Talk:English people: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
None of this is really serving to improve the article. I suggest we stick to proposals regarding the article. [[User:Wobble|Alun]] 10:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC) |
None of this is really serving to improve the article. I suggest we stick to proposals regarding the article. [[User:Wobble|Alun]] 10:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC) |
||
Wobble, both race and descent (ancestry, presumed and/or actual common origins) are part of ethnicity. This is shown in some of the examples in the internet links you provided above, but also on the [[ethnic group]] and [[race]] article. "Race" and "ethnic group" are related concepts that also differ. This article seems to be really confused as to whether it means English people in the ethnic/cultural/racial sense or English in the national/political sense (it currently is both I guess). I'd suggest you split it into two articles, with one as English people (ethnic group) and the other as people of England (nationality) or simply include that part into demographics of England. This article gives the wrong impression in many areas and there appears to be a bias and un-resolved POV issue in many sections. [[User:Eoganan|Eoganan]] 17:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
''Coon's methods are mainly considered obsolete, his results certainly do not correlate with genetic evidence.'' |
|||
According to some Wobble, possibly, but then again they've never really been closely analyzed or refuted by anyone with any opposing information or similar work on the subject. I can understand why the Anon. would imply that there has been a bias against him because there is great divergence across disciplines with regards to race. Social scientists such as those in cultural anthropology, especially in the US, have shown to have a systemic bias on the issue mainly because of socio-political sensitivities or ideological viewpoints on race. Whether or not they match with what has been seen so far from studies in population genetics has also not been documented either, so you can not claim otherwise. From the data I've personally read so far and from what I've read of Coon's works on the internet, there is some striking similarities with studies, especially in his physiologically-based 5-race model ([[Caucasoid]], [[Negroid]], [[Capoid]], [[Australoid]], [[Mongoloid]]) since according to [[Cavalli-Sforza]] these groups have the greatest genetic differences between each other. I also think you should compare [[Britain]] (in the top left corner) in these maps [http://www.snpa.nordish.net/bilder/troe-map8a.jpg] [http://www.snpa.nordish.net/bilder/troe-map9a.jpg] (1939) of Coon's with [http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/4819/britaingenes1lm6.gif this one] based on Y-chromosome analysis (2003-2004). I find it it really interesting in Coon's analysis of skin pigmentation and racial classification (based on other parts of appearance) follow a similar pattern to the Y-chromosome map. Coon found that Ireland had the greatest amount of Upper Paleolithic stock, especially in the west, which coincides with Y-chromosome analysis confirming the same thing. He also noted that Germanic-dervied (combined Anglo-Saxon/Danish) "Nordic" stock was strongest in England, especially in the east, which is again in line with the Y-chromosome study. Analyze the maps in your own manner (Epf in particular should check it), but the similar patterns are very interesting given Coon made his findings based entirely on skeletal material nearly 70 years ago. [[User:Eoganan|Eoganan]] 17:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== New Assessment Criteria for Ethnic Groups articles == |
== New Assessment Criteria for Ethnic Groups articles == |
Revision as of 17:14, 10 November 2006
![]() | Ethnic groups B‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.
Previous discussions:
- Archive 1 (20 Dec 2004 to 22 Oct 2005)
- Archive 2 (21 Oct 2005 to 10 Nov 2005)
- Archive 3 (12 Nov 2005 to 3 Apr 2006)
- Archive 4 (4 April 2005 to June 2006)
- Archive 5 (1 June 2006 to 27 October 2006)
- Archive: Origins of the English and the British
- Archive: Most Britons and Western Europeans are of Iberian origin
- Archive: British pages
- Archive: Verifiability and Cornish language discussions
- Archive: Related ethnic grous discussion
- Archive: Suggestion regarding related ethnic groups
- Archive:Various discussions about Germans
Definitions of ethnic group, nation, and race
Some definitions:
Alun 11:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- The racial paradigm, which became rooted in physical anthropology at its very beginning, was, for decades, treated as a concept needing no verification. It was only in the mid-20th century that the first attempts were made to question the usefulness of the race concept in describing our species variation. Since then, an ever growing number of anthropologists, particularly in the United States, have rejected the concept (nearly seventy percent in 1999). From "Race"—Still an Issue for Physical Anthropology? Results of Polish Studies Seen in the Light of the U.S. Findings; By Katarzyna A. Kaszycka and Jan Strziko, Institute of Anthropology, Adam Mickiewicz University, 61-701 Poznań, Poland: American Anthropologist March 2003, Vol. 105, No. 1, pp. 116-124 Abstract. Alun 13:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- [Carleton S.] Coon actively aided the segregationist cause in violation of his own standards for scientific objectivity. From “In Ways Unacademical”: The Reception of Carleton S. Coon's The Origin of Races, By J.P.Jackson Jr, Department of Communication, Campus Box 270, University of Colorado: Journal of the History of Biology, Volume 34, Number 2, 2001, pp. 247-285(39). Abstract. Alun 17:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
The following statement has been refactored per WP:RPA. Please read WP:NPA. SWAdair 10:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to hear from Epf [snip] on this, but I looked up some Carleton Coon stuff and the guy was head of the American Anthropological Association as recent as da 60's (and he voluntarily resigned) so I think theres def a bias against him. Besides, there isnt one scientitist on this planet that maintains perfect objectivity in things, especially if it involves them personally, they're human [snip]. On the race page it says 16% of biologists, 36% of developmental psychologists and 41% of physical anthropologists from the most recent survey taken in 1985 believe race does NOT exist (meanin most believe it does !). Thats what I am talkin about..— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.117.116 (talk • contribs) |
- But what it doesn't say is whether this majority think that race exists as a biological phenomenon or a cultural/social one. I mean one can believe that race exists, but also understand that it has no biological basis. Maybe there is some bias against Coon, I don't know and care less, this is not the place for a discussion about him. If you want to discuss Coon in detail then I'd be happy to do it on my talk page. I simply make these points:
- Coon's views do not represent a consensus opinion in the field of Anthropology, therefore it is incorrect to make the claim that his theories are widely accepted or to use them as the basis for a wikipedia article.
- Coon's academic impartiality has been called into question, this means that he is a less than a reliable source.
- Coon's methods are mainly considered obsolete, his results certainly do not correlate with genetic evidence.
- Coon was interested in race, this article is about ethnicity, I included definitions of these above so we can see that ethnic identity does indeed include social, cultural, linguistic and religious elements. None of the definitions state that descent is more important than the other elements, and several maintain that descent includes percieved or a subjective view of descent.
None of this is really serving to improve the article. I suggest we stick to proposals regarding the article. Alun 10:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Wobble, both race and descent (ancestry, presumed and/or actual common origins) are part of ethnicity. This is shown in some of the examples in the internet links you provided above, but also on the ethnic group and race article. "Race" and "ethnic group" are related concepts that also differ. This article seems to be really confused as to whether it means English people in the ethnic/cultural/racial sense or English in the national/political sense (it currently is both I guess). I'd suggest you split it into two articles, with one as English people (ethnic group) and the other as people of England (nationality) or simply include that part into demographics of England. This article gives the wrong impression in many areas and there appears to be a bias and un-resolved POV issue in many sections. Eoganan 17:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Coon's methods are mainly considered obsolete, his results certainly do not correlate with genetic evidence.
According to some Wobble, possibly, but then again they've never really been closely analyzed or refuted by anyone with any opposing information or similar work on the subject. I can understand why the Anon. would imply that there has been a bias against him because there is great divergence across disciplines with regards to race. Social scientists such as those in cultural anthropology, especially in the US, have shown to have a systemic bias on the issue mainly because of socio-political sensitivities or ideological viewpoints on race. Whether or not they match with what has been seen so far from studies in population genetics has also not been documented either, so you can not claim otherwise. From the data I've personally read so far and from what I've read of Coon's works on the internet, there is some striking similarities with studies, especially in his physiologically-based 5-race model (Caucasoid, Negroid, Capoid, Australoid, Mongoloid) since according to Cavalli-Sforza these groups have the greatest genetic differences between each other. I also think you should compare Britain (in the top left corner) in these maps [1] [2] (1939) of Coon's with this one based on Y-chromosome analysis (2003-2004). I find it it really interesting in Coon's analysis of skin pigmentation and racial classification (based on other parts of appearance) follow a similar pattern to the Y-chromosome map. Coon found that Ireland had the greatest amount of Upper Paleolithic stock, especially in the west, which coincides with Y-chromosome analysis confirming the same thing. He also noted that Germanic-dervied (combined Anglo-Saxon/Danish) "Nordic" stock was strongest in England, especially in the east, which is again in line with the Y-chromosome study. Analyze the maps in your own manner (Epf in particular should check it), but the similar patterns are very interesting given Coon made his findings based entirely on skeletal material nearly 70 years ago. Eoganan 17:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
New Assessment Criteria for Ethnic Groups articles
Hello,
WikiProject Ethnic groups has added new assessment criteria for Ethnic Groups articles.
I rated the English people article: B-Class, with the following comments (see link to ratings summary page in the Ethnic groups template atop this talk page):
- Broad range of subtopics; some subtopics received slightly scant coverage.
- Some sections have excellent cite/reference, others not so good.
- POV problems; page locked.
- This article could be class=A without a huge amount of additional work.
You can give this article (and any other article) a rating, as described below.
- -->How to assess articles
Revisions of assessment ratings can be made by assigning an appropriate value via the class parameter in the WikiProject Ethnic groups project banner {{Ethnic groups}} that is currently placed at the top of Ethnic groups articles' talk pages. Quality assessment guidelines are at the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team's assessment system page. After rating the article, please provide a short summary to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses. To add the summary, please edit this article's ratings summary page. A link to this page can be found in the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the article's talk page.
Please see the Project's article rating and assessment scheme for more information and the details and criteria for each rating value. A brief version can be found at Template talk:Ethnic groups. You can also enquire at the Ethnic groups Project's main discussion board for assistance.
Another way to help out that could be an enjoyable pastime is to visit Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles, find an interesting-looking article to read, and carefully assess it following those guidelines.
Thanks!
--Ling.Nut 04:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Protection
I've downgraded protection to s-protection, so I really hope you guys have calmed down now. Yesterday was your only collective pass and if I see anymore 3RR violations, personal attacks etc., I will start blocking.
If one of you guys has a spare minute, could you please archive this page? I would like it archived so everyone can start with a clean and equal slate and I think getting rid of these rants and personal attacks would be a good start. I'll come back and do it tomorrow if no one wants to do it in the meanwhile.
Thanks, --Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
A new proposal
The contributions to and contributions from sections in the infobox were never intended to reflect ethnic groups per se. They were intended to reflect societies/communities that contributed to or had contributions from English people. It was a deliberate tactic to avoid the ethnic tag. Having thought about it a bit, it seems to me that essentially the Contributions to section simply repeats the Regions with significant populations section. So I am revising my position and am now happy to dispense with the Contributions to section. Having said that, I am concerned about the numbers of people given in the Regions with significant populations section of the infobox. These essentially reflect people declaring English ancestry in censuses from the states that are included (rather than English ethnicity). So my compromise would result in the inclusion of the political entities mentioned, but with removal of the numbers stated (as with religions). I think these numbers can be reasonably included in the footnotes, with a statement to the effect that it is just not known whether the people that responded consider themselves ethnically English or whether they consider themselves of some other ethnicity, but that it is assumed that many of these people actually do consider themselves ethnically Engish, which is why they saw fit to include English ancestry in their census returns. Anyone who wants to find out more information need only refer to the footnote anyway. I'd like to get a consensus on this so we can get the page unprotected. It is reasonable that we all make compromises here. None of us is ever 100% correct, and we all have points of view. In the text of an article we can give all points of view, and therefore have a ballanced and neutral article. It is more difficult with an infobox, because information is either included or excluded, we cannot readily apply provisos. So I'd appreciate some cooperation here, especially from Epf and the previous anonymous user, as these people seem to be the ones who most disagree with this section. Alun 21:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
American/Canadian ethnicity
This thorny subject seems to be one which is not relevant to this article. So I suggest we do not attemt to broach it here again. Alun 21:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Comma-splice
This passage is three separate sentences joined together with commas without any subordination; there needs to be some structuring: AnonMoos 02:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- "It is now thought that the situation was far more complex, some archaeologists also see only limited evidence of immigration in the record, Francis Pryor writes I also can't see any evidence for bona fide mass migrations after the Neolithic."