Humanities desk
< April 21	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 23 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 22

Proposed titles for Prince Harry

Is it likely that Prince Harry will be granted a Royal Ducal title upon marrying? Traditionally, the title of Duke of York is given to the younger brother of the monarch, but since the Duke of Cambridge is neither the monarch nor the Prince of Wales, and since Prince Andrew currently holds that title, what other Royal Ducal titles are available, or likely? Has this been discussed by the royals or in the British press? Duke of Kent and Duke of Gloucester are also currently occupied, but Duke of Clarence is available. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 01:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A quick glance at some of the Dukedoms listed in Category:Dukedoms of England suggests there are quite several that are extinct and could be revived, or that an entirely new one could be created (as they all were at some time). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.219 (talk) 02:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Royal dukedoms in the United Kingdom is a much smaller list. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 02:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that one of the few remaining actual powers the monarch has is the granting of honors and titles, per Royal prerogative in the United Kingdom; for most people granted such honors and titles the PM or government makes the request first, and the Monarch assents and grants it, but I'm pretty sure she still has the power to create any Ducal title she wants and can grant it to her son as she sees fit. She could revive a suspended or extinct title, or create a new one out of whole cloth if she chose. --Jayron32 02:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barring situations in which a title was in dispute, has there ever been a situation in which the same English duchy had multiple dukes? I'm envisioning a situation in which a duke already exists and the monarch creates a second one without de-duke-ing the first one. Nyttend (talk) 05:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it. They're waiting for Prince Philip to kick off before Edward gets the Dukedom of Edinburgh. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 05:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not. Having 2 people entitled to be known as Duke of Wherever would create vast problems. Peerage titles are always distinct. If necessary, a person made a life peer or whatever and wants to keep his current name in the title, would have to disambiguate it (in much the same spirit as we employ for our WP articles) if such a title already exists. For example, a Michael Jarvis who is made a life peer and wants to be known as Baron Jarvis with the territorial designation "of Jarrow", and a Baron Jarvis already exists, may have to settle for Baron Jarvis of Stonehenge, of Jarrow, or something like that. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 06:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duke of Oz, perhaps, but only if Jack would surrender the title. :) Benyoch ^{Don't panic! Don't panic!} 11:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benyoch (talk • contribs)

Never. After my sad demise it passes to my elder son, who's currently in Guatemala, with no immediate plans to come home, so we could have a Latin Oz dynasty. Ay, caramba. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 13:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So I figured, but there's plenty of precedent for multiple (nominally) coëval monarchs in Europe, and if I remember rightly this was the case with William and Mary; I figured that if it could be done on a national level, it might be doable on a subnational level. Nyttend (talk) 06:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the system should be updated, to reflect the actual influence of such individuals, which has little to do with geography, and instead relates to cultural significance: Name him the Duke of Tabloid Page-Filling on a Day When Nothing Much Happens. AndyTheGrump (talk)

WIll be made duke of a place that exists but currently has no duke. In Scotland most likely since both the queen and prime minister know they need to put in an effort to hold onto Scotland. Ergo, Glasgow. Cue pomp and ceremony in Glasgow. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not so long as there is an Earl of Glasgow. The list mentioned above mentions Ross, which I believe is available; as well as St Andrews and Strathearn, which are not (earldoms of those names being attached to the dukedoms of Kent and Cambridge respectively). —Tamfang (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Scotland it was once usual, when a woman with a peerage married someone of lower rank, to give the husband the same title for life (i.e. not heritably); thus two Dukedoms of Glenwhatsit would technically coexist, one of which would vanish on the death of the husband. — The earldom of Devon was believed extinct from 1556 to 1831, and unrelated earldoms of Devon were created in 1603 (extinct 1606) and 1618; the latter survives but is called Devonshire for clarity. — There may be cases, though I can't summon one to mind, where two peerages with the same style were held originally by the same person but, being created separately, had different provisions for inheritance, and so eventually became separated. —Tamfang (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any discussions about Prince Harry's likely future title, but in discussions about Prince Edward's and Prince William's, the two most speculated titles were Duke of Sussex and Duke of Cambridge. Since William got Cambridge, that suggests Harry will get Sussex (Edward got the Earldom of Wessex and is expected to get the Dukedom of Edinburgh after his father's death). We can only speculate at this point, though - it's up to the Queen and should could choose anything she likes. --Tango (talk) 09:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And who would want to be Duke of Essex, given all the Essex Girl jokes? -- Arwel Parry (talk) 12:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC) [reply]

I said "Sussex" not "Essex". Duke of Essex is a red link, so I guess there has never been a Duke of Essex. The royal family are keen on tradition, so I doubt the Queen would create a title that had never been held before. --Tango (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about Earl of Oxford? Or if this is seen as confusing because of the Earl of Oxford and Asquith, just make it the Duke of Oxford? [1]. Nil Einne (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Asquith (and before him Harley) got a compound title because it was not, and still is not, certain that there is no living heir of the Vere earls of Oxford – though odds are long against his turning up and being able to prove his claim. Either Asquith or Vere would be enough to make "Duke of Oxford" a non-starter. —Tamfang (talk) 06:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surely if ole Willy can survive being the Duke of Cambridge while there exists a Earl of Arran and Cambridge then ole Harry can survive being the Duke of Oxford while there exists a Earl of Oxford and Asquith. The only rel difference seems to be the former is a Scottish peerage but if her majesty is really so worried about the Scottish as claimed above then surely she would recognise that treating them differently as a bit of a problem. The possibility of a earl of Oxford may be a different matter more difficult to resolve Nil Einne (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the royal family has invented new ducal titles before, and sooner or later (if current trends continue) will need to invent a new one again. But there won't be a royal Duke of Essex so long as there exists a non-royal Earl of Essex. —Tamfang (talk) 06:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Industrial Democracy

One form of business has its employees collectively owning its shares and democratically electing its leaders. Why aren't most businesses this way? How many percent of businesses are this way? How many percent of businesses in Australia are this way?

Bowei Huang 2 (talk) 05:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most businesses are not organised as worker owned cooperatives because of capitalism, in particular the accumulation of capital in the hands of existing owners in an expanded form (see Volume 1 of Capital). In Australia ~=0% of businesses are organised as worker owned cooperatives. The few previous agricultural cooperatives, which were more "petits-bourgeois" cooperatives than worker cooperatives have been thoroughly corporatised. "The Store" has tended to go out of business. For research into the very few Australian businesses that operate as worker owned cooperatives see research by Nikola Balnave and Greg Patmore. Internationally you may be interested in reading about the Mondragon Corporation. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, the ~ doesn't work well with a zero; hard to have less than 0% of businesses doing anything :-) Nyttend (talk) 06:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Participatory economics and Workers' self-management. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 05:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A business needs capital to start up (and sometimes to expand). The business is owned by whoever provided that capital (or whoever the previous owner sold their shares to). It isn't normally practical for the workers to provide start up capital, so something unusual has to happen to create a worked-owned business. The biggest such business in the UK is the John Lewis Partnership and that became such because John Spedan Lewis (the son of the founder, who inherited the business on his father's death) decided to simply give a large share of the business to the employees. There aren't many business owners that would choose to do that. --Tango (talk) 10:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One potential problem with worker-owned companies is that they will put the needs of their workers ahead of their customers, lose customers, and go bankrupt. One fix for this risk is if the customers and employees are the same, as in a food coop (however, if the coop becomes too large, it tends to develop anti-democratic tendencies, like expecting members to give blind proxy votes). Balancing this is potentially that workers may feel enfranchised, since they own a piece of the company, and work harder to make it profitable. You might also avoid overpaid executives making foolish decisions and moving on to wreck the next company before their bad decisions become apparent. StuRat (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Green Parties

Do green parties support or oppose the following things:

1. government ownership of businesses

2. welfare

3. progressive income tax

4. compulsory membership of trade unions

Bowei Huang 2 (talk) 05:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greens parties are not organised in a strictly bound hierarchy in relation to policy initiatives. For examples of policies supported by a Green international, see this charter. For Australian Greens policy, the answers are: yes, but depending on market capabilities to meet perceived social needs in practice; yes, generally more so than other parties in parliament; yes, but to a limited extent. Australian Greens policy is available relatively clearly on their website. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Green parties support welfare and progressive income tax. See US Green Party platform. The US Green Party position is that "Federal and state taxes must be strongly progressive." [2] --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 05:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Green parties tend to be liberal, and the first two items are generally considered to be liberal concepts, while the third is supported by both liberals and moderates. So, there is a strong correlation, yes. StuRat (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wah? Government ownership of businesses is a liberal concept? Can I assume you are using some version of 'liberal' unknown outside your borders? 86.140.54.3 (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of any Liberals inside these borders who believe in government ownership of businesses. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia the Liberals hate, despise and fear The Greens. And can this troll, Bowei Huang 2, please try going to the real sources (party websites in this case) to find real answers? HiLo48 (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to that article: "In Australia, the term Liberalism refers to centre-right economic liberalism, rather than centre-left social liberalism as in other English-speaking countries." So, the Aussies appear to be the ones using the term to mean something different. StuRat (talk) 03:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Australians are using the word correctly, in its more general sense. --Trovatore (talk) 04:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Socially liberal doesn't mean socialist, and nationalising businesses is typically socialist (although it can be fascist too). No doubt some Green parties are socialist, but those won't be the liberal ones. And always be careful of descriptions on Wikipedia that claim a word is used one way in one country, and another way in all other English-speaking countries. My experience has been that one article will say this, while another article about the word will list more countries to show the divisions, and yet another will claim the usage which the first article claimed was used in "all other English-speaking countries" is only the American or British English equivalent. It seems to be quite common for editors just to assume their own usage is used by the majority, and that the 'foreign' usage is just used by whichever group they most associate with foreign-sounding English. 86.140.54.3 (talk) 09:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will no-one rid us of this turbulent troll? (Should we at least consider returning to WP:ANI?) AlexTiefling (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful with such questions. They can have surprising results. :-) Looie496 (talk) 03:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A narrow definition of "green" would be neutral as to each of Huang's four issues: none of them has any necessary relation to environmentalism. In practice, I would expect most Green Parties to be strongly in favor of 2 and 3, and divided as to 1 and 4. —Tamfang (talk) 08:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TechWeek archives?

Where would the archives of TechWeek be located? TechWeek is a defunct magazine that ran from 1998 to 2000. The company controlling it was Metro States Media. I do not know if the company folded after the magazine stopped publication - it was publishing one other magazine WhisperToMe (talk) 05:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Qatada

There is a lot of talk regarding Abu Qatada and the efforts of our government to remove form him from the UK. Can anyone tell me who let him into the UK in the first palce? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.172.247 (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He arrived in the UK in September 1993 and was granted political asylum in June 1994, when Michael Howard was Home Secretary, so he's to blame. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 12:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does the Home Secretary have the power to decide immigration policy ? Or is there a law saying asylum must be granted to anyone, like Abu Qatada, in danger of being killed (even if they are in danger of being killed because they are a terrorist supporter) ? StuRat (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with Abu Qatada is not so much his asylum status, but his Article 3 rights (prohibition of torture) under the ECHR. That being said, the relevant instrument regarding asylum is the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, to which the UK is a signatory. Article 33(1) absolutely prohibits the _deportation_ (refoulement) of an asylum-seeker if their life is at risk on the grounds of "race, religion, nationality, [or] membership of a particular social or political opinion" - however, the Convention doesn't create an absolute right to _admission_ on these grounds, so the answer to your question is "No". Tevildo (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Veteran Memorial Days

The 'cousin' countries of Australia and New Zealand celebrate our past veterans and present service personnel on the 25th April each year. It's called ANZAC DAY, from (Australian and New Zealand Army Corps). I am curious to know whether any other non-Commonwealth countries together share a common veteran's day. Benyoch 12:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benyoch (talk • contribs)

Remembrance Day is November 11 throughout the Commonwealth. Does that count? Deor (talk) 13:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does, and I should have mentioned it.

So let's say I am looking for non=commonwealth countries (I'll edit the Q to reflect this). Thanks Deor. Benyoch (talk) 13:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit Conflict) Remembrance Sunday in the UK is always on the second Sunday in November (AIUI, it was moved shortly after WWII to avoid disruption to industrial production). It is sometimes called "Poppy Day" because of the paper Remembrance poppies that are worn in the preceding weeks as a mark of respect. In the last decade or so, Armistice Day on 11 November has begun to be observed as well, although the official events (eg at the The Cenotaph, Whitehall in London), are all still on the Sunday. Alansplodge (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nov. 11th is Veterans Day in the US. Blueboar (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 11 is celebrated in France too. The ceremony I saw was basically the same as any Remembrance Day ceremony I have seen in Canada, remembering veternas in general, not just World War I. They also celebrate the end of World War II on May 8, which is a public holiday, unlike November 11. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The French flower of remembrance is the cornflower.[3] Alansplodge (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anzac Day is NOT a celebration. It's a remembrance and commemoration. I would like to think that nobody celebrates war. HiLo48 (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe only in a loose sense of the term "celebrate".[4] That holiday, as well as Memorial Day and Veterans Day, are supposed to be about honoring those who died for us in combat. Hence they are "remembrance" days, not really "celebration" days. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking the U.S. has two different purposes for Veteran's Day and Memorial Day. Memorial Day (last monday in May) is to commemorate the war dead, while Veterans' Day (November 11, or nearest Monday to that) is to commemorate living war Veterans. Most people don't recognize the difference, indeed they tend to lump those two with the 4th of July as "Flag waving parade days" and don't give it much thought beyond "I get a day off of work". --Jayron32 22:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo, I agree that the celebration of war is a nonesense. However, in the vein of what I clearly said (not what you thought/implied I said), I take the opportunity, as do many others, to celebrate our past veterans and present service personnel who serve/d and even gave their lives for our country; my father and great-uncle respectively at least. Celebration has multiple meanings and is not limited to any narrow definition that excludes remembrances and commemorations, e.g. a wake, where the life of the deceased is celebrated and honoured through remembrance and commemoration in a variety of forms, such as a party or light meal. It can be true to say that we can celebrate a life by remembering the person and being thankful for their existence, and do so without condoning the unfortunate context (of war) in which they lived, and even died. Benyoch^{Don't panic! Don't panic!} (talk) 01:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elsewhere, Adam Bishop says. 'November 11 is celebrated in France too' which goes to the heart of my question. On reading Remembrance Day I notice Belgium also on 11 Nov. Thanks Adam, and thanks to others for your contributions. Benyoch^{Don't panic! Don't panic!} (talk) 01:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be morally right to celebrate war, but it seems fair to celebrate the end of a war, as November 11 was originally intended to do (i.e. Armistice Day in WWI). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can see that 11th November can be a celebration. It certainly would have been in 1918. And yes, one can celebrate the life of someone. But my response was to the OP's description of Anzac Day as a celebration. It's not. It certainly wasn't a victory. HiLo48 (talk) 02:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some may not see ANZAC DAY as a celebration while others might--each to his own--so we cant just cant push a subjective view on an objective matter. Yet, by all means dont take my description as authoriative and I have not meant it to be so. Yet, it is worth noting the views of three authorities on this matter, over a period of 60 years.

First, the Honourable Kevin Rudd MP, Prime Minister of Australia, spoke of ANZAC ceremonies as a something to 'celebrate'. He said, 'But as we approach the century of the Gallipoli landings just five years from now, perhaps it is also time for a further national conversation as to how we commemorate and celebrate ANZAC in 2015.' (ANZAC Day 2010 Commemorative address delivered at the National ANZAC Day ceremony by the Honourable Kevin Rudd MP, Prime Minister of Australia). [5].

Furthermore, the iconic institution of the Australian War Memorial (AWM), which I reasonably presume is a leading authority on the matter of Anzac Day, has captioned one of its photos of 1948 thus: 'Part of the crowd watching the parade by members of BCOF to celebrate Anzac Day.' . [6]

Last, the idea of celebrating ANZAC DAY is recorded in AWM52, being 'The formation and unit diaries of the Australian Military forces, 1939-1945'. Under item 4. Ceremonial Parades, part (b), the official position of Col H.M. Foster, Comd Brit Com Sub Area TOKYO states, 'On 25 Apr 1948 C-in-C BCOF Lt-Gen H.C.H. Robertson, CBE, DSO, ... accompanied by Brig L. Potter, DSO, Comd 2 NZEF ... a reception to celebrate ANZAC DAY was later held at the C-in-C's residence where the Heads of all Allied services and missions were entertained.' [7]

I dont think I need to say anymore except that it's important to understand a broad range of people have a broad range views over different time periods, and that the term celebrate has a broad range of meaning and use. Let's not get hung up on semantics--it can be very unproductive--let's stick with the sources, which is good practice at any time.

Benyoch^{Don't panic! Don't panic!} (talk) 04:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hungary and Poland share the Hungarian-Polish Friendship Day on 23 March. I couldn't find, either in Wikipedia or in any other online sources, why this particular date was chosen, but I suspect it's got something to do with the Polish support of the Hungarian Revolution of 1848. — Kpalion^(talk) 11:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Victory in Europe Day is commemorated on May 8 in many European countries, and in a slightly different version on May 9 in many of the ex-USSR countries. In the latter, at least, it has always been considered as the year's main event to honor the war veterans. -- Vmenkov (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic into Somali names

Is there a website that shows an Arabic name being converted into Somali name or way? like in Arabic it is Abdul but in Somali they say Abdi; Abdul Ghani is Abdi Qani and Aisha is Caisha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.150.12 (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on article Somali alphabet, several correspondences seem likely: C=ع X=ح Q=غ etc. It could depend on the pronunciations of the particular Arabic dialect from which the word was borrowed into Somali... AnonMoos (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Struictly Original Research, but a few years back, there were three boys from the same Somali family in my London Scout Troop - they were cousins I think. One was called Abdirahman, one was Abdirashid and one was Abdul. Both boys with the "Abdi" pre-fix names (which they said means "messemger of") liked to be called "Abdi" - so we had Abdi, Abdi and Abdul, which was a little confusing. If there were Somali language versions of their names, they didn't use them. Alansplodge (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is Rasul that means messenger. Abd means slave, and abdul means "slave of the..." For example Abdul Rahman.--99.179.20.157 (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand why you wouldn't broadcast that fact! (See Abd (Arabic) which I think you meant to link to) Alansplodge (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out that the second part of Arabic names starting in Abd (Abd al-malik, Abd al-rahman etc) is one of the 99 names of God. So they all are equivalent to "Slave of God", or more conventionally "He who serves God". --Xuxl (talk) 10:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Largest Muslim population in Europe

Which Euro nation has the second largest Muslim population after France? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.150.12 (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can have a look at List of countries by Muslim population. The answer depends on what you mean by a 'Euro nation' (I presume you aren't counting Turkey), and whether you are talking about the absolute population, or the proportion of the total population. If we are going by the total population, Germany comes after France, though Russia is far higher. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, Russia suffers from the same situation as Turkey in that it straddles two continents, moreso because most Muslims in Russia are likely in Central Asia. I suspect that if we just take the European parts of Russia and Turkey into consideration along with the rest of Europe, that Turkey would still have the most Muslims who were living in Europe. East Thrace (basically Turkey-in-Europe) has a population of about 10 million. Depending on how you classify the Alawite/Alevi, Turkey is considered to be as much as 96-97% Muslim, which would give is roughly 9.6 million Muslims in European Turkey. Looking through various "Demographics of..." articles for major European countries, the majority muslim countries like Bosnia and Herzegovina and Albania are significantly smaller than that in Population and the biggest population countries (UK, France, Germany, Italy) have less than half of that many Muslims. France and Germany have the most, with 4-5 million Muslims each. However, there is a distinct possibility that European Russia may still have more than any of these, given that European Russia is still more populous by 20,000,000 than the next most populous European nation. I still think most Muslims in Russia live in Asian Russia, however. --Jayron32 22:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find a solid source for this, but browsing around various sources it looks like the Muslim population of European Russia is likely higher than Asian Russia. Our List of countries by Muslim population says the total Muslim population in Russia is about 16 million (although online sources vary from below 10 million to over 20 million). A number of sources, like [8], say this population "is concentrated into two main areas": The North Caucasus (about 4.5 million) and the Volga-Urals region (whose Muslim population I'm not as clear on, but it seems to be at least several million). Apparently the Moscow area has about 1,500,000, and St. Petersburg region about 250,000. All of these areas are in European Russia. Assuming the Volga-Ural region has as many as the North Caucasus this already adds up in total to over 10 million. In short, although I'm far from certain, it seems likely that European Russia has about half of Russia's total Muslim population, if not a good deal more. Pfly (talk) 00:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, on the Volga-Ural region, it sounds like there are lots of Muslims in Bashkortostan and Tatarstan. Our Islam in Tatarstan article says there are about 2 million Muslims in Tartarstan alone. Pfly (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Russia doesn't have any sizable Muslim ethnic groups. It borders on Central Asian countries that are predominantly Muslim, but very few migrants from those countries have settled in Asian Russia, which is relatively depressed economically. Instead, migrants from Central Asia have tended to settle in more prosperous European Russia. European Russia is probably home to a large majority of Russian Muslims, and it likely has a larger Muslim population than European Turkey. Marco polo (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So just to sum up, taking the data from List of countries by Muslim population together with Jayron32's and Pfly's estimates above, we get the following list of European / European Union / Eurozone countries (depending on what you mean by a "Euro country") by Muslim population (only above 1 million Muslims):

Country	Muslim population	Rank within Europe	Rank within the EU	Rank within the Eurozone
Russia (European part only)	10,000,000	1	—	—
Turkey (European part only)	9,600,000	2	—	—
France*	4,704,000	3	1	1
Germany	4,119,000	4	2	2
United Kingdom	2,869,000	5	3	—
Albania	2,601,000	6	—	—
Kosovo**	2,104,000	7	—	—
Italy	1,583,000	8	4	3
Bosnia-Herzegovina	1,564,000	9	—	—
Spain*	1,021,000	10	5	4
Bulgaria	1,002,000	11	6	—

*) Non-European parts of France and Spain have probably negligible Muslim populations

**) Kosovo's independence is not universally recognized. It uses the euro as a legal tender, but is not a member of the Eurozone.

— Kpalion^(talk) 00:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was better if the questioner asked about Muslim population in European Union. I am interested who is after Bulgaria.