Americans to have ever graced our country, the best pictures we can come up with are Clinton, Reagan, and Marilyn Monroe? Is there anyway we can come up with a more representative sample? --Caponer 01:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

If you can then do it, the best idea would be to find some better representations and propose them on the talk page so that people may express how they feel about each picture you may propose.--Joebengo 03:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Please remove Paris Hilton

Paris Hilton is not an important representitive of European Americans. We already have a picture of a blond female celebrity (Marilyn Monroe), who is a much more significant figure in American culture. Paris Hilton may be famous now but her fame will leave no lasting impact on our culture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.27.119.90 (talk) 10:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Pictures

I am tired of having a useless revert battle and i WILL NOT break the 3 revert rule, there fore i will bring the subject here and take a "vote". A certain anon editor has insisted on placing the image on the right of Kazimierz Pułaski, the trouble i have is that there is no way of having him comapred to JFK, Ben Franklin, George Washington, Abe Lincoln, and Marilyn Monroe, He is simply not well known on a WORLD WIDE scale and the pictures should represent the best of European Americans. There are plenty of other European Americans such as Bill Gates, John Paul Jones, Arnold Schwarzenegger, or anyone else who is more famous than some general who is barely known from the revolutionary war. If anyone else agrees with me please let your views be known so that when a change is made it can be a community decission.--Joebengo 23:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

kids in illinois get a day off for pulaski day. chicago[land] has a lot of poles so we have a columbus-day-like historical figure to celebrate. except we were never taught about him, probably because they dont want the kiddies dwelling on 'my nationality has more heroes than your nationality' because polaski is all we could come up with. and i dont mean to sound snarky, i'm polish. we were also told that columbus was a peaceful explorer. (rolling my eyes) 76.217.120.247 16:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Better map needed

This article could really benefit from a better map of "European ancestries." The regions labeled on the current map are completely wrong. See Northern Europe, Western Europe, Central Europe, Eastern Europe, and Southern Europe. Also the anatolian part of Turkey is not in Europe.

I propose replacing the current map with either a generic political map of europe or a religious one. Historically European Americans have devided themselves along religions lines rather than political ones. Such a map could shed light on why Swedish and German neighborehoods are usually separate from Irish and Polish ones.

Regardless, either the current map is corrected to reflect the regional definitions in the above mentioned articles or it will be replaced. JRWalko 01:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Religion in Europe has a map. (see right) --JWB 23:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this map would be better, what do the other editors think? My criticism of the current map comes from the fact that the region labels are somewhat old and misleading especially given the fact that you can put things like "Scandinavian" in the census.I don't think many Spaniards consider their ancestry to be from the same region as Turks nor would Icelandic Americans say the same about Lithuanians.JRWalko 03:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This religious based map is not only discriminatory, but it sets up worse boundaries. This would be wrong to use becasue this article is about ethnic groups, not religious groups. Also, Turkey's Anatolian part may not be geographically in Europe, but the nation itself is part of Europe, thus stop the bs on this page. Casey14 02:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Turks not on list

The Turks are not on the list and need to be added. Casey14 02:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The Turkish Americans were originally on the list that I made. Some editors removed them claiming that they were not part of Europe. This feeling of distance from other Europeans may have arisen from Turkish people not being full European in lineage having mixed ancestries with the Mongolian horde, being situated on the Arabian peninsula and the fact that Turkey is a Muslim nation. I think we should find multiple WP:RSs to see whether expert sociologists consider Turkish Americans to be Euro-Americans or Middle Eastern Americans.^DarkTea 01:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure sociologists would make pronouncements on this; rather, they might study to what degree Americans or other people consider Turkey to be European.

The relationship between Turkey and Europe is a current controversy which could support a whole article of its own. I don't see such an article now, but for example Accession of Turkey to the European Union covers the points in some detail. Given more than one widely held POV on this, this article should briefly note that there are various opinions and link to the appropriate articles.

Since Americans do not know much about Turkey and there are relatively few Turkish-Americans, Americans' opinion of whether Turkish Americans are European Americans may not be strong or stable. It is likely to change (at least towards the viewpoint that some Turks are European) with additional knowledge of Turkey's European heritage (besides including some European territory now, the Ottoman Empire's initial growth was in the Balkans, and many Turks are descended from Muslim refugees from the Balkans and Russia), or if Turkey is admitted to the European Union, or as Muslim and European identity are gradually reconciled. --JWB 02:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it simply a question of geography and religion? Only a tiny portion of Turkey lies in Europe, if that is the only claim Turks have to Europe then it would be like saying the French were South American people because of their possession of French Guiana. As for

being "culturally" European that may or may not be the case. No one is picking on Turkey, it's simply hard to establish what it means to be European. Similarly one can make the case that Morocco was heavily influenced by Europe yet Moroccans are obviously not Europeans. A great deal of European identity is defined by religion and one could take a look at the map in the above section and draw clear lines if one was so inclined. Just because a country has undergone Europeanisation does not make it European. JRWalko 02:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, even if strictly by current geography, there are at least some people who lived in European Turkey before coming to America, who would be European Americans.

People of European descent in Asian Turkey are no longer living in Europe, but then neither are Americans or Australians.

Yes, national identity often has a lot to do with religion, but if you are going to go strictly by religion, you would be better off talking about Christian Americans than European Americans. --JWB 04:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• ==Turks as "European"==

I commented earlier on this...I may have misinterpreted Sforza's STR plot(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/94/Cavallisforzageneclusters.jpg); I am assuming that by N Turk they mean European Turkey..but it might be talking about Siberia or something. I cant find any STR plots with them in it.. the EUROAIMS article shows they are drastically different in some areas but the same in other areas on some graphs (http://www.ajhg.org/AJHG/fulltext/S0002-9297(07)60950-1?large_figure=true). Although, the Hittites were the ancient inhabitants of anatolia (greeks settled on the coast too), evidence does suggest that there is a significant amount of non-caucasoid admixture among the Turks, as much as 33%(http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2005/02/how-turkish-are-anatolians.html). But, if we include Turks on here, should we also include Mexico or some other South American countries, they have significant european populations and alot of meszitos. Turkey is like a grey area..its not a nation state-its like America..Turkey is really diverse, people from lebanon, iraq, iran, central asia, etc live there. Im no expert on the subject of Turkey demographics, but I dont think there is a 'typical ethnic turk' like this isnt an American' ethnicity. I think the map or list should only include european nation-states that are UNDENIABLY ethnically european. 134.121.247.116 (talk) 08:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Turkey is not in Europe! Presidentbalut (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Validity of some of the statistics

It seems to me like recently added statistics can't be used because they all follow the white American categorizing rather than European American. Since the two are different statistics from one clearly can't be used for the other. I'd like to know the opinion of other editors here. JRWalko 23:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Is the term European American becoming more common?

The article says the answer to this question is yes. I would think the answer would seem to be yes, however I never yet hear it on T.V. although many other continent and region based terms are becoming more and more common (though some are perhaps reaching their upper limits of usage by now). I have mainly observed its usage in an anthropology text book and a few other places. Observer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.115.144 (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm still going to say that I next to never hear this term used in normal context. And the map is absolutely dreadful. The british isles are all part of northern europe? the baltic too? news to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.159.112.165 (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

European American != White American

Since US Census also accepts North Africans and Middle Easterners as white. AnotherLurker (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

And does the US Census also accept White South Africans coming to the US as "African Americans"? There are numerous problems with lots of terms. That doesn't invalidate using "European American" in place of "White American", especially when preceded or followed by "African American" or "Asian American", etc. It is consistent and fair --Crxssi (talk) 02:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no they don't, arguably because they are descended from colonial settlers. There are numerous ethnic settler groups residing as minorities, for generations, in other countries, but that doesn't mean that they are to be referred to by the ethnic term for the predominant majority of that country. But the larger point that the original poster is making is valid; "white" refers to a much broader category than simply "European", and the proof is in the pudding. We can see exactly how the term is defined by how it was used in legal documents and court decisions in America and other countries, and its quite clear that "white' refers to just about anyone who is of a lighter skin tone and who is not "black" or, as in many European countries "Asian" or "Indian". Like many terms, it was invented in tandem with its own opposite

I came on this page because I've noticed an attempt, in some articles relating to African-American history, to substitute "European-American's" for "white" and its simply not usable. They are not interchangeable. European-American's may refer to a more discrete subset within "white", and it may in fact be usable in certain historical articles, most notably about colonization of the New World, but cannot be dropped into every article that discusses white people. Scholarly sources simply do not use the term "European-American" that often, and never as interchangeable to white, except for some of the instances I've mentioned (early settler history). It is not Wikipedia's job to change the terms commonly used in historiography.SiberioS (talk) 19:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

An interesting example of how this can pan out, and how white solely exists in contrast to black, is the case of the racial category of Ethiopians that was debated early on in the 20th century. Many Europeans, and even most of the Ethiopian aristocracy, argued that they were not "black" or "African" but clearly "white" as indicated by their "advanced" (their term) level of science and culture. It wasn't until the invasion of Ethiopia by Italy that such a movement for "White" identification collapsed, and Ethiopians came to embrace the then burgeoning concept of Pan-African ideals. Clearly, the Ethiopians did not live in Europe, yet they were argued to be "white", or at the very least, not "Black". SiberioS (talk) 04:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hence the problem with macro-racial classifications. It's easy to tell the difference between a Nordic European, an Asian from Japan, and a sub-Saharan African, but when you go to northern Africa or the Middle East, things aren't so straight forward. I think we all can agree that European American is not as common as white, and even though all people from Europe (excluding recent migrations) can be considered white, not all white people can be considered European. Kman543210 (talk) 04:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC) European and white are not the same, as many Europeans are black. Presidentbalut (talk) 18:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

All this being said, the first paragraph of the "Demographics" section of the article is all about "Hispanic White Americans" vs "Non-Hispanic White Americans", neither of which have anything to do with European-Americans, a category entirely separate from both Hispanic and White. We should at least throw in a mention that "White" and "European" are not the same thing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.108.44 (talk) 02:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Obama is European American

i understand a 'concensus' has been reached on his page, but according to the definition here he fits in, so why has his image been removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invertedzero (talk • contribs) 13:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Halle Berry is European American

By the article's definition. She is also African American under its definition. However she is not white as clearly her skin colour is light brown, in the same way as she is not black as her skin colour is not black, but she decends from both! (Invertedzero (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC))

this term is really only to replace the term "White" in the future, so does that include her?..she even said that she doesnt consider herself white cause she doesnt look it, that came from her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.25.214 (talk) 13:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well find another definition then, because that's the one referenced on wikipedia, as someone who is of european descent! Halle Berry doesn't identoofy as that simply because of the pressure in america to identify as black. If she had a realistic option and experience of being able to call herself mixed race or something to that effect, she would, just like many americans and 1 million people in uk do now! As the wikipedia article ITSELF explains, European American does not nessecarily mean 'white'. I put Halle Berry there as an example to show this for clarity of the difference between various definitions for similar things. There has been no argument as such to convince me that she shouldn't be there, so shall be put back. (Invertedzero (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)) I concur. European =/= white. Presidentbalut (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Basque and Catalans are Spanish

Both are included into Spanish. If we make that distinction then we can should divide each country in different subdivisions. This doesn't make sense.

There are Basques and Catalans from France and Andorra, too. They're not just "Spanish". Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 05:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. The US Census puts Catalans and Basques into the Hispanic categories. Thus they have nothing to do with France. --79.147.125.195 (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Then you must put occitans apart from french. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.15.52.12 (talk) 18:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Figure for German/Irish/English together

Wouldn't many of those Germans, Irish and English be more than one of these ancestries, thus making it lower than 57.9%? Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 05:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Information

"Approximately 53 percent of European Americans today are of colonial ancestry, and 47 percent are descended from European immigrants who came to the U.S. since 1790".

Unsource information. I added fact tag there. Opinoso (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Images in the infobox

I removed some of the pictures because politicians and entertainers were overrepresented. I thought I'd started a topic here concerning that, a few months ago, but I see that was at Talk:White American.

If anyone would like to add new people, I suggest they look beyond the usual suspects of politicians and actors or singers: to writers, scientists, businesspersons, athletes, painters, architects, etc. SamEV (talk) 03:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I alluded to it in my edit summary, but lest anyone object to my removing a favorite of theirs, here's a fuller explanation. The method I employed was simple: I removed every other entertainer and every other politician, but made an exception for the women because there were just two of them. That left 7 images, so I removed the last one, which was also a politician, to make it six, two even rows of 3. SamEV (talk) 03:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the infobox image should include about 20 people, that way we could get a good mix of different european nationalities, men / women and professions. A bit like the image on French people or British people. BritishWatcher (talk) 03:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, expansion is a fine idea. (Sorry, I missed your message last time.) Hope you'll work on it. SamEV (talk) 03:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Asiatic Barred Zone

According to the Immigration Act of 1917, Azerbaijanis, Georgians, Armenians, Cypriots and Turks were considered Asian and being near entirely geographically located in Asia they fell under that definition. Yet here they are being labeled as European. While many of the above peoples are genetically "Caucasoid" or "Europoid" so are many dark-skinned southern Arabians and southern Indians. The term Caucasian itself is a misnomer as the Caucasoid skull type has existed in middle eastern and Indian peoples before Europe was even inhabited due to the ice age. There are some middle easterners and Indians with light features why aren't they white by the same logic? There are also some brown-skinned Azerbaijanis, Georgians, Armenians, Cypriots and Turks, so why are they white? Also don't bring up indo-European language speakers, there are many native Americans without European blood in Latin America, yet they speak indo-European, most Britons speak an Anglo-Saxon language yet they are mostly genetically not Anglo-Saxon. Most Turks speak a central Asian language, yet they are not genetically identical to other central Asian peoples, Indians are mostly genetically the same people as they have been for 10s of thousands of years, etc languages don't necessarily spread through blood all the time.

The point remains that official government legislation in the past AND ANY GLOBE has labeled them to be Asiatic NOT European, whatever culture, language they might have, they are still located geographically in Asia. If you include these Asians as European, why stop there?, you could include mostly European countries like Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, etc. Aveneer (talk) 12:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Spanish Americans

There's almost no material on this article about the Spanish-Americans. After all, Spaniards are the earliest European American group, with a continuous presence since 1565.--Karljoos (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The definition given "European American given is "A European American ... is a citizen or resident of the United States who has origins in any of the original peoples of Europe."

In other words Europeans living in the colonies became European-Americans together at once on the 4th of July. I suppose before that they were British subjects. 67.167.2.58 (talk) 01:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Were the Spaniards "British subjects"?Presidentbalut (talk) 22:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

As a Spaniard I am a European. We, members of the EU and other European countries, Spaniards, French, Poles, etc, are Europeans. You, Americans, stop using our name and identity, for God´s sake. You are American, not European. pepe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3498:5EC0:F81A:B04A:B00F:7FDC (talk) 04:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

PURE WHITES ONLY NO MIXED BLOODS MY NOT APPLY

How is it that whites only want pure whites only in there group? what about people who are mixed with white americans? On the blackpeople wiki, mixed people are put with black americans no matter if they say there mixed are not. why is it a drop rule for blacks and not for whites? you can look 100% white and still be put on black wiki not matter if your mixed race why one rule for blacks and no rule for anyone else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.176.128.209 (talk) 06:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

If you are white, you are not black. That is easy enough. Perhaps you are confusing "black" with "African-American"? In which case, African-Americans(who are generally black) are desperate for fame and will list anyone as black. Just look at the whole Obama issue. He is 0% African-American. Yet that is how they portray him.

As for Europeans? The majority of all world contributions come from us. We do not need any pseudo-fame from someone of partial European lineage. Presidentbalut (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction & Definition

"A European American ... is a citizen or resident of the United States who has origins in any of the original peoples of Europe... Spanish Americans are the earliest European American group, with a continuous presence since 1565

There was no United States of America in 1565 (do I need a cite for that?) so the Spaniards living in Florida were _not_ European Americans. Maybe their grandchildren's grandchildren were, but that's beside the point.

What's with simply being a resident of the United States conferring "American-ness", wouldn't that person just be a "European" or possibly a "Canadian"

67.167.2.58 (talk) 01:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Barack Obama?

Come on now. He is half white. Why aren't any mixed race people here? If they have origins in Europe they should be on this page as well. They aren't "white". But this page isn't about "white" people. It's about poeple who have origins in any of the indigenous peoples of Eutope, i.ei, European-Americans.

Entertain the notion. I'd like to have a discussion about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.72.45 (talk) 13:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is true he is half white but does he really identify as a European American? Surly the best examples are people that have European ancestry on both sides....would a person that looked European with 12% black african ancestry be in the African American article? ...I highly doubt it due to their appearance. Oh and if people want an article on mixed race people they have an article all of it's own..multiracial American... That's excluding people that arnt mixed race isn't it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.37.202 (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

A good point by unsigned. Since this is not about race, then there should be an emphasis on ethnicity. Since, for example, "German" and "Irish" are not races, but cultures. Obama doesn't identify as European. Likewise, if someone does so, does that make them European? An African or Asian raised in France, and moves to America and naturalizes would have adopted the American way, but will still have a great deal of French culture and thinking. They would then be a French-American, would they not? Or a European-American, if you will. Despite being racially Asian or African. Presidentbalut (talk) 22:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to remove infobox images for this page

It really doesn't make any sense. Nobody identifies as "European American," they identify as one or more of the various European ethnic groups that this word encompasses. Bulldog123 16:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, not getting a response. I'm going to WP:BEBOLD and hopefully nobody will revert. Bulldog123 11:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Bulldog123: Please don’t do unilateral edits like this one, where you delete the montage because you got no community feedback on this thread. It is common on Wikipedia for the community to simply ignore propositions it disagrees with or finds to be unimportant. Your response (WP:BEBOLD) amounts to “Well… the community ignored me so the community must agree with me”, which is very faulty logic.

  You will have to provide some convincing evidence to support your allegation that Nobody identifies as "European American," they identify as one or more of the various European ethnic groups that this word encompasses; without it, your broad-brushed assertion is only WP:POV pushing. The article clearly states that a European American is a citizen or resident of the United States who has origins in any of the original peoples of Europe. The individuals in the montage—including Benjamin Franklin—so qualify.

  Please discuss edits you know or should know, will be controversial. Your running about on Wikipedia starting AfDs on so many articles because the existence of lists based on ethnic and racial distinctions is an anathema to you is tiresome. The proper response to the community rejecting the proposition of your AfDs is not to head back and sorta whittle away at them—not without a consensus to do so. The community ignoring you it is not a consensus—it is wishful thinking. But when you deleted it again, only 20 minutes after User:Wikiscribe reverted you is evidence that you must feel your opinion has the weight of two or three regular wikipedians. Other editors are trying to build the project. Please get out of their way and stop tearing down what others build. Greg L (talk) 21:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Please read WP:BEBOLD. Silence can be taken to mean "no opposition" until some effort is made to reach out in a relevant way. Wikiscribe did not do that. If no effort is made, there's absolutely nothing wrong with "unilaterally" changing something relatively inconsequential (such as a WP:POV montage). It's not my job to prove the negative of something - that's an insanely ridiculous caveat you created and would never force unto another editor. It's your job per WP:PROVEIT to prove the positive - that some of these people do identify as "European Americans?" If you can't prove it, WP:PROVEIT says I can immediately remove it. This article is in Category:Ethnic groups in the United States (until I unilaterally removed it here), so it most certainly does treat the people here as an ethnic group. Until a discussion is opened up on this talk page, I'm removing the montages again as "unsourced" and in a few cases per WP:BLP. Bulldog123 14:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Agree with the above comments of GregL. Well said. Request that Bull stop editing against consensus.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Wikihounding - Wiki-hounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia. That's all I have to say. Bulldog123 14:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• I was invited to this page. No doubt, because it relates to a subject that I've been editing on -- and improving (adding articles, text, refs, etc. to) -- for years, within my tens of thousands of edits. And because it closely relates to other matters I've edited of late -- including the RfC on the subject of images in these articles, and the article White Americans. Bull--you do not advance your case by seeking to intimidate editors with baseless accusations. In fact, it is uncivil.

Wikihounding is, in contrast -- as you know, I expect -- what you did by following me to dozens of articles, and reverting my additions to them ... articles that you had never, ever edited before. Since you are familiar with the guideline, I would again request that you desist in that habit.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Please show me diffs of those "dozens of articles" I reverted you on. If you're going to show diffs of the ones where I removed the See Also links... you might as well stop right now. I've mentioned and explained that over a dozen plus times. Oh... and who invited you here? Bulldog123 15:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

No need to be coy, Bull. It is not credible that you followed me to dozens of articles, ones that you had not edited before, and then reverted me at them. As a number of editors have said just this past month, I concur -- IMHO you are no longer entitled to the assumption of good faith, as you have rebutted it. And you are well aware who invited me here, so if this is just a conversation between us I don't think you are really in need of my assistance on either count. Again -- please stop wikihounding me, and please stop making spurious unfounded allegations. That is uncivil.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

And, as expected, you offer up not a shred of proof. Bulldog123 17:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I certainly could not have put it in any better light than Editor GregL has, i agree with his premises for the montag. BullDog(who names is most fitting) is clearly trying to corrupt policies to POV push also just to reply to BullDog message on my page, you are right, you are not only attacking white articles, you are attacking and POV pushing at many ethnic/racial articles--Wikiscribe (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You might need to freshen up on the term "POV push" - because if nominating articles for deletion and asking to remove original research is POV-pushing, then the majority of Wikipedia editors are, by your definition, POV-pushers. Want to rephrase what you meant and get to the topic at hand or just continue to attack me in lieu of an argument? Bulldog123 16:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This venue should be for one thing: to decide whether there is a consensus to remove the montage showing individuals are are “a citizen or resident of the United States who has origins in any of the original peoples of Europe”. So far, there is no consensus to do so. Moreover, Bulldog’s arguments don’t seem to be persuading anyone to his way of thinking.

I personally find Bulldog’s argument that *nobody* identifies as "European American," to be ill-considered nonsense. Just like “African American” is a politically correct euphemism for someone of the negroid race living in America (because the whole subject of *race* makes so many people uncomfortable), the term "European American" is a euphemism for someone of the caucasian race who lives in America. Wikipedia simply follows the RSs and reflects modern topics of interest and terminology. The definition this article uses to define “European American" is consistent with established dictionary definitions of the term and is a term that has 1.76 million hits on the Internet. These facts renders Bulldog’s efforts here to be without foundation and as mere POV-pushing borne out of his incessant efforts on these sort of articles.

We can leave it to other wikipedians to decide whether this article should be merged or moved to a new title; again, this issue is the montage and whether Bulldog’s double-attempts to delete it (after getting no response on this thread and also after being reverted) are somehow supported by a consensus. So far, his arguments are unpersuasive and his way of thinking doesn’t seem to be shared. Further, I personally don’t adhere to any of Bulldog’s *way of thinking* since it results in AfDs on numerous articles (like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Black Golden Globe Award winners and nominees, where he had a Strong Delete) and personal attacks such as “How you ever became an admin is a crime against good judgment.” Such polarized and extreme behavior does not impress and is not conducive to a collaborative writing environment. Greg L (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• (ec) I, for one, understand and concur with Wikiscribe. I would also add that Bull has consistently edited against consensus, and by his acts and comments reflected little interest in consensus. I would ask him politely to reconsider the importance of consensus, both on this page and across the project.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I personally find Bulldog’s argument that *nobody* identifies as "European American," to be ill-considered nonsense. Then. Prove. Me. Wrong. Show me where Al Pacino refers to himself as a European American. Show me where European American is considered a uniform ethnic group. WP:PROVEIT. What is so hard to understand about this concept? You seem to spend the majority of your words on this talk page finding new ways to discredit me (including bringing up a personal attack that I rescinded the moment I posted it - nice job on that one) Bulldog123 17:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• As you are coyly ducking, it is impossible to prove that Benjamin Franklin and JFK ever referred to themselves as “European Americans”; the term didn’t exist back when they were alive. The burden of proof you are trying to sneak in here upon which to base this decision was chosen to game the system. Common sense (and the above definitions RSs defining what the term clearly means) prove the point sufficiently well. Sorry, you’ve been proven wrong. Your argument is without foundation and (still) isn’t shared by the rest of us here. Greg L (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The rest of you (you and Epeefleche) wouldn't agree with me if I said the sky was blue, so this straw-man approach isn't working for you. No, if you had read more closely, WP:BLPs are separate from other cases. In the case of Franklin and JFK, we'd merely need a single outside source that calls them "European American" (and yes, this is the proper way to source such information). You can't even provide that, can you? Bulldog123 17:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Finally, you’ve stated something I can agree with: the sky is blue—at least most of the time. I explained, via the above links to RSs, showing the definition of “European American”, what the term means; this article is consistent with those definitions. So start reading and comprehending, and stop railing against those who disagree with you. Your behavior here is beginning to make it exceedingly clear why it is so rare we would ever agree with you. Once again, allow me to remind you that a consensus is not reached by your continuing to disagree with the others here and endeavoring to get in the last word, but by winning others over to your way of thinking with reasoned and logical arguments. Greg L (talk) 18:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Regarding your last comment, okay... what don't you understand about WP:V and the need to source these individuals as "European Americans" not as "People with a European ancestor"? We'll start with that maybe... though I'm sure you'll de-rail it to something else. Bulldog123 18:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• (ec) Bull -- you are the one attacking everyone else, and ignoring consensus. And using insulting, combative, tone. It might be helpful if you were to consider taking a look at this string, and try to divine if the other editors agree with you. If they don't, you might give some thought as to whether your views are -- perhaps -- non-consensus views. And if they are, you might consider what it would look like if you were to abide by consensus, in line with the core Wiki principle. This is a collaborative effort, and consensus is a core wiki principle. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Please just stop posting here unless you're going to mention a single thing that's relevant to the infobox image. Bulldog123 18:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I started off by speaking to the substance here, and asking that you respect consensus here. You responded to me with a comment that had zero to do with the substance here. Your response had nothing whatsoever to do with the infobox image. Zero. Zilch. Nada. And now -- after you led us all down this merry path of non-substantive discussion, you complain about responses to your off-substance spurious goading post, by protesting that the conversation has wandered from the substance? That makes no sense to me. But yes -- once again -- I agree with what GregL said above as to the substance, and I would hope that you would abide by the consensus on the substance discussed in this string.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• FYI - Your comments are pretty much on my ignore radar unless they start becoming relevant. So if this is your idea of trolling, go troll somewhere else. Bulldog123 18:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Now he is baiting you. Just cut to the chase, Epeefleche. State whether his above arguments make sense to you or not. He’s suggesting that the test here is not that the individual had their origins in Europe, but ever described themselves as a “European American”. Since the term didn’t exist when JFK and FDR were alive, he’s just wikilawyering here by advancing an inapplicable and contrived litmus test that could never be proven—which is why he chose it. The wikipedian community is not required to continue to debate him on issues that are without foundation just because he keeps repeating them; that’s WP:Tendentious editing. Greg L (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah... the old "misrepresent the argument" trick. You're fresh. I plainly stated above that the "self-identification" rule only applies to WP:BLPCAT. Bulldog123 18:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I’m gonna go out on a limb and use… you know… WP:Common sense to state that this individual is male without a declaration from His Nerdyness himself that he is indeed a man.

Ohh, well… since you’re gonna actually try to support your moves with a Wikipedia rule, here’s what your link says: Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question. The intention is to avoid having Wikipedia stating that someone is gay or practices the Jewish faith (or is a Muslim, or whatever) if a living individual has not publicly stated as much. Were you thinking that I was going to think “Oh Dear… the link is blue so it must be true? …That I wasn’t going to actually read it?

Then WP:BLPCAT goes out of its way to hammer home the point: These principles apply equally to .... statements that are based on religious beliefs, sexual orientation, or suggest that persons have a poor reputation. Unles manhood has fallen even more out of vogue than I am aware, Wikipedia does not need to find that Bill Gates publicly declared “I am unapologetically a male with a Y-chromosome” (nope, no Google hits on that one) in order to state that he is a male. Nor does Wikipedia need to find a statement from Madonna where she declared “I am from England, which is part of Europe.”

I’m looking now for the Wikipedia/BLP-equivlaent of Well… Duh! Greg L (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay I'm happy you're at least trying now. First, there's a reason we don't have Male Americans, though I wouldn't be surprised if that eventually was made... so your example just goes in the "ridiculous pile." Also, since when is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR not a Wikipedia rule? I mentioned those before - tangentially albeit - but I figured I didn't need to drill it in since it was obvious. Anyway, we source ethnicity lists (and you can argue with me that the infobox montage is not a list, but I'm treating it as once because it's certainly not anything else), based on direct RSs that call the individuals as such. That's why stuff like List of Jewish actors only includes individuals that are called "Jewish" and not "of Jewish descent." WP:BLP applies to "any self-identification" in an article, and BLPCAT can and has been used by extension to refer to that. Al Pacino may be of European descent but so is Barack Obama. In fact, one could argue just about every American notable is of "some" European descent... so your synthesis of "These people have European background, end of story" is absurd and synthesizing two separate things. Another issue is that "European American" has been on the census in the past and used to reflect individuals who didn't know their exact ethnic background... so are you saying we don't know for sure Al Pacino is of Italian descent? To avoid these dilemmas, we need external sources indicating that people like Al Pacino are notable as being European Americans." I suppose there is a way to avoid that, since it's unlikely that anyone would call Al Pacino a European American. We could divide the infobox caption to say something like "Al Pacino - Italian American." See, that makes sense because it doesn't directly state "Al Pacino is a notable European American" is states "Al Pacino is a notable Italian American" - and since the article includes Italian Americans as part of the larger group "European Americans"... it works. I'm sure you'll reject this compromise but it's worth a shot. Bulldog123 20:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Quoting you: I'm happy you're at least trying now. Your continued tactics to bait and/or failure to assume good faith do not impress. Nor do your arguments, which are still not gaining traction with me. You’ve founded your reasoning on three different basis now, above (the second one that I spent any time addressing being WP:BLPCAT, which didn’t support your notions one iota), and after each one went down in flames as being demonstrably false, you turn right around pull out a new wild one and run it up the ol’ flagpole. I’m really beginning to wonder why you chose your “Bulldog” screen name. I’m not fathoming this tenacity since it seems borne of a root philosophy that expresses itself in making a point wherever you go.

  As I stated in my edit summary where I removed your IDON’TLIKEIT tag, you may not editwar through *creative* means; it is still editing against consensus. And, notwithstanding your protestations about how you only want Truth, Justice, and the Wikipedian Way©™®, your reasoning in that tag you slapped after getting no traction with other editors here whatsoever (one of whom reverted you but apparently has no stomach for dealing with you) amounts simply to editing against consensus. That you think your views are exceedingly meritorious and unassailable and that the rest of us must be morons for not being able to be enlightened by your clear logic matters not one twit.

  I’m going to let someone else have a go with your for a round or two, since your style is too tendentious for me to handle, and no rule on Wikipedia says that I must spend all day—every day—dealing with you; real life calls and I tire of your baiting; I find it noxious. Greg L (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• I see you made no effort to oppose the compromise I suggested so I'm instating it -- just a lot of "goofy" text as you usually post. (I see from your Userpage that you seem to treat Wikipedia more of a blog than anything). However, I am adding the tag back - but only to a small section of the article that requires it. "Consensus to add tags where they apply" does not exist. Nice try though. Later. Bulldog123 22:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Greg -- Bull simply failed to respond to my direct response to what he had said. Other than to say that he would ignore what I say. What I say is of course part of the consensus on this page. Bull's continued failure to respect consensus is squarely at odds with wp policy.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

(see above) Greg L (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Tag on the whole article then

Given User:Bulldog’s 22:42, 3 March 2011 post, above, where he wrote I am adding the tag back and did so on the same thread (#Proposal to remove infobox images for this page) on which he argued against the inclusion of the montage, it is quite clear that his removal of the montage from this article (twice, here and here) and then his resorting to adding an objection tag in the infobox underneath the picture (here), and then his moving of the tag to the whole page (here) all amount to objections over the same issue after his arguments did not gain traction and were found to be against consensus.

In summary, he twice raised issues that were soundly shown to be false, and then raised “synth” arguments that don’t withstand scrutiny, and he raised no new arguments above before restoring the tag to the whole article, and his professed reason for doing so was over his objection to the inclusion of the montage (the issue on which this all began). Accordingly, this latest tag seems to clearly be just another means for him to editwar over the montage—and is doing so against consensus.

I therefore motion that we remove the latest tag for amounting to nothing more than wikilawyering in a vain attempt to circumvent 3RR rules (which represents trip-wire limit but does not delineate a safe threshold below which there can be no finding of editwarring) and that we should further caution User:Bulldog not to find *new* locations for his tags unless he raises a (truly) new issue unrelated to the existence of the montage, and he further be cautioned that this sort of behavior is WP:Tendentious editing. How say the community? Greg L (talk) 02:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point is unacceptable. This is a proposal that in general did not gain consensus as per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#Infobox Images for Ethnic Groups. If attempts at deletion to the individual pages are unsuccessful (that is its clear that the majority agree the image is ok and referenced) a dispute tag on the article is inappropriate - the proper course of action if an editor feels his voice is going unheard is listed at Dispute resolution requests that details the various different methods used in dispute resolutions. Moxy (talk) 04:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the input, Moxy. I !voted at the above-linked project to ensure that “no consensus” for ridding infoboxes of montages stays “no consensus”. I think each article will present its own unique circumstances. Outside help here is much appreciated. Greg L (talk) 06:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

NP - This pictures have been a point of contention for years with each side have strong views on the matter. In fact this is just the tip of the iceberg when it come to Ethnic classification problems in articles - Looking at the most recent "Ethnic" problem at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 30#Ethnic over-classification will give all an idea of the problems "Ethnic" terms in article cause. This will never end all we can do is evaluate each article when contention arise and determine what is valid, informative and relevant to our readers on a case by case basis. Moxy (talk) 07:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Greg alerted me to the wider issue, and to this page in particular. I have to say that I'm no fan of infobox montages. Some of the settlement montages (look at Jerusalem) are just perplexing and do no justice to any component or the article. The one for this article isn't too bad, given that we don't need to focus on any particular component; but then it raises the matter of relevance and focus. I do think it would be proper for the image to remain until the matter is sorted out, though. Tony (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

{FYI, Tony and I have known each other for years, regularly correspond, and have had lengthy video chats via Skype on all manner of issues (he’s on the other side of the planet, hanging by his toes to Earth in Australia). I mentioned this issue and asked what he thought. Per WP:Canvas, this sort of thing is fine. Greg L (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC) }

• As Moxy and a number of other editors point out above, it is disturbing to see Bull continuing to edit against consensus and edit-war disruptively. I again request that he respect consensus, and desist with the edit warring. As to the substance, I agree with the above consensus, primarily for the reasons enunciated in detail by GregL.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Findings:

1. There was no consensus on the RFC on Infobox Images for Ethnic Groups.
2. That Bulldog started that RfC shows he has an intense interest in this sort of thing
3. Bulldog came here, after the RfC results came in, and raised the very same issues on this talk page at #Proposal to remove infobox images for this page
4. Getting no responses after a day and a half, he twice removed this particular montage, claiming WP:BEBOLD. (Links to the diffs are at the top of this thread)
5. That removal started the discussion process here, wherein Bulldog used much the same arguments he used in the failed RfC
6. Being reverted both times by other editors, he then placed an IDON’TLIKEIT tag in the infobox under the montage
7. Being reverted again, he placed the tag on the whole article based, by his own admission, on his objection over the montage
8. The consensus is that Bulldog’s actions to date here on this article are against consensus
9. The consensus is that his last (hopefully) act of then tagging the entire article amounted to Disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point

Moreover, I personally find that editwarring like this by using different means to accomplish the same end were transparent (actually flat-out declared) efforts to avoid 3RR restrictions; all of which was a futile effort because 3RR does not define the safe limits of editwarring; it defines only one additional threshold at which editing tendentiously is de-facto proven. In this particular case this montage clearly depicts individuals who A) lived in America, and B) had or have European roots, which are a matter of clear record. WP:BLPCAT (an issue Bulldog raised) is clearly inapplicable by both the spirit and letter if one bothers to actually read it. Accordingly…

The tag has been removed. Thank you, Epeefleche, I would be doing so now had you not already addressed this.

To Bulldog: Please desist. Wikipedia is a collaborative writing environment. You may be right, but the consensus view does not share your way of thinking. Continued disruption is unwelcome, will not be tolerated, and will be dealt with. The remedy will probably not be to your liking. Please know that in a collaborative writing environment, there will be instances where several editors don’t agree with you. In those circumstances, please take to heart that you need to devote several-fold more time listening to what the others are saying as you do talking. You also exhibit a quick tendency to go out of your way to personally provoke and taunt editors with whom you disagree; that does not impress. Greg L (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

NBA

Can the article please list famous "European Americans" playing in the NBA or the NSA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.67.17.194 (talk) 10:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Spanish

If Spanish are just 0.1%. and with several other European groups. Why is Spanish in the main languages infobox. it doesnt make sense. Notice, we are talking about Europeans, not latin Americans, or are we including here also Latin Americans of Spanish origin?--Pedro (talk) 11:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty complicated, really. Take, for example, a descendant of the old Spanish colonial stock who originally settled the Mexican city of Monterrey, Nueva Leon. His descendants continue to marry into the same stock of colonial white Spanish descent. He decides to move to the United States. As a Mexican American, he is primarily identified as a Latino, right? Simple enough. Now, take a man whose Spanish ancestors similarly settled Santa Fe, New Mexico, at roughly the same time as the previously discussed individual. His ancestors similarly remained within the same community of colonial-descended whites originally from Spain. Is he a Latino, or a European American? Technically speaking, he is not of Latin American origin, as the border shifted to put him in Anglo-America long before a distinction between these regions was made. Yet, his ancestors came over from Spain roughly around the same time as the ancestors of the Monterrey-born man, with similar motivations. On the other hand, there are many European Americans or English, French, Dutch, and Swedish heritage with similar colonial pedigrees, whose ancestors similarly came to what is now the United States long before the United States existed. I'd say there are enough Spanish-speaking European Americans - Including descendants of Spanish colonists who maintained cultural ties and language, and recent immigrants from Spain and their descendants. --98.114.176.218 (talk) 05:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Importance rating

It seems strange that an article of this size, with so much dialogue, about an ethnic group that is over 70% of the US population is rated as Low importance for WP:United States. The article Caucasian American, which seems to be a slightly less specific ethnic group, is Mid importance (which seems appropriate to me), and the article on African Americans is rated High importance (also seems appropriate). I propose that this article, European American should also be rated High importance. Opinions? (Please note: I am American, but I am not European- or African-American. Only saying that because some people may find it relevant, even though, theoretically, it shouldn't be.) Boneyard90 (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Heinz 57

I can't find a mention of Heinz 57 (ethnicity) anywhere in the Wikipedia. I'm not sure if this is the right article, but Heinz 57 just means of mixed ethnicity. However, it seems to be used mainly by Americans of mixed European heritage (e.g., 1/4 German, 1/8 Irish) plus maybe some fraction American Indian, etc. Zyxwv99 (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Heinz never really used 57 varieties. That was just marketing based off of magic numbers.Presidentbalut (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

"Presidents of European descent"??

Aside from the fact this section was put below the templates and not within the article properly, why does this even have to exist?? What Presidents weren't European by descent? I'm unaware of any who may have been full-blood Chinese or other non-Europeans, maybe I'm wrong (hah!)......is that this section is doing is delineating British-origin separately from "European"?Skookum1 (talk) 10:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

European American/White American notable people have little to no designations of their race/ethnicity on wikipedia.

Hello, I don't know who is exactly is the judge for editing or creating articles that get posted on the wikipedia but I have noticed many inequalities in them. For example wikipedia has articles such as Asian American jurists, Hispanic American football players, African American visual artists, Arab American writers but not one article about has been written about noteworthy European/White American people. If I look up Denzel Washington there are 10 designations about him being an African American in the article but zero designations that Tom Cruise is European or White American only that he is several different European descents. If this isn't racial discrimination I don't know what is. This is showing that all racial/cultural groups collectively should be worthy of recognition and have pride in their achievement except European Americans. This needs to change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Standupbeheard (talk • contribs) 09:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

We have a similar problem in Canadian articles and terms in use in Wikipedia. When I was young (b.1955) "European" and "European Canadian" didn't mean white, it meant somebody from continental Europe, in the latter case someone naturalized as a Canadian citizen but not their offspring; now it's used as a catch-all euphemism for the racialist term "white", and yes, you rarely see an article that mentions someone's race or even ethnic extraction, unless notable in some way (Governor General Hnatyshyn was of completely Ukrainian origin, though born in Canada, and was the first non-Anglo-Saxon (a term which included, er, Scots and Welsh, rather wrongly) or non-French Canadian to serve in that post. And throughout Canadian community articles, where there are demographic tables, what's available from Census Canada is a breakdown by "Visible Minority" plus "Aboriginal population" (the latter are not legally Visible Minorities in our definitions). The Visible Minority definition is broken up by Chinese, Korean, Japanese etc though "West Asian" (including Turks, Arabs, Persians and even Israelis) is not similarly broken up, nor "South Asian"......and because Census Canada only makes freely available ethnicity breakdowns (German, Russian, Italian etc) for certain large communities, the ethnic-background of certain smaller places, often notable, can't easily be cited...not from the census, anyway. At least in Demographics sections of US community articles, there is more information e.g. age strata, income, employment sector etc, but most are just Visible Minority+Aboriginal population....even when there are only 0.2 or 0.02% of a VM, somehow that's more important to the Census, on the one hand, and the Wikipedians constructing those tables. Also, "European" in my time never meant a Briton or someone Irish, it was for continental Europeans only. And Visible Minority tables lump Argentines and Chileans as "visible" even though they're often entirely European by "race" and origin.Skookum1 (talk) 10:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Why is atheism in the religion category?

Are you crazy? Someone didn't understand what atheism is. Please change this. Greets--46.223.211.118 (talk) 14:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no "religion" section. Also, atheism is never mentioned...Presidentbalut (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

How can one have only a fraction of a nationality?

The article discusses some people having multiple fractions of nationalities. A quarter of this and a quarter of that. How is this possible? Do they cut your passport in quarters? I do not get it... Presidentbalut (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe this refers to ancestry; ethnic or national ancestry. I've heard "nationality" used this way, wholly separate from "citizenship", though it's probably not an accurate use here. All this seems clear from the context. - Boneyard90 (talk) 00:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Use section

Use section has several sources gone 404 or and one misattributed to the wrong author and another stated the exact opposite of what was said in the source. It still needs some work but I've fixed it up and found some sources. Alatari (talk) 06:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Missing Millions

The 'European' undercount is actually mainly from the English-British group and very well known among demographers, until the 2000 census English-Americans were by far the largest self-reported ethnic group (50 million/27%) then for some reason the government decided to add the category 'American', subsequently most English-Americans self reported as such due to the length of time they have inhabited America; however, it has caused some hiccups with German-Americans now claiming wrongly that they are the largest ethnic group in the US. I have added four cites and a paragraph laying out why there is a serious European undercount. Twobells (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

You are Americans, not Europeans,

We, members of the EU and other European countries, Spaniards, French, Poles, Greeks, etc, are Europeans. You, Americans, stop using our name and identity, for God´s sake. You are Americans, not Europeans. Pepe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3498:5EC0:F81A:B04A:B00F:7FDC (talk) 05:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC) This is not about their nationality, it's about their ancestry. That doesn't change no matter where you are located in the world.. (: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.159.250.125 (talk) 01:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Indigenous you say?

As a native American, I find it incredibly offensive that a subset of another race is trying to claim they're indigenous for having ancestors here for couple of hundred years despite there already being an indigenous people who've been here for thousands of years. It's like pretending we don't exist. It's especially offensive from a people who descend from colonizers who stole much of the land from us indigenous Americans. One can't be indigenous to both Europe and the Americas. People need to get "Ethnic European Americans are the true Americans" out of their ignorant heads. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.39.98 (talk) 08:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

According to the prevailing theories of the settlement of the Americas, migrations of humans from Asia (in particular North Asia) to the Americas took place via Beringia, a land bridge which connected the two continents across what is now the Bering Strait. The name America was coined by Martin Waldseemüller from Americus Vespucius, the Latinized version of the name of Amerigo Vespucci (1454–1512), the Italian explorer who mapped South America's east coast and the Caribbean Sea in the early 16th century. Later, Vespucci's published letters were the basis of Waldseemüller's 1507 map, which is the first usage of America.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.89.100 (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

move

OK, I've put notices on several articles, so I'll just go ahead and say this needs to be moved to "European Americans", because of a bunch of similar moves (singular to plural). Gringo300 (talk) 10:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Not all white Americans are of European ancestry

The statistics seem a bit sloppy - it appears that the article is assuming that all White Americans are of European ancestry, when in fact a few million of them have family origins in the Middle East or North Africa. European Americans, properly speaking, are a subgroup (albeit a very, very large component) of the total White American population. Funnyhat (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Poorly sourced

Isn't the article too much OR? It quotes sources about particular nations rather than synthetic works.Xx236 (talk) 11:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

What about quilting? http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ug97/quilt/etrads.html Xx236 (talk) 11:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Having just gone through cleaning up and verifying references, I agree that there's no overview to the article: just bits and pieces of information, and a clutter of graphs and incidentals. Basically, there's no merit in a hodgepodge of WP:ITSINTERESTING bits and pieces popped in by various editors over the years where they've found something about an ethnic group they're interested in. Verifiable isn't an encyclopaedic method of developing an article, and most of it really falls into the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS category. It's in desperate need of a rethink. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on European Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150831044558/http://factfinder.census.gov:80/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk to http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0056/tab01.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150831044558/http://factfinder.census.gov:80/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk to http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150831044558/http://factfinder.census.gov:80/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk to http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Nightline/SciTech/racial_identity_031228.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)