Talk:African immigration to Europe

message: *please is true!! the bleck Italians are 755,000 no cancel I'am from Italy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.35.250.214 (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So you say. But such statements must be sourced in wikipedia. The Ogre (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Africans descendent Italians 

message: Don't forget Eastern Europe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Abkhazians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Russians
One notable 19th century African-European: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abram_Petrovich_Gannibal (ancestor of Pushkin). Also Peter Ustinov has african ancestry. - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 13:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some suggestions 

message: according to solis marketing there are 1,000,080 black people in france.in comparison the city of london, England has a larger black population 1,100,000 than the entire country of France.blacks in the  Republic of Ireland make up 1.1 percent of the Irish population in just the last 10 years compared to France with 1,000,080 blacks or  1.7 percent of the French population.france has  restricted  the immigration of blacks into france for more than a decade where  other european union countries have increased the amount of  blacks coming in.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.233.228 (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You can say any number, it doesn't change the fact you don't provide any source (and that such source would not be credible anyway, because such statistics are illegal in France). Don't forget that France has overseas territories with lots of black people, like Martinique, Guadeloupe, Guiana, Réunion, Mayotte, etc. No statistics either but that easily makes one million blacks if not two. Aesma (talk) 11:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  blacks in France 

message: In Italy there are 2,670,514 black peoples!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.35.237.84 (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there are not 2,670,514 black people in Italy. As already explained to you, that figure refers to all immigrants to Italy from Africa, not just black immigrants from Africa. 76.68.249.38 (talk) 19:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black people in Italy 

message: What is going on here? The problem with citing statistics is, of course, that this article proposes to be about "black people", while almost no country in Europe keeps statistics about people's skin colour ("Black British" being a notable exception). 
So, of course, if Switzerland records such-and-such a number of people from Angola, nobody guarantees that they are all black, after all, there may be a white Angolan descended from European colonists among them. I suppose it stands to reason that this will effect a very small percentage, if not zero, of the immigrant population referenced.
So, does "Afro-European" mean "from Africa", or "black", or both, or neither, or what, and what is the definition of "black"?
Using common sense, what this article addresses is African immigration to Europe. But as soon as this becomes about definitions of race, we will obviously be bogged down in meaningless semantic hair-splitting.
There are 12,600 foreign nationals from East Africa in Switzerland. This is a recorded statistical fact. 
God knows how many of them are "black" in any sense. They are from East Africa, and they will be described as "African" or "black" by almost any casual onlooker, even though official statistics do not, of course, classify them by race. Nor would I, if this article didn't insist to be about race or "blackness".
Now  has changed "12,600 East Africans" to "3,600 Southeast Africans", even thought the source linked has no concept of a "Southeast Africa". I can only guess that the idea is that "Northeast Africans" are "not black" while "Southeast Africans" are.
I have no idea what definition of "Southeast Africa" has been used, as the "3,600" figure has no correspondence in the source linked.
Even worse, the edit removed 9,000 "Northeast Africans" from the footnote, but left the total of 37,000 untouched. This is simply fiddling with numbers without any rhyme or reason.
These are the countries listed as East African by the Swiss Federal Statistics Office: Burundi, Comores, Djibuti, Eritrea, Äthiopien, Kenya
Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mosambique, Rwanda, Seychelles, Somalia, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
It does not include Sudan (listed as Central African) nor does it include Egypt (North Africa). It is safe to say that any European residents from any of the countries listed will be included under the term "Afro-Europeans" or "black people in Europe" with extremely high probability. 
The restriction to "Southeast Africa" has not been explained, nor has it been explained how the "3,600" figure has been arrived at. 
The official source linked includes "Horn Africa" within "East Africa", and I don't see any problem with that. Of course you could present a full breakdown by country, but this would be better placed at the African immigrants to Switzerland article, because the 37,000 people under consideration here make up for just about 0.5% of the population discussed in this article.  
In my opinion, the real problem with this article is that it attempts a topic of immmigration in terms of race.
In most countries, once somebody becomes naturalized, they cease to be considered as "from somewhere" by any official statistics. 
There is an unknown number of African immigrants who have been naturalized over the past decades, and who are now simply Europeans, and nobody short of all-out racists will care whether they are "black".
The problem of immigration from Africa is something quite different. Of course these immigrants will tend to be "black" (doh), but they are not a problem by virtue of being black, they are a problem by virtue of arriving in large numbers from economically underdeveloped and culturally vastly different backgrounds. They are counted and given some sort of residence status (unless they go underground), and it makes sense to treat them as a group.
It is completely insane to group born-and-raised European citizens with this group just because of their melanin content. 
--dab (𒁳) 12:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: seeing  has a special interest in Ethiopia, I can now only surmise that this is a case of contorting things with the simple aim of excepting Ethiopians from this topic. If this is the case, we would of course have a bad case of biased editing here. I have tried with some more charitable reading of the edit in question, but I honestly cannot think of anything. Trying to exclude Ethiopians from a discussion of "black people in Europe" is especially ironic, as from the historical European perspective, "Ethiopians" are the prototypical blacks par excellence. --dab (𒁳) 12:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'm a member of WikiProject Ethiopia; hence, why I mainly edit such articles. You are, however, correct in noting that the cited link has no concept of "Southeast Africans". But you forgot to mention the obvious: the link has no concept of "blackness" either and who supposedly falls under that rubric. That is original research to begin with. That said, besides the foregoing, I removed Northeast Africans from the list and re-tabulated the figures accordingly because, if one is aware of the former's biological, linguistic and cultural affinities, one probably already knows that the bulk of their overall ancestry ties them up with North Africa and/or Southwest Asia, not with West Africans, Bantus or Nilotes (i.e. "Black Africans") despite a similar complexion and modern geographic proximity. Seeing as how North Africans are not included in this article, it therefore makes no sense to include their close relatives the modern Ethiopians either. Also, the name "Ethiopia" was only adopted in the early 20th century to refer to the former Abyssinia and its predecessor, the Axumite Empire (c.f. ). Whatever the case, the term "Ethiopians" of yore did not refer to Axumites but to the Black Africans that the so-called civilized world knew of at the time, and that was primarily Nilotes in the Nubian region ("Cambyses did subdue at least a part of the real Ethiopia (Nubia) beyond the First Cataract, as appears from surveys of the Persian Empire which Herodotos quotes elsewhere; its revenues included 'gifts' from 'the Ethiopians on the borders of Egypt, whom Cambyses conquered', and their warriors are described in his list of fighting men of the empire, whether or not Xerxes really took them to Greece" ). Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Actually, I have not tried to lump Ethiopians with North Africans nor could I have even done so since North Africans are of course not even discussed in this article. I briefly alluded to the multiple affinities between the two groups of peoples to highlight the folly of attempting to erect rigid 'racial' boundaries between these particular sympatric populations (which is the net effect of include one of them but yet not the other). I could also return the favor and speculate on why you keep grouping Ethiopians et al. with supposed "black" East Africans when the paper itself does not. But that too would not be assuming good faith and making ill-considered accusations. I agree that it would've been better had the article been about continental origins rather than supposed racial origins. But the fact remains that, as it stands, it unfortunately isn't. The article is titled "Black people in Europe", not "Africans in Europe" and indicates its actual, racial scope in its very first sentence. And that link to that spreadsheet of figures  -- which isn't even in English to begin with -- still makes no reference to the controversial race concept, let alone the so-called "black race" and which populations supposedly fall under that rubric. That said, if you are interested in discussing how to change the scope of this article, including the lede, so that it actually discusses immigration in general from the African continent rather than a contentious racial label, I'm of course open to that and support any such motion. Middayexpress (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: East Africans vs. Southeast Africans

message: The 3.6 million figure the article claims is almost certainly inflated.  I don't think there is any census data to back that up - the link we're using as a reference is dead. ˜˜˜˜  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.239.145.114 (talk) 22:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  United Kingdom 

message: This article is only about people from Africa. The black people referred here are all from Africa and don't include black Australians, Pacific Islander, or Indian black populations. Other than that it makes more sense to classify people on their common geographical ancestry (which most European countries actually do) than on their skin color. If nobody is against it I will propose a name change in a few days to 'African Europeans'. FonsScientiae (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "African Europeans" is an inadequate title since the Afro-Caribbean immigrants, such as those from the Netherland Antilles, are not Africans. "Afro-Europeans" would thus make more sense. Middayexpress (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "Afro" is just the abbreviation of "African". Afro-Caribbeans (also called African-Caribbeans) are called Afro-Caribbeans because they have African descent. (1) And this article is about people who have African descent. FonsScientiae (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "African American" and "African Carribean" refer specifically to New World peoples with Black African ancestry . As far as the portion of their ancestry from Africa is concerned, African Americans and Afro-Caribbeans are mainly of West and Central African origin. There are large parts of Africa where they have little ancestry from. In any case, the term "African Europeans" is something of a WP:NEOLOGISM; "Afro-Europeans" is the more common term, so it's preferable per WP:COMMONNAME. Middayexpress (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: African: "relating to Africa or people of African descent." (1). Afro: "a hairstyle consisting of a mass of very tight curls that stick out all round the head, like the natural hair of some black people" (1). It doesn't seem that Afro is more commonly used than African to describe people of African descent. FonsScientiae (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The compound word "Afro-European" is more commonly used than the neologism "African European"; obviously not the prefix "Afro" alone. Google bears that out too. Middayexpress (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "African European" in Google gives you 412k results, while "Afro-Europeans" only 153k. "African European people" gives 18,200 results, while "Afro-European people" gives 17,800 results. Whether "African European" is a neologism it's used more, or at least to the same degree. To make this discussion move forward I'm willing to compromise and use both terms in the lede of the article, but I am firm to give the article the "African European" or "European people of African descent" titles. Please see African Australians or Africans of European descent articles. You said that Afro-Caribbeans are not Africans. I've been thinking about it, and I think you are right. They have distinct cultures, and may actually never lived in Africa or their degree of African ancestry is very distant and/or small. I'm now on the opinion that they should not be included in the article. FonsScientiae (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "African European" does give more raw Google hits, but many of those are not to the suggested meaning. Many allude to "African and European" or something to that effect (e.g. the African-European Affairs Consulting ), whereas most of the hits to "Afro-European" point to the intended meaning. I'm not sure about the page rename at this point. The problem with the title is that it might confuse contributing editors into thinking it refers to immigrants from Africa in general (like African Australians) rather than a specific subset of African immigrants. How does "Black African immigrants to Europe" sound (i.e. Black African immigrants to Greece or Black Africans in Poland)? Middayexpress (talk) 16:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no reason differentiating and dividing Africans based on their skin color. With adding non-black (where is the line?) Africans to the article it would still not be too long.(like in African Australians) Wikipedia not coincideally don't have an article called "Black Africa". "African immigrants to Europe" is a good enough and not a long title. (African immigrants to Italy, African immigration to Norway, African immigrants to Sweden, African immigrants to Switzerland). I'm willing to add Africans of any skin color. FonsScientiae (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If the article were to be renamed "African immigrants to Europe", it would have to actually discuss all African immigrants to Europe, irrespective of racial background. Middayexpress (talk) 14:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. The article is currently about that.  The European Council makes report on immigration from Sub-Saharan Africa not on "race", and except the UK none of the countries here make statistics on skin color. "Racial" classification is not common in Europe. FonsScientiae (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is not currently about African immigrants to Europe in general, as is evident from its title and the inclusion of material on Afro-Caribbean people. If the page is to be renamed to "African immigrants to Europe", it has to be about actual African immigrants to Europe, and all of them at that. Middayexpress (talk) 13:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. I can do that. FonsScientiae (talk) 14:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. By the way, your page move erased the entire article history. I don't believe it's supposed to do that. Middayexpress (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I wasn't intending to do that. There was some problem with moving the page normally. FonsScientiae (talk) 09:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. Middayexpress (talk) 13:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

text: The lead of the article said "African immigrants in Europe are either born in Africa or are of African descent but live in Europe." And the "Notable individuals" section included many people who were born in Europe. So the title African immigration to Europe did not accurately represent the content of the article. ... discospinster talk 02:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the notable individuals section only includes people born in Europe if one of their parents was born in Africa. The two migration flows sections are explicitly about immigrants from Africa, as are the demographic sections. For example, the first demographic section only includes "anyone who was born in Africa or had at least one parent from the continent." Essentially, the only part of the whole entry that was not about immigrants was the phrase "or are of African descent but live in Europe," so I would argue it makes more sense to revert the name back to African immigration to Europe, which is what it had been for the past 7 years after a long consensus on this talk page. Then we could remove that one phrase "or are of African descent" in the lede so that it more accurately reflects the entirety of the article, which is about immigration not about the African diaspora. What do you think? Aroundthewayboy (talk) 21:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the title African immigrants in Europe still does not reflect the content of the page if we are to include those who were born in Europe (especially those countries that have a birthright citizenship law). Claiming that European-born people are immigrants is inaccurate and implies that they are not "true" Europeans, which is particularly suspect when we are talking about people of African descent. ... discospinster talk 16:22, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I hadn't considered that, good point. I agree and am going to remove the first-gen (people born in Europe but with one parent from Africa) in the lede. Now it is all about African immigrants (I can start to remove the celebrities who were born in Europe, to avoid the problem above). Aroundthewayboy (talk) 01:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I went through and removed everybody in the notable individuals list who was not born in Africa. I think now the page is truly entirely about immigrants from Africa in Europe, right? Aroundthewayboy (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: OK that makes it more consistent. Thanks for doing that. ... discospinster talk 13:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposing name change 

message: Women has always been less prominent than men through history. If you go to see any other page about people, you can see that women in collage pictures are few compared to men. E.g. there are only 3 women out of 27 on the French people page, only 9 women of 32 on the British people page, and only 4 of 30 on the German people page. The 50-50 proportion is not warranted. Representation by different region is not what should determine who are included in the collage. What really matters is prominence and notability. That's why I believe the former image was better. FonsScientiae (talk) 09:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no doubt that you believe the other collage was better. However, it isn't. It overrepresented immigrants from certain African regions, and underrepresented those from others. One notable individual from each of the six main regions is sufficient: Central, East, Horn, North, West, Southern. Same goes for the women, who represent a significant proportion of African immigrants. Wikipedia has various policies and guidelines on gender neutrality and sexism that apply here, even if one personally believes that women have historically been less prominent than men and that that is somehow relevant. By contrast, there isn't any policy or guideline indicating that the image parameter must be of notable individuals or even of people (see the relevant Template:Ethnic_group#Parameters; while you're at it, note that African immigrants to Europe aren't even an ethnic group). The purpose of the article is to discuss African immigration, not celebrities. Let's not lose sight of that. Middayexpress (talk) 13:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: None of your reasons are applicable here, as gender-neutrality is relevant to language, and sexism has to do with style. If you have ever read a history book you would know that women has been underrepresented through history and it's not my personal opinion. Actually, there is no Wikipedia policy that states that the collage has to include the same number of women as men, or that every region of the topic has to be represented. By the way, I like your image, but still think that the former was better as that represented more diverse and prominent members. Also, I wouldn't call Eto'o or Jomo Kenyatta African immigrants or African Europeans as they have never established themselves in Europe. So I'm reverting back your edits unless you can provide a warranted Wikipedia policy which favors your image more. (As an alternative I can imagine combining the two images or creating a new one appropriate for the both of us) FonsScientiae (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Jomo Kenyatta studied in Britain and was an alumni of both the University College of London and the London School of Economics. This is why he is included in the :Category:Kenyan expatriates in the United Kingdom. Samuel Eto'o has likewise spent most of his professional life playing in Europe, and is a naturalised citizen of Spain. At any rate, you are missing the point again. There is no central policy on collages because they are there purely as a courtesy, not as an obligation. There are only various policies, guidelines and precedents on gender. In fact, there's an entire sub-project devoted to countering gender bias on wiki: Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies/Countering Systemic Gender Bias. The infobox itself, moreover, is inappropriate here because it is reserved for actual ethnic groups, such as the Tajik people. However, African immigrants to Europe obviously do not constitute a single ethnic group; they are instead a random collection of peoples from various and often-times completely unrelated ethnic groups or populations, whose only definite commonality is the fact that they emigrated to the same continent from the same continent. I have therefore removed the ethnic group infobox per the relevant Template:Infobox ethnic group and in the model of pages like African immigration to Latin America, which have no ethnic group infobox. Middayexpress (talk) 12:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If you go to the African immigration to the United States article, which is one of the most developed immigration pages, you can see that there is a collage picture and an infobox. 64.189.103.209 (talk) 02:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes no difference. The infobox is for an actual, recognizable ethnic group and is clearly labeled as such. It is not for a motley crew of people from different ethnic groups or populations, whose only definite commonality is the fact that they emigrated to the same continent from the same continent. The infobox template is also part of WikiProject:Ethnic Groups, which stipulates that Infobox Ethnic group is "an infobox for use in articles about ethnic groups." This page falls outside that scope. Middayexpress (talk) 13:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collage 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.cfr.org/world/african-migration-europe/p13726, http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/development/african_caribbean_pacific_states/r13009_en.htm and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6228236.stm. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Cordless Larry (talk) 11:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: WHEN THE EU PROVIDE JOB   FOR EMIGRANT  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.61.15.38 (talk) 01:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHEN THE EU PROVIDE JOB FOR EMIGRANT 

message: How is Kylian Mbappe an immigrant when he was born and raised in France??? Nlivataye (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kylian Mbappe