Talk:Demographics of Europe/Archive 1

Too Big Overview?

I find the overview too long. Does anyone else agree? Computerjoe's talk 07:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's long compared to the rest of the article, but I do not think that it is long by itself. Let's fill in the other sections, and we can fix the overview to match the rest of the article. (^'-')^ Covington 04:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

i agree with covington let's fill the rest first.Juan Scott 22:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Too long or not, I don't like the following sentence in the overview. "Furthermore, two European countries (currently The Netherlands and Switzerland) have allowed a limited form of voluntary euthanasia. It remains to be seen how much demographic impact this may have." Euthansia may mean that at any given point in time in aggregate terms there are slightly fewer old people, but the effect is never going to be particularly large, and as far as other demographics are concerned the implications are limited at best. It is not that the statement is wrong, it does indeed remain to be seen how much demographic impact euthanasia will have, but the effect is likely to remain so small that it doesn't deserve a mention in the overview. Any objections to deleting it? Wilston 01:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Contradictory statistics

In the lead, it says that Europe's population was in 2003 a little shy of 800 million. In the statistics below, it shows in 2000 and 2005, the population was basically the same (728 million). Now unless there was a remarkable spike for only a couple of years, which one is correct? Batmanand | Talk 14:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's go check where these stats are from; some sources estimates might be different from others'. (^'-')^ Covington 02:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Europe is in the First World. First World estimates do not differ by 10%. I am imagining they are different definitions of "Europe". Batmanand | Talk 07:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

There is also said that Serbia's population is 10,147,398 millions " Serbia[24] 88,361 10,147,398 114.8 Belgrade " and on the picture of Europe in the poulation section, Serbia's color is showing that it has between 5 and 10 millions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.167.123.9 (talk) 20:18, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

In the article Europe, they say that the continent's population is about 728 million, in 2005. How can they say in this article that the population, in 2002, is about 709 million? Are wrong the numbers? --Enkiduk (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Countries of Europe?

Which countries are included in the Europe referred to in the article? Within it, one may read that the European population is estimated at 799,466,000 whereas the article Europe states that the total population is of 708,241,928 (including that of Turkey). Grumpy Troll ^(talk) 15:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC).

I propose merge the tables of the europe article and base the total population on that tables.Juan Scott 22:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, where did that figure come from? If we're going to copy the table over here, we should at least update the figures there first. Dan1113 — Preceding undated comment added 00:28, 12 April 2006

wich figures ?Juan Scott 00:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I strongly oppose merging this table with any others. Firstly, the two tables would differ in their purpose. The one in the Europe article is intended as a succinct table of European territories and basic data (w. capitals and areas): all continental/regional articles possess similar tables and I see no reason to treat Europe uniquely and merge this table into another. I initially added the tables because I found these overview articles lacking in this respect: with the lists providing insufficient information about constituents, and links to said information elsewhere either being unclear or unavailable.

The figures in this table, based on those in the predecessor tables regarding population density (the data for which apparently was from the online World Gazetteer, similarly dated for all the other continental tables) and otherwise found in transcontinental nation, include only those areas that are geographically part of the European continent ... excluding the Asian portions of Turkey, Russia et al.; thus, they may differ.

I'm all for updating the figures if all of them can be done simultaneously or in copying the table into this article (and embellishing) or elsewhere. If anything, the current article is begging for a reorganisation that will not be allayed by migrating a generic table from elsewhere. So unless compelled otherwise and if there are no substantial objections, the table should be retained and I will nix the merge notice. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

As of September 26th, Bulgaria and Romania are both accepted in the European Union, starting with January 1st 2007. Please update all the information with regard to this fact.

As a native Romanian living in France, I feel ofended by the fact that that you currently include Bulgaria in the EU in all of your statistics (which, by the way, is not correct), yet you leave Romania out. So either you talk about both countries or about none of them.

Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dflorean (talk • contribs) 23:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Multi-racial Europe

Europe is becomming more like the United States where there are many different ethnic groups and that race is an issue. Race riots are occurring in Europe like the one in France. Furthermore, millions of black africans and arabs are continously moving to Europe and they are driving Europeans crazy. Europe is close to Africa and Europeans can't do anything to stop the waves of immigrants from Africa. 72.140.235.202 00:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Rounding up in internment camps does the job mirite? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.193.129.239 (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you an American with problems??? You obviously don't know ANYTHING about Europe! Europe is not like Usa (fortunally). Immigrants are very few in the majority of Europeans countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.52.107.170 (talk) 14:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

New Comment: I'd have to say, the sheer lack of even the acknowledgment of multiracialism on this website seems absolutely astounding-- how has this happened? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.72.85 (talk) 09:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Europe is like America?you are a junky! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.48.253.122 (talk) 11:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Reason for contradict templates

My reason, as listed in the edit summary:

added templates for contradiction, Europe lists a population of 710 million, this article's intro lists 799 million, later, a table claims 728 million, difference in years couldn't account for this.

I'm not sure when these numbers crept in, but I don't think it's recent vandalism, as the edit history shows these figures at least as far back as April[1]. What are the correct numbers? If definitions (of what constitutes Europe) vary between the different estimates, this should be noted. Even if this were the case, I think one estimate would be better. If the estimates differ by year or by method (of counting or estimating), they should be only vary by a few percent, if by even that much. Thanks. Ufwuct 16:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You do have a point. It's because the estimates are coming from different sources and they may often contradict each other. I think the best way to avoid this problem would be to explicitly cite the source of each estimate next to the figure (e.g. according to the Council of Europe... according to the United Nations...). I'll do that now and also remove the tags.--Rudjek 21:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The Council of Europe includes all of Russia (including the 8 time zones in Asia), all of Turkey (though only a very small portion is in Europe), Armenia (almost all in Asia), and Georgia and Azerbaijan (only 1/2 in Europe). Including all of Turkey's population or the Asian part Russia's population (some of which is right next to Alaska) would be misleading and would be inconsistent with the Europe article. We should be consistent with the definition of Europe and not contradict other articles. Inconsistencies of a few million people would be understandable, but to be off by 85 million (about 12%) is not encyclopedic and is totally avoidable. Ufwuct 15:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. "In 2010 the population is 857 million, using a definition which includes the whole of the transcontinental countries of Russia and Turkey". To include ALL of Russia and Turkey is inconsistent with geography and history of Europe. It's okay to include the European parts of Russia and Turkey, but the Asian parts belong to demographics and statistics of Asia. Are Europeans getting so desparate as to blind themselves to the truth? --Azubarev2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azubarev2 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge European peoples

That article simply duplicates the list of states and territories here.Paul111 11:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Rename from demographics to demography

Please see Talk:Demography/Archives/2012#Demographics_vs_demography_confusion and comment.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Territories

Why are non-countries included in the list? --PaxEquilibrium 21:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I suppose because they are a part of Europe and people live there that should be included in the total. Why should it only include independent countries? --Bjarki 21:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, within reason: territories in this table (which doubles the one at Europe) are organised and included, per the UN geoscheme; exceptions -- particularly to equitably deal with countries that may also be reckoned in Asia -- are noted.

Also, grudgingly, I reverted recent statistical changes to the table. The table does note figures from July 2002. I'm all for updates, but if we do so, I believe we must change all of them for consistency (i.e., with revised figures for a specific date) and comparison. Perhaps Geohive may be of use in this regard? Corticopia 00:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Faulty language map

The map used here contains far too many errors, let me list just some of them. I'd also like to point out that calling a map "simplified" is no excuse for being plain wrong.

• Breton All of Brittany is marked at Breton speaking, that has not been the case for about 1000 years. Traditionally, Brittany was divided into one half speaking Breton one half speaking Gallo, a Romance language/French dialect. Today, French is the most spoken lanugage even in the Western half that used to be Breton-speaking but this map extends Breton not only to all areas of that half but even to the half that always was Gallo-speaking.
• Irish To see where Irish really is spoken, have a look at this article: Gaeltacht. Many of the areas now colored as Irish-speaking are more English in language than London and haven't had any Irish-speaking communities for more than 100 years.
• Catalan Whereas the maps for Irish and Breton reflect what was the case between 200 and 1000 years ago, Catalan is one step worse as it has been extended into large areas where it was never spoken. That part of map looks particularly silly.
• Italy Thge German speaking has been doubled, looks like the creator seems to think that all of the area Austria ceeded to Italy in 1919 is German-speaking. That's not the case, it's only the Northern half.

On a more general level, it is very problematic that the map seems to lack any principle. What time period is is supposed to show? In Eastern Europe, it is very up-to-date and show the situation as it is today. In Western Europe, it is very outdated and shows the sitation between 1000 years ago (Breton) to 100-150 years ago (Irish, Scottish Gaelic, German and Dutch in France) coupled with some inventions that never existed (Catalan, German in Italy). Before we use this map, these issues need to be addressed. JdeJ (talk) 09:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Map removed

I removed a map claiming to show ethnicities in Europe, which suffered from a high degree of original research in its definition ethnicities. To take only two examples, the map defined Valencians, Catalans, Andalusians, Basques, Galicians and others as separate ethnicities from Spanish, but does not acknowledge any Breton, Occitan, Alsacian or Corsican ethnicity in France where all people are simple labelled as French. Is there any reason for regarding minorities in, say, Spain and the UK as separate ethnicities but minorities in France and Russia as French and Russians? Similar concerns could be made for every other country. There is no consistency in the map, it doesn't represent European ethnicities and it doesn't seem to build on any sources.JdeJ (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

this is utter nonsense from a user on a personal vendetta against me. The template "doesn't seem to build on any sources" is pure bs, since it cites its sources openly. It also openly states that it cannot show all groups smaller than 0.5 million for reasons of space and scale. Picking Spain, the most difficult case of them all, and then airly expanding these difficulties to "similar concerns could be made for every other country" is bs. Is there any "reason"? Well yes, there is, thanks for asking. What, do you think is the Spanish equivalent of our "Spanish people" article? es:Pueblo_español? oh, it's a disambiguation page. They have es:Pueblo español según la Constitución, which will explain the situation to you (if your read Spanish). Or else you can always consult the sources cited in the template. --dab (𒁳) 10:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Why on earth would I have personal vendetta against anyone Wikipedia, please keep to the topic instead. So what you're saying is that in Spain, and in Spain only, there are more than one ethnicity? A Catalan or a Basque living in Spain is a Catalan/Basque and not Spanish but his cousin living a few meters away across French border is not Catalan/Basque but French? I'm not denying for a second that there are many difficult cases, that's why it would be good to first have a discussion on which criteria to use. JdeJ (talk) 11:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I am saying no such thing, don't be silly. No, we should not "have a discussion on which criteria to use", we should cite our bleeding academic sources and the criteria they use. You don't like the criteria? Find your own source, and then we can have a discussion. I will go over this map and take great care that each and every pixel is directly based on my source. Then I will re-instate it, and challenge you to either leave it alone or finally produce some source on your part. --dab (𒁳) 12:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

That is excellent, I'm looking forward to seeing it. And I don't think anyone doubts the population concentration part of the map, it is which ethnicities to use that is controversial - but I will let you work in peace, have a look at the results, comment on them based on academic sources and enjoy a fruitful discussion of the matter.JdeJ (talk) 12:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said, P&P (2002) identify 87 "peoples of Europe". It is the purpose of this map to illustrate these 87 peoples, their relative sizes, and their respective territories. There are two peoples out of these 87 which do not have a territorial center, the ethnic Jews and the Roma people. This can be stated in a footnote. The other 85 can in principle be shown in the map, although I have left out a few small ones (< 0.5 million) for space reasons. I can either try to squeeze them in, or I can also mention them in footnotes. Once these 87 groups are accounted for in the map, I will refuse to listen to any further nonsense about "original research" because my activity of representing the survey of the authors cited is nothing of the kind. --dab (𒁳) 12:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, just keep in mind that others might disagree with P&P's definitions. I don't deny the value of the source, especially compared to no sources, I'm just reminding you that a map could be challenged despite building on a source if contradictory sources are provided.JdeJ (talk) 12:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I am aware that "others might disagree with P&P's definitions". I for one. This is irrelevant per WP:NOR. Since you obviously do not trust me with the most trivial editorial choices, I have now updated the map to reflect the source completely, reducing my "original research" to 0%. This includes rather strange choices like calling the English "Britons", or including the Swiss, Alsatian and Tyrolean German speakers, but no the Luxembourgers under "Germans". Obviously, any such list will involve choices. You have poisoned the well to the point where it will be impossible to dicuss any such choices WP:UCS. Hence we stick to our sources. Here is map reflecting P&P to 100%:

You have any other quotable source you wish to have reflected, feel free to cite it. You will note how crowded the Caucasus looks already, and you will hopefully concede that it simply isn't practicable to represent the tiny groups listed above the map for reasons of space. We can still do regional maps for these. --dab (𒁳) 16:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I take it that the revised map does not give rise to any objections. --dab (𒁳) 09:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

No objections at all, on the contrary. The map is precise and it clearly states that it presents the view of P&P. If people disagree with P&P, that's up to them, but this is their view and the map does a good job of presenting it. I find it to be a relevant and valuable addition. Thanks for the work you put into it.JdeJ (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see that. The map just says "The major ethnic groups of Europe. Font size reflects population size (groups smaller than 2 million not to scale, some groups smaller than 0.5 million not shown)", that is all. The text above the map should identify that it builds on these P&P-guys.195.148.181.4 (talk) 07:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so the map here identifies the source but the map in the article doesn't. The map in the article would need to have the same text as the map here, that would make it usable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.148.181.4 (talk) 10:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not following. At least on my computer, the both maps look identical and feature the same text, clearly stating that this interpretation build on P&P. I see no problem here, please elaborate if you think there is one. JdeJ (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

References

UK

Why is the UK listed as a country? And more importantly; why does it have only the population of England? I didn't see Ireland, Scotland or Wales on that list, despite them being countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.72.81.141 (talk) 08:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The UK is listed as a country because it is one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.37.223 (talk) 23:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Error in data

In the Languages section, the first table of percents doesn't add up to 100% —Preceding unsigned comment added by Njm6679 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the description of the list? Obviously, the eight most natively spoken languages cannot add up to 100%. The rest of EU population just speaks other languages natively.—Emil J. 11:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

TURKEY IS NOT A EUROPEAN COUNTRY: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_east EUROPE IS NOT MIDDLE EAST. TURKEY MUST BE DELETED FROM THE ARTICLE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.105.115 (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Turkey is not in the Middle East.Turkey :Thrace in Europe,Anatolia in Asia Turkish culture is dominated people.Turkey is adjacent to the Middle East,Arabs and Kurds and Assyrians Middle East,Turkey and Turkish people is not the Middle East. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.219.29 (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

ad this map on the top

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/Population_density_Europe.png the other just shows european union, this article is about europe, so get out with your european super power agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karesu12340 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

'"European countries" according to the EU' map is wrong

Montenegro and Iceland are candidate countries, so should be cyan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.72.9 (talk) 02:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Turkey is NOT an European Country. Turkey should be excluded from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.48.253.122 (talk) 11:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

TURKEY IS NOT A EUROPEAN COUNTRY: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_east EUROPE IS NOT MIDDLE EAST. TURKEY MUST BE DELETED FROM THE ARTICLE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.105.115 (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Population total was incorrect - the arithmetic sum given was over 11 million out. I have edited the page to correct that single figure.Tony (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Turkey is not Europe

Turkey is not Europe and any references must be deleted from the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.34.1.21 (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Part of Turkey is in Europe. The Dardanelles and the Bosporus separate Europe from Asia in the South. Gerald Jarosch (talk) 00:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I have a suspicion that if Türkiye was Grecophone and Christian, you would consider them a part of Europe. Сулакин (talk) 13:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Turkey: Thrace in Europe, Anatolia Asia, Istanbul and Canakkale city in Europe and Asia.Azerbaijan-Kazakhstan-Cyprus-Armenia-Georgia is located in Asia, the economic-political and cultural in Europe,Russia and Turkey have similar characteristics in this regard, the territory is located in Asia and Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.219.29 (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Text inside number columns breaks sorting

If you go to the table in population by country, and try sorting by population (the little tabs on the top let you sort by any column), you'll find it sorts alphabetically, not numerically. If you try this revision I made and reverted, it works right, at the cost of removing the text inside the table. I'll let you deal with how you want, but I find that ability to be very useful.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The Overseas France article tags text in the numerical columns as </small> and is properly numerically sortable: [2]. Suggest someone does that here. --DrazharLn (talk) 16:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Making all the text small didn't help. Nor did replacing spaces with non breaking spaces. Not sure how other articles manage it. --DrazharLn (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Area of France

The land area for France is only for Metropolitan France, but the figures for Russia, Turkey, and Denmark aren't for just the European territory. One or the other needs to be changed.  Liam987(talk) 17:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Nothing on earlier population sizes and distribution?

Certainly, there should be enough secondary sources to list reconstructed population size and distribution in 1800, 1850, 1900, etc. ... the earliest figure here is for 1916. 74.96.172.110 (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The article is not about European Union population

It's shameful that such political messages are sent on Wikipedia. European Union is not, never was and never will be the same thing as Europe. It is not more important, more relevant or more "European" part of it. The article should be about Europe' s demographics. Those interested in the phenomenon of the political construction of the EU and its demographics can consult corresponding articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.223.145.77 (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Problematic genetics section

The genetics section of this article is highly problematic. To begin with, it starts off with "see also" links to the "Caucasoid" page, which is a subtle endorsement of the idea that concepts like a "Caucasoid" (or any "-oid") race have a genetic basis, which is inconsistent with the modern take on race by geneticists.

The European Y-chromosome haplogroup data was sourced by a link to a website called "Eupedia", which is run by a guy calling himself "Maciamo". Eupedia is a personal website (not a respected journal) and Maciamo to my knowledge is not a geneticist. Even if he were, his calculations of multiple unnamed studies, done as a private man and pasted on to his website, constitutes original research. Maciamo does a great deal of original research on his "Eupedia" website; for instance this page, where he supposes that red hair is linked to the spread of Y-DNA haplogroup R1b, is the essence of "original research": https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/origins_of_red_hair.shtml

^ I found that page within 30 seconds of clicking the Y-DNA haplogroup reference that this Wikipedia article links to. It was advertised in that link. I am not aware of any genetic studies corroborating Maciamo's theory of red hair being linked to a haplogroup "R1b" or any other haplogroup.

Maciamo also posts screenshots of his Eupedia website on to the website academia.edu, as if to pass them off as legitimate research conducted by a real scholar: https://www.academia.edu/8937422/Genetic_history_of_Spain_and_Portugal

WP:SCIRS calls for better sources than this with regards to such an important article. This is one article among many that is plagued with poorly referenced and often inaccurate genetic data. I did not check the references for the mtDNA haplogroup data, but they should be considered suspect as well. As a rule, I believe any sources that link to eupedia.com should be deleted from Wikipedia. -- Hunan201p (talk) 22:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)