Talk:Ethnicity/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Constructed Ethnic Groups

Must all ethnic groups evolve naturally? Can a group of people which adopted a new language, culture, and religion be considered an ethnic group? Do such constructed ethnic groups actually exist? Prsaucer1958 (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Most ethnic groups are "constructed" to various degrees. Political processes of ethnogenesis happen all the time - often involving different kinds of deliberate creation of group traits and identity characteristics.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

This article is one of Wikipedia's 100 most vital articles. I just now reverted 4 instances of IP vandalism dating to October 19, 2011. Would you believe it...? Debresser (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't know which topics are the "vital 10" or "vital 100", who gets to define these things? --dab (𒁳) 06:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Second paragraph contradicts the first parapgraph

The second paragraph contradicts the first paragraph.

First paragraph

Ethnicity or ethnic group ...may be based on common cultural heritage, shared ancestry, history, homeland, language or dialect, a... religion, mythology and ritual, cuisine, dressing style, physical appearance, etc.

Second paragraph

Ethnic groups [got through a] period of several generations of endogamy resulting in common ancestry.

First paragraph allows ethnicity to be determined by a number of things; the second paragraph say they are all groups that have married within the group to the point where they have common ancestry.

Chuck Baggett (talk) 15:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

You are right, some one inserted a primrdialist understanding of ethnicity as if it were a fact. Which it isn't.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I think these statement do not exclude each other. The first is comprehensive, while the second focuses on one aspect. Debresser (talk) 17:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

They did contradict eachother and the second one simply included false information, namely the idea that ethnic groups usually share common descent. There is no literature to suggest that this is the case.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

This sounds very counter-intuitive to me. See also sources like "and still others may know only that their ancestors were from a particular region of the world or may not know their ethnic origins at all" [1] or "the objective of the question on ancestry is to gain a better understanding of a person's ethnic background" [2], which seem to indicate the opposite of what you claim. Unless by "common descent" you don't mean common ancestry but rather family ties. That seems correct. Debresser (talk) 23:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

By the way, not that although endogamy is not a prerequisite for ethnic groups, it is commonly practiced to various degrees in ethnic groups. Debresser (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

In the US often "ethnicity" is used to mean the geographic location of one's ancestors, and there is an industry that often claims to be able to tell "ethnicity from ones DNA" which is absurd given that the word "ethnicity" and "ethnic group" was developed in anthropology exactly to refer to the cultural aspects of heritage and identity as opposed to the biological ones. There are no ethnic groups that are defined by DNA or ancestry. There are many that think they are, but in all cases what defines the group is a sense of affinity and common roots that is sometimes expressed in terms of blood. The idea of blood being the definition of ethnicity is basically something that is limited to the US and Nazi Germany - which are the only places where Laws are in place that regulate membership of ethnic groups by blood quantum. SO this is in itself a cultural oddity. (Just think about how odd it is that with one grandparent being classified as Cherokee you can be an Ethnic Cherokee regardless of where your other three grandparents come from, or whether you speak Cherokee or have any knowledge whatsoever of Cherokee history and culture). There are no ethnic groups in the world that are exclusively endogamous (unless they are isolated, which leads to problems in the long run), but very many for which it is the ideal (and there are also ethnic groups that are normatively exogamous). Due to this endogamy there is a higher degree of shared genetic material within ethnic groups. But this is a consequence of the group already existing and practicing endogamy and not something that defines the group. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

We agree here now. Debresser (talk) 07:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Is Han Chinese the largest ethnic group in the world?

The problem is, does these Han Chinese share a common language? Some people think they do, some don't. For written language, there are the simplified and traditional Chinese; as for spoken language, there are Mandarin, Hakka, Cantonese, Min-nan, Wu, etc. which some linguists classify them as different languages rather than different dialects. Does the Han Chinese sees themselves as the same ethnicity? Many of them do, but some of them don't. They would consider themselves Taiwanese, Hong Konger, Macanese, Cantonese, Shanghais, etc. - 78.105.193.6 (talk) 13:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Then why do we Cantonese call ourselves Tang ren, or People of the Tang (China) dynasty? Indeed, Cantonese was not fully sinicized during the Han dynasty, but during the Tang dynasty, but does that mean Cantonese are not ethnically Han Chinese? Perhaps it means they are mixture of native Baiyue and ethnic Han Chinese migrants from the Central Plains. Either way, what determines ethnicity is genetic lineage (no doubt Cantonese have ethnic Han Chinese blood, paternal chromosome side) and self-identification.

Deleted plagiarized paragraph

As the paragraph seemed dubious content wise, when I checked the first refcite and found it led to a dead link, I re-searched and found this page [3] from which the paragraph had been copied verbatim]. I subsquently checked the Wayback machine and found this which includes only one instance of the term "macroethnicity", as follows, in a completely unrelated context to the paragraph in the Wikipedia article.

In the Andes there was genuine concern for the preservation of provisions for which various technologies were valuable. The environment in the middle of which the Andean cultures developed, created a need and a permanent anxiety to possess and store foods. If the means of preservation failed or the number of foods was much reduced, the spectra of hunger appeared and produced the collapse of reciprocity. In other words, the consequence of a shortage could bring disintegration of the State of a macroethnicity.

Since I have subsequently noticed that the webpage in question attributes the information posted thereon to this Wikipedia page, it is not a case of plagiarization. I still find it somewhat that an obscure website supposedly for travelers would contain such material, and I haven't figured out how to find the page from the website itself[4], which seem to be posted apart from all the other content, but that's another story.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

France was not "ethnically homogenous when they attained statehood"

The statement "...the second case are countries such as France... which were ethnically homogenous when they attained statehood" is not correct. Even nowasays there are in France native ethnic groups that are not French: Basques, Occitans, Catalans... see Ethnic_groups_in_Europe. Furthermore, France should be in the second group: "States such as the United Kingdom and Switzerland comprised distinct... ethnic groups from their formation" (removing the "but closely related" part, which leads to misunderstandings).--Assar (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC) I must say I find this distiction between "homogenous" countries such as Sweden and Germany and multi-ethnic ones like the UK or Switzerland misleading at best. The difference is one of degree, not of kind! Germany certainly comprised different ethnicities (depending on definition of course) from its formation, notably many jews (not many left now), but also Bavarians are arguably ethnically distinct from Prussians, Saxons, Friesian etc. There are certainly differences of degree, but a totally ethnically homogenous nation-state has never existed to my knowledge (Jérôme).

Max Weber

Someone commented this out:

Among the first to bring the term "ethnic group" into social studies was the German sociologist Max Weber, who defined it as:

[T]hose human groups that entertain a subjective belief in their common descent because of similarities of physical type or of customs or both, or because of memories of colonization and migration; this belief must be important for group formation; furthermore it does not matter whether an objective blood relationship exists.

With the comment:

this is nonsense, the term "ethnic group" is from the 1978 translation, not from the 1922 German original.

Unfortunately, this leaves several references to "Weber" in the article unexplained, so we need to make this make sense and put it back in. Perhaps we just need to mention the German word he used? -- Beland (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Weber speaks of "ethnische" Gruppen,[5] "'ethnic' groups". Iblardi (talk) 08:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

first paragraph

"An ethnic group is a group of people who share a common ethnicity" wow this doesnt even qualify as an explanation, let alone as encyclopedic!

you cant explain a word by the same word! that's like saying squares are square shaped objects... Mnlk (talk) 11:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The first paragraph is wrong... scholars do not agree whether or not self-identification is a must. Most actually dispute this part. DiAyd (talk) DiAyd (talk) 08:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

And now the first paragraph is WRONG again. Ethnicity is not necessarily a matter of self-identfication. It may also be identification by others only... but let's not trust the experts on the topic.176.240.200.255 (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Uninformative

It looks like in an attempt to not offend anyone, this article became rather vague, and consequently uninformative. I feel like there's probably a tag for this, but I don't know what it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.215.234 (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it is becomes it is a rather ambiguous and wide concept? Yes. 176.240.200.255 (talk) 21:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

"ethnic identity is constantly reinforced through common characteristics which set the group apart from other groups"

This statement is "referenced" with no less than five footnotes:

• Camoroff, John L. and Jean Camoroff 2009: Ethnicity Inc.. Chicago: Chicago Press (the entire book)
• The Invention of Tradition, Sider 1993 Lumbee Indian Histories (the entire book)
• O'Neil, Dennis. "Nature of Ethnicity". Palomar College. Retrieved 7 January 2013. (the entire book)
• Seidner,(1982), Ethnicity, Language, and Power from a Psycholinguistic Perspective, pp. 2–3
• Smith 1987 pp. 21–22

When you think about the statement, this is exactly the sort of grammatically correct, encyclopedically-sounding but completely bland statement that gives Wikipedia a reputation for bad writing, it does not convey anything at all. It says no more than that "ethnic groups are social groups". I am not trying to "contest" this claim, I am simply wondering how it could be turned into something meaningful, and what would actually be found if we consulted the five references cited. --dab (𒁳) 06:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It means that ethnic groups emerge through social and cultural processes by which they create boundaries between themselves and others.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I wrote half of that sentence and do not know what happen to the rest. I also did half the references and have never heard of the other half. I think the problem is rather undergrads that read one book and then decide to change and add stuff based on one opinion. 176.240.200.255 (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

groups

"Many social scientists, such as anthropologists Fredrik Barth and Eric Wolf, do not consider ethnic identity to be universal. They regard ethnicity as a product of specific kinds of inter-group interactions, rather than an essential quality inherent to human groups.[16]"

[can one 'human group' exist in isolation from other human groups? aren't "inter-group interactions" inevitable? isn't the notion of an 'essential' quality dependent upon how one defines a group in the first place. and isn't the creation of a group dependent upon distinctions from other things/entities/groups?] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moslovitch (talk • contribs) 05:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

That is what people like BArth and Wolf and most subsequent anthropologists have argued. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

symbolic system = physical appearance?

In the second sentence, the article states that physical appearance is a symbolic system; "Membership of an ethnic group tends to be defined by a shared cultural heritage, ancestry, myth of origins, history, homeland, language (dialect), or even ideology, and manifests itself through symbolic systems such as religion, mythology and ritual, cuisine, dressing style, physical appearance, etc." This is clearly not accurate. While language and religion are examples of symbolic systems, physical appearance is not. This should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moslovitch (talk • contribs) 04:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Physical appearance is part of the symbolic system because what becomes defining for ethnicity tends to be selectively chosen traits that become symbolic of group membership.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The gallery of personalities from the infobox of articles about ethnic groups

I invite everybody to post their opinions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#The_necessity_of_galleries_of_personalities_in_the_infoboxes Hahun (talk) 22:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Other forms of ethnic identities

Ethnic groups can be anything, and I mean a group of humans who identify with something they share together as a group in society. We have ethnicities based on region (Southern US/Texas and Northern England/Northumbria), language (Francophones or French-Canadians), skin color (Blacks or African-Americans), religion (Jews in Judaism) and church membership (Mormons or the Latter-day Saints church). Deaf American indicates this cultural group identifies with their hearing impairment and they reject the idea deafness is a disability, but a culture known as deaf culture. Some activist adults with autism and Asperger's Syndrome call themselves "Aspies" to indicate they're a cultural group as well. An social or income class like Dalits (outcastes) in India and Burakumin in Japan are treated as cultural groups apart from the higher-classes or the majority of the country population. And nomadic peoples like Irish Travellers have a basis of a self-identified ethnocultural grouping. Adinneli (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Ethnicity and race

Right now we have "Ethnicity is often assumed to be somewhat more of a cultural identity of a group, often based on shared ancestry, language and cultural tradition, while race is assumed to be strictly a biological classification, " "Somewhat more of a cultural identity"? Are we sure the sources are so tentative? That means, IMHO, "ethnicity is only a bit different to race". And "strictly a biological classification" is stating a pov in Wikipedia's voice. Doug Weller talk 04:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

It's based on the sources provided in that paragraph, and in the rest of this article and the article on Race. The two concepts are related, and can refer to the same thing, while often also being different, with ethnicity also referring to cultural traits (sometimes only referring to this) rather than just shared ancestry. Ethnicity sometimes includes racial identities or categorizations (ethno-racial), and has similar features such as identity by appearance or a presumed common descent for many groups. However, race is, according to its respective article, only a biological classification of human beings which is largely "socially constructed". In that article, it is discussed how many scientists now choose to refer to human genetic variation in terms of populations, clines or ethnic groups, instead of racial categories. Veritas2016 (talk) 01:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Still a bit confused but I'll leave it at that. Doug Weller talk 16:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

It is confusing. That is what often happens with social constructions, especially sensitive ones that are made differently in different countries. Arnoutf (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ethnic group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060207222529/http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_68178.htm to http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_68178.htm
• Added archive https://wayback.archive.org/web/20110427172440/http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1741-7007-8-15.pdf to http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1741-7007-8-15.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Appearance

Although it isn't in the first 2 references (which are very limited in any case), it is in the lead as one of the 5 main types - which is why I think it should be in the first sentence. Doug Weller talk 17:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. I think word "appearance" should not be added back in the first sentence and should be removed from the lead (and elsewhere) where it was listed as one of the 5 main types because appearance does not count as a "factor" or type of ethnic group but race (ethno-racial is correct) and genes; you cannot differentiate (or know ethnic group of) African black man from Afro American man by appearance; by ancestral or race characteristics probably yes. --Obsuser (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Ethnicity

ethnicity is just a fictional conept with no basis in reality just like race, this article depicts the existence of ethinicty as a fact, which is unencyclopedic. i added a one line quote from a scientific article to make people aware that ethnicity is a code word for race. I dont see why the concept of ethnicity should be treated with credibility when there is no scientific proove for it and it just serves as codeword for race(which has becoem unaceptable and unscientific) so that people dont have to change their racist views.

this article has npov-violations in that it treats the IDEA of ethnecity as a undisputed scientific fact.Mnlk (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Both race and ethnicity are undisputed scientific facts. What is not an undusputed scientific fact is that any of them are essential categorizations or have biological or genetic basis. This article does not suggest that ethnicity does so - in fact it very clearly states that it does not. Ethnic groups exist - because poeople believe in them, and act as if they are meaningful. Just like racial groups. Otherwise we couldn't have ethnic nationalism or racism. Which unfortunately we do.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

maunus i assume good will on your side, but after hearing your statement about race and ethnicity being undisputed scientifc facts, this becoime increasingly hard.. race and ethinicity arent scientific facts! just because a majority of people believe in something doesnt make it a scientific fact! it makes it a bleive a concept or even superstition and at that ehtnicity just seems to be a replacement for the unscientific term race(in humans), why isethnicity necessay when you can just talk about peoples//cultures... ? and it is not a logic argument to coclude becaue race doesnt exist racism cant, people can and do use fiction as the basis of belive sytsems and racism is just that race amongst humans doesnt exist, or are you saying the whole raceideology of the nazis are standing on a scientific foundation?(NO! it is not any more real than the easterbunny) sorry but you will need to bring up a reliable source that proves that ethnicity can be proven to exist.. there isnt one! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnlk (talk • contribs) 05:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC) Mnlk (talk) 05:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Well perhaps I shouldn't say scientific facts but social facts. Since that's what they are. I am in fact one of the editors who spend most time here on wikipedia making sure that the "biological view" of race and ethnicity isn't predominating. I've changed it to social fact. I think that you are also confusing the concept of ethnicity due to the American use of the word as a euphemism for race - social scientists use ethnicity to talk about cultural group membership of a specific kind. It doesn't have connotations of "biological identity" for social scientists.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

care to explain what a social fact is? sounds like original research... ethnicities dont exist, and race doesnt exist either...it's a concept nothing more nothing less..and it should be clearly indicated that it is a social construct and not a fact...unless you can of course provide scientific sources for the defacto existence of ethnicity and race. believing in something doesnt make it real even if millions do so. and as always i am assuming good faith so no need to try and establish your credibility it has nothing to do with the matter at hand! Mnlk (talk) 11:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

What is NOT a concept, nor even a "social fact" (?), but simply a FACT, is that before people started migrating on a large scale a few centuries ago, they clearly looked in a special way in every corner of the world: black-skinned in Sub-Saharan Africa and Australia, brown in Egypt, yellowish in India, yellow from Central Asia to Greenland, red in Americas, white in Europe - the further to the North the paler and some of them even having fair hair and blue eyes, a thing inexistent elsewhere.

The point is how you will name such a phenomenon. Someone called it "race", someone else "ethnicity" and both work, if you ask me. You were born human in order to systematize and categorize the reality around you. And the fact that this or that category has an infamous history of being applied by ones as a justification for their "superiority" over the others, does not discredit the category itself. Just like crusades do not discredit Christianity and 9/11 does not discredit Islam.

So I agree: ethnicity is a code word for race. Alter-globalization is a code word for anti-globalization. Challenged is a code word for handicapped. Black is a code word for Negro and African Amercian is a code word for black. People have an astonishing fear of using words that have once been used in a WRONG way. Which should be sturdily fought -) Slamazzar (talk) 01:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

IF they hadn't started migrating on a grand scale then how did they come to live on every continent? Ethnicity is a code word for race in the US only - in the rest of the world and among actual experts in the US it is fairly easy to keep the two apart. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·

Saying "migrating on a large scale", I'm talking about the recent history, that is colonialism in the modern era, and, even more recently, globalization; not about the prehistory when, of course, people had to migrate, as any other species, as the life in general, to inhabit different parts of the world. And in every part of the world evolution went in a slightly different way. And the fact that some kind of a deviated political correctness in trying to deny this simple and obvious truth of biology is the point of the disscussion.

But if this "race fear" is predominantly American, the question is why the rest of the world tends to share such a "politically correct" point of view recently... Slamazzar (talk) 16:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The article is VERY INCONSISTENT. Does anybody with a clear understanding have the time to smoothen it out? DiAyd (talk) 09:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I find the obsession with parental and ancestral ethnicity, in Wikipedia biographical articles, to be bizarre and quite creepy. --212.62.26.100 (talk) 11:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

and so people from africa and people from japan are literally the same kind of person with no differences. 100% same. even though their IQ is vastly different, physiological makeup is very different, completely different genetic expression, but since they all belong to the same species they are exactly the same. just as a chihuahua and a bull mastiff are both canis lupus familiaris, they have exactly the same traits. you social justice revisionists are truly, utterly insane. Wikipedia is made WORSE by your presence as this is a website dedicated to catalogueing the TRUTH, not your CONSTRUCTED BELIEF SYSTEM 2601:5C9:101:2A2C:B1:7394:1A5F:7AD8 (talk) 15:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

To suggest that genotype or physical features are irrelevant is against history and anthropology. Certain Genotypes and Phenotypes are native to certain regions. People also, as result of these genotypes, are prone to certain genetic disorders. We cannot simply ignore this, as this is blatant evidence of physio-biological categorization of humans within nature. Since we’ve discussed culture, we can also note that these biological categorizations native to certain areas line up with cultures native to these areas. These are the ethnicities, the cultures flow downstream from these, they are not these in of themselves. As I say, there are Phenotypes as well as Genotypes (that lead to things like certain genetic disorders) native to certain areas, and there always have been. For example, wide nostrils and a flatter nose would not be a feature of a Celtic phenotype. It is culture that comes from this. To deny this is absurd.

This is not a new, American idea. This is why ethnic groups have been more skeptical at first towards those who look different, approaching with a few ambassadors first, for example. It is worth noting that even today, people are more predispositioned to those who look like them. The irony here is that this, as many are calling it “politically correct” perspective has not been the default outlook for centuries like its advocates claim.

Slamazzar and the last guy are right. This is revisionism. To deny that biology has nothing to do with this and is irrelevant is pure revisionism.

Lede: Types of ethnic groups

In the lede, we have "Depending on which source of group identity is emphasized to define membership, the following types of (often mutually overlapping) groups can be identified". Many of the examples are changed regularly by IP editors. Should we have more than one example of each, to hopefully maintain more continuity? Alternatively, the entire paragraph could be moved out of the lede to "Terminology". Power~enwiki (talk) 05:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Australia Missing

Hey guys I noticed that in the section, Ethnic Groups by continent, Australia and the people of the region don't make any appearance. If it's because wikipedia policy is that Australia belongs in Asia, fine, (I don't know what the policy is) but Asia section then makes no mention and the main article "Ethnic groups in Asia" linked through doesn't mention the region either. This is a glaring omission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.98.162 (talk) 11:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia categorizes Australia as part of Oceania. Currently the entire region/continent of Oceania is ignored in the article. Which is indeed quite an omission.Dimadick (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Australians sometimes talk about ethnicity, but there is no formal definition of the word in that country. The national census does not ask residents about their ethnicity (or race, for that matter). It only asks about ancestry. Unless there is an excellent source out there that describes the ethnicity of Australians, it's unlikely that we can ever have meaningful content for this article about Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 05:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

picture in the infobox

The current picture in the infobox (of one Korowai man in the jungle) is a bad choice.

First and foremost, it conveys very little information about what an ethnic group is. Ethnic groups, as their name implies, are collective in nature, and a picture of one person does not convey that well. Also, without further explanation, nothing in the picture identifies the man as a Korowai, be it his dress (almost naked) or his activity (walking in the jungle). This picture is exactly as illustrative of ethnic groups as would be for example a picture of Angela Merkel in a suit with the caption "Angela Merkel is a German".

On a secondary note, I think that illustrating "ethnic groups" with a man walking naked in the jungle is a way of otherizing ethnicity. It suggests something along the lines of "ethnicity" being about the savages out there, not our civilized "nations".

I am in favour of a picture of several people doing an activity that has ethnic significance while wearing a traditional ethnic dress. This picture of Kurds celebrating Nowruz does the job, but there are certainly many other options.--GrandEscogriffe (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Asnwer

@Doug Weller:,

1st source: The fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC))

The text still says "nationality"? Why would we write about a shared "nation or nationality"? The two things mean the same?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

No the text does not say "nationality", and we should write only about nation - this fits to the source -, obviously the two does not mean the same.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC))

To be honest, I suspect you must be misunderstanding the English in the both this talk page and the article? (1) You changed the word in the text from "nationality" to "nation" after my edit, so yes, it did say "nationality". (2) In English, nationality is the property which things that share a nation, share. So sharing a nation is identical to sharing a nationality. (3) Also in English, it is conventional and clear style to say that two people "share a nationality" rather than "share a nation", which sounds like an attempt to say something poetic. So I can not really understand how you justify your position on this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

No I do not misunderstand.

(1) - After your edit I added nation - that may be really drawn from the sources and anyway not ignorable in this context -, but did not touch nationality you added (but in my second edit, even alluding in the first edit log as well, I realized that it should have been removed, because of the explained reasons.

(2) - Apart from the English interpretation that is just one of the interpretations (there are multpile and overlapping, and we should be careful in the relevant context). In modern interpretation, nationality equals citizenship, but not ethnicity. In WP, also in the lead, people's nationality is indicated, not the ethnicity. That means, Hunor Kelemen is a Romanian politician, but he is fully ethnic Hungarian (Romanian citizen, but part of the Hungarian nation). Kurdish people share a common nation, but they don't have currently a mother country, thus none of them have Kurdish citizenship or nationality. Since the article is about Ethnic group, it is obvious that it is adhering to nation, national context, but not necessarily just and only nationality (written in the passport as an indicator of citizenship). Hence what I did, and as well the sources did not mention nationality. You may try to rephrase and have something with "national", but just and only nationality is misleading in this context.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC))

OK, I see what you are thinking but it really is not clear in English this way. If you wanted a word which did NOT imply citizenship, then "ethnicity" would have been been better. But of course it is a bit redundant because the article is about ethnicity. "Nation", in any case, for most English speakers, will mean citizenship before it means ethnicity, so it has the same problem (the way you see it) as nationality. On the other hand, is citizenship not the type of thing which belongs in a list of "shared things" which can make people feel like they are in the same nation? Let me know what you think, and other editors feel free to chip in. No need to rush as the current version is not a disaster. Without thinking about it very deeply, should the list include "citizenship"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I see your point. However, indeed, i.e. legally every Romanian citizens are part of the Romanian nation (the same goes to Hungary, etc.), however the Hungarians in Romania and Romanians would interpret the word nation (HU: nemzet, RO: Națiune) not in the context as the English interpretation solely. However, in the USA, this does not have such problems, because practically not counting native Indians they share a very dicerse cultural/ethnic ancestry (however seeing the world, this would not be the majority interpretation). Answering your question, I don't think we should include citizenship, since in real interpretation as today does not have necessarily such deep historical roots, while as well today noone seriously considers legal (administrative) subjects of a state being identical with an ethnic group, given the fact of the various recent or past territorial rearrangements - and not just the past 200 years - have a history even back in the ancient times; that ethnicity is often different of people in a state/entity they live in.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC))

Pictures to illustrate "Terminology"

Pictures in the section "Terminology" should serve the purpose of illustrating what is written in the text. If they don't, they're just needless random material (WP:INDISCRIMINATE). Both the long-used picture from Kerala, as well as the "White Americans" added by the novice editor clearly fall into the latter category. –Austronesier (talk) 07:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Gipsy

The article currently says An example of a largely nomadic ethnic group in Europe is the Roma, pejoratively known as Gypsies

It is not a pejorative term in England, but a term used in English law (see Names of the Romani people#Use in English law). Some may consider it to be pejorative (see Romani people "The Romani are widely known in English by the exonym Gypsies (or Gipsies), which is considered by some Roma people to be pejorative due to its connotations of illegality and irregularity."), but that does not make it a pejorative term (See for example Gypsy and Traveller Federation § About Us) -- PBS (talk) 11:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. What would be pejoritave is subject to POV and may differ per countries.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC))

Definition in lead is both too expansive and not narrow enough

The definition is both too expansive (the attributes listed can be part of the definition but not necessarily so) and too narrow (it doesn't include a belief in common descent). As far as I can tell, most scholars make a belief in common descent the essential aspect of ethnic identity (the minimal definition) and scholars are then divided as to what other attributes can be latched onto the minimalist definition. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I would argue that the ideal way to word the lead is to say "Ethnic group... is a belief common descent. Descent-based attributes can include common history, language, religion, etc...". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

The APA states "Ethnicity refers to shared cultural characteristics such as language, ancestry, practices, and beliefs". I.e. ancestry is one "such as" but the hard requirement seems to be a sense of shared characteristics.

Also, what do we mean by "descent", do we mean ancestry? As that is already covered. Do we mean descended from a certain culture? Born into a certain religion? I think descent is too loose a word, and what we really mean is a groups shared sense of identity. trackratte (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

While the APA definition is common in various RS, I'm under the impression that academic sources overwhelmingly to favor a belief in "common descent" as the definition. The Chandra book summarizes some of the predominant academic definitions in the cite I added to the lead. The problem with saying "shared cultural characteristics such as language..." is that different ethnic groups can have the same language, same ancestry etc. The belief in common descent gets more to the crux of both what divides and unites people into ethnic groups. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Once again, what does "descent" mean? I think it is an overly ambiguous term. And so I may agree or disagree on your statement based on what it actually means.

Different ethnic groups can share language or ancestry, true, which is why ethnicity is based on a set of shared characteristics leading to a "state of belonging to a social group" (Oxford definition).

So the common thread throughout all of the different definitions and sources is really the shared "state of belonging to a social group".

This is key as well when considering that people themselves can belong to multiple ethnicities simultaneously.

Or in other words, it's possible for people to have a "shared sense of belonging to a social group" not through descent (adoption, migration, etc as mentioned in the article) or belong to multiple ethnicities simultaneously, so the only thing that is applicable to all situations and permutations is the sense of 'being a part of' an ethnic group whether through culture, language, genetic ancestry, cultural or national traditions, religion, etc. trackratte (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Trackratte, "a belief in common descent" is fuzzy, and often not essential for self-identification and perception by outsiders (that's why many ethnic groups come as ethnolinguistic groups). The whole set, or a subset of the list may be relevant, depending on case and context. Just one minor point: "ancestry" should be just "ancestry" and not "genetic ancestry". The idea that something that can only be determined by analyzing extracted body cells or fluids in laboratories could be decisive for inclusion in a social construct, is dystopian. –Austronesier (talk) 15:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure how an ancestry could vary from a genetic ancestry (maybe by being a mistaken ancestry?) It seems like ethnicity can be anything people want it to be, whether it's one group of people imposing an ethnicity on others, or a group claiming an ethnicity for themselves. Whatever criterion you pick, you'll find some other that situation where it doesn't apply. You may as well say that ethnicity is an arbitrary way of grouping people for arbitrary reasons. I think there's a particular Australian ethnicity, that consists of little more than speaking English with an Australian accent and vocabulary. Nobody (I think) is going to insist on shared decent back to the first colonists of the British invasion. Nobody experiences anything that happens before their birth, in any case. ghouston (talk) 06:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

From the article: "By way of language shift, acculturation, adoption and religious conversion, individuals or groups may over time shift from one ethnic group to another." But this would be impossible if shared ancestry is an essential characteristic of ethnicity. ghouston (talk) 08:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

In some ethnic groups, ancestry in the sense of traceable descent plays an explicit role. This is usually the case in clan-based ethnic groups. Or with the priniple "born from a XXX mother", which is the Jewish, Cherokee etc. criterion. But even then, adoption is a common way of integrating outsiders into the group. For many ethnicities, ancestry doesn't play any significant role. If the Welsh bilinguals Mr. and Mrs. Jones move to England and "discard" their Welsh identity, their children will grow up as English.

I read "genetic ancestry" as the things you can read from a genetic profile of an individual. This is a scientific exercise, but nothing that plays a role for self-identifying (or being assigned) to an ethnic group as a social group. –Austronesier (talk) 10:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Ethnicity, population and "race"

In the scientific field, we have a clean distinction between Ethnicity (and a macroethnic group i.e. Slavs, Turks/Tatars), population and "race" (a concept we no longer use in a scientific setting.)

This article needs serious clean up.

As well, it should have a cleanly explained section on the differences between ethnicity, macroethnicity, population and "race." It would be prudent to include information regarding race as an outdated concept and how it hasn't supported by scientific literature for quite some time now. (Given its still a lingering and problematic concept within many social institutions.) Vyaiskaya (talk) 01:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

What "scientific literature" no longer supports the taxonomic classification known as race? Mind you, your view on race is entirely Western-centric and is in no way substantiated by any relevant empirical evidence. Also, the element of a controversial nature applied to a subject does not diminish it's relevance or accuracy. As well as this, by "we" you almost undoubtedly mean yourself as well as your own selected for ideological group. I see no reason to revise the article as it is. — Preceding comment added by TriCharon (talk • contribs) 20:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much the concept of race (biology) is even used, it's described there as an "informal" classification, somewhere between a strain and a subspecies. Variety (botany) and cultivar are used in botany and agriculture. Some genetic differences between humans have been found, such as the presence or absence of Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA. But in the modern world, humans routinely migrate long distances, so it doesn't seem that there's the possibility of geographically separate population groups forming subspecies. ghouston (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Definition of an ethnic group

IMO the definition in wikipedia is sloppy; I do not know whether this is a guilt of Wikipedians, or the sources, because experts in Humanities tend to have limited grasp of formal logic. Explaining:

The small village my grandfather comes from was settled by several families of common descent. People were coming and going, but they were 98% from nearby area. Therefore I may firmly assure that the population of the village is the "category of people who identify with each other based on similarities such as common ancestry, language, history, society, culture or nation". Question: do they constitute a separate ethnicity? I guess not.

IMO our definition misses an important characteristic: ethnicity is defined not only by the fact that these people "identify with each other", but also by the fact that they feel distinct from all other people, based on blablabla....

Any comments? Staszek Lem (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that even Oxford doesn't say what you'd like to say[6] and I think that's because it's just assumed. Which I think is reasonable, even built into the definition. Some do have the bit about differentiation[7] This[8] gives several definitions. Also useful:[9][10] Doug Weller talk 18:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

re oxford: Whatever Oxfrod says is good for a laymans' dicdef. Anyway, it seems I opened a minor can of worms with definitions. Are Slavs ethnic group?

Suppose the answer is yes. Then West Slavs, a subgroup of Slavs is ethnic group. Polish people, a subgroup of West Slavs is an ethnic group. Now, Kashubians is an ethnic group which is variosl classified either as a subgroup of Poles or as a separate ethnicity. So, Szemudians (Kashubians, residents of Shemud) are they an ethnic group? Do recognized subdialects automatically make separate ethnic groups?

But our 'Slavs' article says Slavs are ethnolinguistic group. But the definition of "An ethnolinguistic group (or ethno-linguistic group) is a group that is unified by both a common ethnicity and language", which sounds like nonsense to me: Russians and Poles are both Slavs, but they are certainly of different ethnicity and have different languages.

Concluding, whoever wrote all these ethnicity articles did not think hard and much. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I concur. My field is anthropology, the definitions as listed provide a very misleading an inaccurate insight into the differences between: ethnicity, "race," and population. Noting also, "race" is no longer accepted in the field. Where it lives on is where it is enforced by social institutions such as the government. One common problem being the conflation of populations/ethnicities with "race" in US medical fields. While African Americans (a specific ethnic group with a very particular ancestry to West-Central Africa and Western Europe) may be more/less at risk for certain genetic conditions, these are not reflective of every "dark-skinned person" even within Africa. It goes with out saying, that poor understanding and poor clarity on the distinctions between ethnicity, race and population are inherently detrimental to society. Vyaiskaya (talk) 01:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Slavs: Poles are an ethnic group. Russians are an ethnic group. Slavs are a macroethnic group. (I am a Slav and in the anthro field). That said, without a cleanly explained definition, there will again be conflation here with "race." So the explanation needs to be very carefully and accurately chosen. Vyaiskaya (talk) 01:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding defining an ethnic group:

• To my understanding, the Homeric meaning of the Greek word "ethnos" was that of a "group" which could include objects, people, or anything else which had similar characteristics. Later, during the time of Herdotus, it was used to describe non-helenic organized groups of people. These people could have a number of levels of ethnic groups, where smaller ethnos-es groups could band together to form a larger ethnos.
• Nowadays "ethnic group" has a much more specific meaning. To avoid confusing it with anything else that would constitute a group of people, I would keep the definition to something like "An ethnic group is a group of people which identifies based on shared genetic heritage". This would mean that groups which identify solely based on religion, language, customs, mentality, political views, government or anything else, but which does not identify with a shared genetic heritage are not an ethnic group. Any comments? Gore Voinicescu (talk) 11:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Any sources? I would say quite the opposite coresponds to the long-standing mainstream defintion of "ethnic group" in anthropology. Ethnicity is based by self-identfication, and this does not happen by DNA-analysis. The primary factors are culture, language, and occasionally religion. –Austronesier (talk) 13:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Every social science article I can find views ethnicity as socially/culturally ascribed usually based on shared language and customs, either by self-identification or by others. There may often be some degree of shared genetics, but that's not what defines it. Ceneri (talk) 06:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

How do you make an ethnic group of an imaginary country?

How do you make an ethnic group of an imaginary country? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.28.34.253 (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

You use your imagination. 81.154.172.135 (talk) 13:57, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Moc504.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2018 and 13 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kayloz9!.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Social

How does nationality unit people 150.107.106.61 (talk) 14:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Photo in lead should include several ethnic groups

The photo in the lead should reflect the fact that many ethnicities exist. The current photo of the Karamojong people may give some readers the erroneous impression that ethnic groups are something that only exists outside of the Global North / the West. It might therefore be wise to add photos of diverse ethnic groups, include white ethnic groups. Thenightaway (talk) 16:29, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 15 March 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Silikonz💬 15:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

---

Ethnic group → Ethnicity – The article not only defines ethnic groups (referred to as "An Ethnicity"), but also emphasizes the broader sociological concept of ethnicity, which is an uncountable noun. Maedc (talk) 11:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• At first sight this makes sense.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Rjensen (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Treetoes023 (talk) 17:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ethnicity: a social construct

My recent edits with reliable sources for some reason have been reversed, there are tons of reliable sources that states that ethnicity is a social construct like these ones:

• “Ethnicity, like race, is a social construct, but it's still a construct with significant implications for the world. How people perceive ethnicity, both their own and that of others, can be tough to measure, particularly given that it's so subjective” Washingtonpost
• “Ethnicity is a complex social construct that influences personal identity and group social relations.” And “Ethnicity is typically invoked via the term, ‘race/ethnicity’;” ncbi
• “Contrary to supposedly scientific approaches to determine the objective physiological , genealogical , or genetic origins and boundaries of racial groups, a growing consensus of scholarship across fields and disciplines has now concluded that ethnicity is a social construction , a fictional product of a people's common imagination .” Ethnic Negotiations: The Function of Race and Ethnicity in Acts 16, emory university

i hope people stop removing reliable sourced content. Chafique (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is a social construct, but certainly a very different one when compared to race (unless "ethnicity" is abused as a euphemism for "race", as often happens in US discourse). I object to have them mentioned in one breath. Also, our opening sentence clearly talks about "people who identify with each other", which obviously equals a social construct. We also say this in the forth paragraph, so repeating it is redundant here.

Since the social (and hence fluid) understanding of ethnicity is mainstream now over primordalist interpretations, we might consider to put it further up in the text. But not with unencyclopedic phrasing such as "but still" and "it's so subjective". I'll think of a more adequate fix. –Austronesier (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

It’s not me or you who decide that, it’s reliable sources, the source say “Ethnicity, like race, is a social construct, but it's still a construct with significant implications for the world. How people perceive ethnicity, both their own and that of others, can be tough to measure, particularly given that it's so subjective” [1] , these are the exact words of the source, it’s the source that says “like race”, you are objecting to the source not me. You have no right to claim that the source is wrong or made a mistake without at least providing a source stating that. And no saying “people who identify with each others” is not as saying “ethnicity is a social construct”, and if we got to choose between a direct or indirect statement to introduce an information we should go with the direct statement. Chafique (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I've just become aware that you have plagiarized the WaPo text (see WP:COPYVIO). I will make my final revert explicitly for this reason. I have already voiced my substantial objections to your text (which isn't yours), let me just add that I have all the right to object to a text that contexualizes ethnicity in a way that does not reflect the scholarly mainstream understanding of the concept (i.e. as something similar to "race"). WP:Due weight is part of Wikipedia policy. But now it's time for other to chime in. I suggest you stop edit warring about. –Austronesier (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I will make my final revert explicitly for this reason.

great. Then i guess after fixing that then we are fine.

I have already voiced my substantial objections to your text (which isn't yours)

yeah you are objecting to the reliable source, not me, that’s your personal opinion and belief not what reliable sources say. You have provided zero sources so far and yet you are pushing your personal opinion over the reliable sources.

let me just add that I have all the right to object to a text that contexualizes ethnicity in a way that does not reflect the scholarly mainstream understanding of the concept (i.e. as something similar to "race")

then provide a source that support your claim !, you are the one claiming that a reliable source doesn’t reflect or contradict with the “scholarly mainstream understanding of the concept”, provide quote/s from any source that says or show that. Until you do, this remains your own personal opinion. Chafique (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

This edit [11] does remove the COPYVIO but remains problematic.

• FIRSTLY adding three sources to the lead is WP:OVERCITE.
• SECONDLY, on sourcing, The Washington post source is really not of the kind we should be using for this kind of information, and Barreto (2010) is all very well but you reveal in the referencing that you have not read the book, but merely searched for the phrase "ethnicity is a social construction". This suggests you have begun with the point you wish to express and googled sources that support your point of view. This is not how this should be done (although it is not uncommon). Austronesier, above, says I have all the right to object to a text that contexualizes ethnicity in a way that does not reflect the scholarly mainstream understanding of the concept, by which we understand that what is required here is a review of what all the sources say, not cherry picking sources that seem to agree with us (but may not if we read them in full).
• THIRDLY, we should not need to cite anything in the lead if the lead is properly a summary of the main text, where the information is cited. This per MOS:CITELEAD. Inserting this in the lead with citations reveals that it does not, in fact, properly summarise main text and so it does not belong there.
• FOURTHLY, there already is a summary of what the main text does say about ethnicity being a social construct, so your addition is repetitive in what is already a long lead.
• FIFTHLY, you tried an edit and it has been reverted, and now it is incumbent on you to gain a consensus before retrying it. Per WP:ONUS, this text stays out until their is consensus on what should be there.

For all these reasons I have reverted the addition. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

This suggests you have begun with the point you wish to express and googled sources that support your point of view. This is not how this should be done

are you accusing me of being biased or lier ? Are you assuming a bad faith in me ?

by which we understand that what is required here is a review of what all the sources say, not cherry picking sources that seem to agree with us

I am the only one here citing sources, both you and Austronesier haven’t provided a single source for your opinions and beliefs. And yet again it seems like you are assuming a bad faith in me. Both of you also made edits and removed content other than mine without reaching any consensus, so i am going now to revert you and restore the last stable edit until we all reach consensus here. Chafique (talk) 12:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Without rationale, you have reverted four edits that are unrelated to the contested piece of text that you want to add:

1. You have changed "perceived shared attributes" back to "shared attributes", even though this is line with the overall presentation of ethnicity as a social construct, which you yourself want to repeat with the disputed text. This looks like a tit-for-tat revert.
2. You have restored the unsourced and hardly meaningful sentence "Ethnic groups often continue to speak related languages". Is it one ethnic group speaking several related languages? Is it several ethnic groups speaking related languages? What does "continue" refer to here?
3. You have restored a dictionary definition, which is ok. But not having it in the lede is also ok. But never mind, better seems to be more, regardless of what MOS:LEAD says.
4. You have restored the citation to a NYT opinion piece which might be a valuable addition to Race (human categorization), but is quite off topic here, since the words "ethnic" or "ethnicity" are not mentioned in the source at all. Why should we have in the lede section a source that does not cover the topic of this article?

You do not accept my revert of your additions in spite of my arguments, which is of course perfectly fine: without disagreement, there's no consensus to build. But do you think it's ok to make a revert to unrelated material without any substantial explanition? –Austronesier (talk) 22:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Chafique, you say: are you accusing me of being biased or lier ? Are you assuming a bad faith in me ? I am certainly not accusing you of lying, and that ought to be quite clear. Neither am I assuming bad faith. I had assumed your faith was good. It was the method that was bad. We don't go googling for keywords in a source to support something we already want to say. Instead, we read and understand the sources, and from a position of knowledge, we describe the consensus of opinion. The page already has that, and as explained, your text both duplicates what is already there, but also nuances it in a way that actually contradicts the main text. That can't happen in the lead. Also, per Austronesier's comment, I don't understand your revert of unrelated edits I made to clean up the lead. What is the policy reason for putting those back in? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Chafique you have found time to make edits elsewhere on Wikipedia but have not answered these questions. Why have you reverted my cleanup edits of yesterday, removing WP:OVERCITE from the lead, unrelated to your previous content dispute? Your only rationale for these edits (asserted twice) was Both of you also made edits and removed content other than mine without reaching any consensus. I believe you are not familiar with WP:ONUS or the essay, WP:BRD. Let me summarise: Any editor can make a bold edit without discussion, but if another editor reverts that edit, it requires consensus before the edit may be reasserted, so I was entirely within my rights to make two cleanup edits. You, having reverted them, should now express what is wrong with these edits. Your current rationale reads as retaliation, which I am sure is not what you meant. Note that failure to express a policy reason for reverting those edits looks like WP:STONEWALLING. Particularly with edit summaries like "Restored the last stable edit". Your "Restored the last stable edit" simply removes two cleanup edits of mine that were unrelated to your previous content dispute. An editor attempting to freeze a page at a "stable version" is also WP:STONEWALLING. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for my late response, i have reverted your edits mainly because it removed “Ethnic groups often continue to speak related languages.” which should have stayed, an example for it would be the Kurds, Zazas are ethnically kurds who speak the zaza-gorani languages, unlike most kurds who speak kurdish. They speak related languages but not the same. There are a lot of other similar examples. That’s why i opposed your edits.

now regarding out main topic,

We don't go googling for keywords in a source to support something we already want to say. Instead, we read and understand the sources, and from a position of knowledge, we describe the consensus of opinion.

thanks for your advice, that’s exactly what i did, i leave the keywords in the url to make it easier for check ups. the source states that there is a scholarship consensus that ethnicity is a social construct, a human fiction, as the source says: “ a growing consensus of scholarship across fields and disciplines has now concluded that ethnicity is a social construction , a fictional product of a people's common imagination .”, this needs to be more directly and clearly shown in the lead. same way “race” is, we have also an extra source that likens ethnicity to race, i still don’t find a reason go exclude it. None of you provided any source to support his claims about it or that “it goes against the mainstream consensus”, until now you are objecting for the sake of objection without providing any source. It looks like the remaining main argument against the direct mention and confirmation of ethnicity as a social construct is that “it’s mentioned indirectly” and the claimed duplicates, so perhaps i will rephrase the lead to make it more clear and mentioned more the beginning that ethnicity is a social construct. So anyone have any objection ? Chafique (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Then you should only have reverted that text and not unrelated edits. As to the point about (Barreto, 2010), this all seems very strange. The reference you found, and that you claim supports your inclusion of text that changes the fully sourced conclusions of this article is

• Barreto, Eric D. (2010) Ethnic Negotiations: The Function of Race and Ethnicity in Acts 16. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

So it is a theological treatise. You found it by googling, but do you realise it is theological? If this article were about Acts 16, it would be an excellent source, but this article is about ethnicity, and you are trying to use it in a definitions section. The fact that you still insist this should be in this article is rather surprising. But yes, clearly I object to its use here. It is not a suitable WP:RS for this article.

As for Ethnic groups often continue to speak related languages. - That is unsourced in the lead and not clearly a summary of anything in the main. Why do you think it should be there? Removing that was a good edit in my opinion. I have, for now, reasserted my edits that it turns out you did not object to, and the word "perceived" that you did not object to, but left that sentence alone. Yet I think consensus already lies with its removal. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I basically agree that the current lede creates a WP:FALSEBALANCE between the outdated primordalist/essentialist POV and modern constructivism. So having "social construct" in prominent position as primary understanding of the concept is definitely a good idea. But since this is an anthropological/sociological topic, we should give preference to sources that 1) pass WP:SCHOLARSHIP and 2) are primarily concerned with this topic. A WaPo opinion piece serves well as a mirror about how the topic is perceived in public discourse, but is second choice when it comes to hard definitions. Let's dig for sources that do the job (and also do not sloppily mix ethnicity with "race").

As for "Ethnic groups often continue to speak related languages", why single out this special case? More often than not, ethnic groups speak one language (with the shared language being the primary token of group identity). Also, next to the less common example of Kurds speaking several related languages, there are also cases where members of an ethnic group speak may entirely unrelated languages (e.g. Brahuis). –Austronesier (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)