Talk:Ethnic group

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Race and ethnicity)
Jump to: navigation, search


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 (talkcontribs) 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'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. -- (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)

The gallery of personalities from the infobox of articles about ethnic groups[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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


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)

Australia Missing[edit]

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 (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)

Lede: Types of ethnic groups[edit]

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)