Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 15


Proposal: Rename articles that aren't about ethnic groups to Xian national identity

It's confusing and inaccurate to have the same naming convention for French people as for Hmong people, and it also encourages these articles to be written as if they are treating the same sort of subject, which they are not. Far better would be to have this type of article at something like French national identity, or a similar form. See discussion in the above section.--Pharos (talk) 04:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree on renaming pages like French people, but I'm not sure on renaming it to French national identity. Maybe French Citizens. X - people should be ethnic-base pages only IMO. Chaldean (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Or French nation would be good. But the main thing would be to distinguish it from the Demographics of France article. Possibly we could distinguish in titles between groups with nation-states being called "nations", and other groups being called "national identities".--Pharos (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, have to disagree with all name-changing proposals! What may appear to you to be disambiguation will appear to a casual, less-informed reader as a confused jumble of inconsistent information. Your suggestions increase, rather than decrease, the general level of confusion. Ling.Nut (talk) 02:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

When to state Ethnicity in the lead paragraph?

What are the guidelines for deciding when a person's ethnicity is an important enough factor in their notability to warrant mentioning it in the lead paragraph? Someone has just changed Philip Kan Gotanda and Jeanne Wakatsuki Houston from "Japanese American" to "American" citing WP:MOSBIO and I'm wondering if these edits should be undone. Thanks. Aristophanes68 (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I went back and looked at those two bios, and I would probably leave them as they are now. The articles go into detail about their ethnicity ect later on. Per the above guideline Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability This is pretty general so I usually leave ethnicity out of the lead sentence unless there is an obvious and relevant reason to mention it. I usually ask myself "IS being of xyz ethnicity why this person is notable?" If not, leave that material for family section, ect.-- (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
While I agree that it should only be mentioned if relevant, surely it's relevant for Jeanne Wakatsuki Houston? According to the article, her notability rests on her writings about the Japanese-American experience, so it's surely relevant that she's Japanese-American? Cop 663 (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I would think that if the article really does go into detail about their ethnicity, then their ethnicity is part of their notability. Aristophanes68 (talk) 15:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Update: I think I've found a solution -- I've added a sentence to both articles that describes why their ethnicity is important, but I left the nationality as "American." Aristophanes68 (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Nice work. Looks much better. Thanks for working this out. -- (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Related ethnic groups

Many of the infoboxes on ethnic group articles include a section for "related ethnic groups", but the criteria for this used in each article is not the same. I think we should we should decide which one of the following three to use in ethnic group articles (if controversial for a specific ethnic group, or the specific ethnic group has no closely related ethnic groups, the "related ethnic groups" section can be removed from the infobox for that article):

1.Ethnic groups who speak closely related languages (eg. Jews with other Semitic peoples; French people with Spanish and Italian people; Bretons to other Celtic peoples; Russians to other Slavic peoples; N/A for Basques and Albanians). This seems to be the most common criterion used in articles, presumably because language is a major aspect of ethnicity.

2. Ethnic groups of close geographic proximity (eg. Germans with other European peoples; Berbers with other African peoples; French people with Spanish, German and English people; Chinese people with Japanese and Koreans; Dravidians with Indo-Aryans).

3. Ethnic groups who correlate in genetic studies (similar examples to no. 2, as people - unsurprisingly - are genetically closest to people near them). I'm not sure about this one; just because two groups are similar genetically doesn't mean they are similar ethnically/culturally. While ancestry is an important factor in genetics, that's perceived ancestry, not genetic ancestry (remember genetic tests are only a recent invention), especially since many ethnic groups cover a large area and contain people of diverse genetics (eg., since there are many black Jews and Arabs, should "Africans" (not an ethnic grouping anyway) be one of their "related ethnic groups"?).

I'd like to hear what others think, and whether it is a good idea to decide on one criterion for all ethnic group articles (as I said, choosing whether the section should be included or not should be done on an article-by-article basis, which is what is happening - with little drama - at the moment).--Yolgnu (talk) 09:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment You have set your foot upon ground that is far, far more slippery than you imagine. Sometimes it's best just to let things sort themselves out from the bottom up in each separate article, on a case-by-case basis, than to try to inject WP:BUREAU-prone top-down rules. 'Nuff said. Ling.Nut (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
So are you saying that the criterion might (rightly) be different for different ethnic groups, and should be discussed on their particular talk pages?--Yolgnu (talk) 06:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Look at the 'Language(s)' section of {{Infobox Jews}}. Here, we have three different subsections of "Jewish languages", based on three different criteria, which are all equally relevant in their own way. I believe a similar thing could be done with 'Related groups'. The important thing is, that we say in the infobox by what criteria a particular relationship exists.--Pharos (talk) 06:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
All I'm saying is, these are the kinds of ideas that truly and sincerely sound very useful, helpful, clear and good when you're typing them on the talk page of a Wikiproject. They also may even look nice and go smoothly when you're doing the actual writing (but not necessarily so!). However, when you star actually applying them to actual content, things get in a big mess really quickly. Ling.Nut (talk) 09:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The reason I brought up is because certain editors have been changing the box on various articles from linguistic criteria (which I think is the correct criteria as if two ethnic group speak closely related languages, it means they split not too long ago, and thus are "related") to genetic criteria (which seems to me to be a literal interpretation of "related"). Since it's occurring on multiple pages, I thought it would be better to discuss it here than on every single page where it's occurring. I don't really see what's so "slippery" about this or why it would "get in a big mess really quickly". This is just a simple discussion about definitions; I just want to see what other people think, not make a legally-binding policy.--Yolgnu (talk) 10:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Linguistic criteria are always and everywhere preferable to genetic ones. vastly preferable. In fact, the latter hardly merit consideration... Ling.Nut (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Infoboxes must burn in hell.
I'd agree with that in general, but (repeating an earlier debate), I'd go further and say, if there is the slightest indication the criteria are contentious or different legitimate criteria give conflicting results, out with the whole field from the infobox. Did I point out that infoboxes must burn in hell? Fut.Perf. 16:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree, Fut. Perf. While some groups (eg. Celts, Slavs) feel a close connection to their (linguistic) relatives, others (eg. English people) don't. If there's a consensus that the ethnic group in question doesn't want to be linked to other ethnic groups, the field should be removed from that particular ethnic group's infobox. (This is already common practice, and I haven't seen any disputes resulting from it.)--Yolgnu (talk) 09:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Ling.Nut on this. If you believe in science... a hem!...genetics is a very slippery slope on a continuum, and defining how people relate to each other based on hidden information, that is, information that may not be known or understood by the subject, gets into some huge conflicting issues of ethnic identity, authenticity and essentialism. Linguistics is "one" marker for group relationships that is MUCH better than genetics.... especially for something as fluid as Ethnicity, which has much less to do with one's DNA. The subjects of Austronesian studies and China studies have been stellar examples of the incongruity between genetic and ethnographic relationships. Maowang (talk) 05:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it's impossible to be consequent when it comes to this, what criteria we use would be different from ethnic group to ethnic group. I think it would be best to look at the individual group and see what fits best. I think genetics and culture are more important than language and geography to establish whether groups are related or not, but again, it depends on the exact group. For example, African Americans would be more geographically and linguistically related to white Americans than to Africans, but we would still believe them to be closer to Africans in Africa due to genetic facts. Funkynusayri (talk) 09:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
African Americans, White Americans and Africans are not ethnic groups but racial groups, which don't have "related ethnic groups" in their infoboxes, so I'm not sure they're particular relevant to this discussion.--Yolgnu (talk) 09:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thats a rather simplistic view. African Americans have distinct cultural and linguistic features which are unrelated to their racial origins, so they're an ethnic group as well as a racial group, the two frequently overlap. Just shows how complicated this issue is, so there's no reason to deem it irrelevant just because its hard to put in a specific box. Ethnicity is an extremely complicated subject. Funkynusayri (talk) 10:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
African Americans (a PC version of "Black Americans") are defined as "Americans who have origins in the racial groups of Africa" - they are a racial group, not an ethnic group. Just because they identify with each other (many racial groups do this, but it doesn't make them ethnic groups) and share a language, English (because they are citizens of the United States of America), does not make them an ethnic group. I don't think the two ever overlap.--Yolgnu (talk) 10:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Also... from looking above, I can see several instances where ethnic identities are being assigned anachronous to its actual appearance. i.e French before France.
Yes, there are several coexisting ethnic identities any one person may hold and choose to deploy. It would help to see how they deploy them.Maowang (talk) 10:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
"coexisting ethnic identities"... yep, been there done that... that tingling feeling in the area of your buttocks you may have just acquired is your body telling you that hashing this question out will require long, long hours chained to the chair in front of your computer.. and the headache that comes from being unable to actually resolve the issue is just around the corner... Ling.Nut (talk) 10:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Reminds me of what old Geertz has to say about ethnography...

"...extreme subjectivism, is married to extreme formalism, with the expected result: an explosion of debate as to whether particular analyses (which come in the form of taxonomies, paradigms, tables, trees and other incongruities reflect what the natives "really" think or are clever simulations, logically equivalent, but substantively different, of what they really think." Clifford Geertz-The Interpretation of Cultures

Maowang (talk) 10:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Funkynusayri hasn't been changing ambiguous pages to genetic criteria - he's been changing pages like Jew and Arab, and there's no way they could be considered racial groups. In fact, they're the best example of ethnic groups that cross racial boundaries. Is there any opposition to me changing them back?--Yolgnu (talk) 10:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Is that what this is all about? I changed it from "Arabs/Jews and other Semitic groups" to "Arabs/Jews and other Middle Eastern groups", which makes a lot more sense in many ways. No one has mentioned race at all. Funkynusayri (talk) 11:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I just saw this quotation and saw you've already gotten into conflict over your strange racial ideas. And don't bother denying you changed Jew and Arab based on genetic criteria - a few days ago you said:

I've changed "Semitic groups" to "Middle Eastern groups", as the relation isn't based on linguistics but on genetics. Jews (and other Levantines) are closerly related to non-Semitic Middle Easterners like Armenians, Iranians and Anatolian Turks than to South Arabians for example. This is a genetic fact, but last time I put in a reference, someone removed it. Funkynusayri (talk) 08:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

--Yolgnu (talk) 11:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Hmmm, what's the problem? Again, in this case, linguistics are slightly irrelevant, as they don't create any feeling of kinship. Many Ethiopians speak Semitic languages. North Africans speak Semitic languages. Heck, Maltese speak a Semitic language, in this case, linguistic affinities are irrelevant. Jews are "related" to Middle Eastern groups, whether they speak Semitic or not, but not to Semitic groups in general. As someone mentiond before, the matter of related ethnic groups should be determined on a case to case basis, there's no way it can be standardised. In one case genetics might be more appropriate, in another it would be culture, and another one again it could be linguistics. But a combination is always good, like in the case of Jews and Arabs.

You asked me for help, so it would be nice if we could stay free of mud-slinging. Funkynusayri (talk) 12:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone got any popcorn? Ling.Nut (talk) 11:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Burn a few infoboxes and we'll bake the popcorn fresh over the ashes. :-) Fut.Perf. 12:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Another way to look at it may be "ethnicity" and genetics is performative and is reliant on "others" perceptions to become meaningful. Maowang (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've tried something new. Look at the new presentation at {{Infobox Jews}}. The idea is, we should be honest and open about exactly what criteria we are using. And we shouldn't merge our different criteria into an "objective" idea of related groups, because that prefers one criterion over another. So, I've separated out the linguistic from the genetic data in that infobox, which were previously mashed together. I think that the three criteria of linguistic relatedness, cultural relatedness, and genetic relatedness all may be significant, and that we can decide on which ones it is relevant to include subsections for on a case-by-case basis, depending on the history and identity of the ethnic group.--Pharos (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Sounds nice. Should be a universal feature on the ethnic groups infobox template, not only the Jews one. Funkynusayri (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Funkynusayri, how are linguistics irrelevant in the case of Jews? How are they "related" to other Middle Easteners besides genetically, and why aren't they "related" to Semitic groups? Why is a "combination" good in the case of Jews and Arabs? (And no one's said it should be determined on a case by case basis.) According to your userbox, you only speak English at an advanced level. You do know that "related" doesn't necessarily mean genetically related, don't you?
Pharos, it's good to be bold, but your edit is extremely controversial, and I've reverted it for the time being (and by the way, the phrase "cultural relatedness" is meaningless). Can we please reach a consensus before doing anything; I haven't reverted any of Funkynusayri's linguistic to genetics edits, and I won't until we've finished discussing it. I don't believe genetics and ethnic groups have anything to do with each other, and neither does anyone else here except Funkynusayri, it seems. Genetic connection between ethnic groups is extremely controversial (ie. should we put "East Africans" as a related ethnic group of Greeks??!! - different genetic studies rarely say the same thing), and is discussed in the "Genetics" section of some ethnic group articles (usually along with a disclaimer that many scientists have denounced the idea of genetic relationships as bullshit, and that the greatest genetic difference is found within a community). Let's discuss it a bit more before we make any edits, please - we don't need to include Funkynusayri's theory if it's WP:FRINGE.--Yolgnu (talk) 07:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I've gone back to my proposal and simply removed the field from the box. Seriously, guys: the various "relationships" between Jews and other groups is probably one among the most complex issues on this planet. Thinking that you can capture it in three or four words on three square centimeters of a screen space is, quite frankly, preposterous. Don't try to box things that resist boxing. Fut.Perf. 07:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree - it's not controversial to delete the infobox (or to remove something from it), only to add something to it. In the same spirit, I've removed the "Jews" (and the "and") part of "Jews and other Middle Eastern groups" on the related groups infobox on the Arab page, so now it's just a rather vague "other Middle Eastern groups". Seriously, if it's going to be that vague, is there any point having it at all?--Yolgnu (talk) 08:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll answer your previous questions in a couple of days, I won't have Internet access again until then. Funkynusayri (talk) 10:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I do have to point out... foy the pure joy of pointing it out... Sammy Davis Jr. and Stevie Wonder are Jews.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Maowang (talkcontribs) 13:19, April 10, 2008

Help with Britons with Latin American ancestry article

Hi. We could do with some help with the discussion going on here on how to define a Briton with Latin American ancestry. The debate revolves around whether someone can be considered British if they are resident in the UK but not a citizen. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


someone fix the racist andamanese article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Backwooder (talkcontribs) 04:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Have you added a warning tag to the page? Aristophanes68 (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Please list the portion(s) that you believe are offensive. Thanks. Ling.Nut (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Help with European

Hello. Currently, many european links redirect to europe. Can anyone help with correcting that and redirect european to the newly created disambiguation page European?? KarenAER 02:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian, Palestinians (singular nown, plural nown)

A "Palestinian" is a native and/or inhabitant of Palestine. All American dictionary definitions of "Palestinian" (including Webster's, Merriam Webster, American Heritage, Encarta Online) have been purged since the early 1970s. However, it is notable that a definition for "Palestinian" is still found in the OED as of April, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonestf (talkcontribs) 20:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Besides the above being a bit off-topic, the claim about "purging" dictionaries is almost certainly false. See Palestine, Merriam-Webster online; Palestinian is given as "adjective or noun". - Jmabel | Talk 23:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Assyrian people

We need assistance with this page. User dab is insisting on having up to 8 different names be put on the beginning paragraph and that all the subgroups should be right away explained and broken down in the beginning paragraph.[This is the version] dab is insisting on. I don't think this should be the case and I think we should follow what other ethnic group pages do. I gave an example of Greek people; we don't see that article starting with The Greeks (Also known as Hellenic, Elleniko, Yavan, Yonani, etc). It would make the article very tacy looking. Besides, it would be for the good of the Ethnic Group project to work with the template we are given [[1]]. Chaldean (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm totally agree with you Chaldean because in the whole my life and by my knowledge, I've never heard some words as "Elleniko, Yavan, Yonani, blah, blah, blah" (it was so un-needed, superfluous and confusing). Angelo De La Paz (talk) 04:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, I guess Dab is proposing that due to the somewhat controversial use of the term Assyrian to refer to all Syriac groups, I think such problems could be avoided if the article was simply called Syriac people or Syriac/Assyrian people, but I know a lot of people are opposed to that. But in contrast, there is no "Greek naming dispute", for example. Funkynusayri (talk) 06:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
As I have shown in the talk page, Syriac people in the English language is a reference mostly to people of Syriac Orthodox Church only, and not all of Aramaic-speaking Christians of Mesopotamia. So there is a problem there. The Syriac/Assyrian people would be a problem in that, you have to add the other subgroup, Chaldean, so now we have Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac and it will only take time to add Aramean as well. It would just cause to much problems, and that is why we have created West Syriacs and Chaldean Christians for now. Chaldean (talk) 22:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, do Chaldeans object to being called Syriacs? If not, I don't see a problem. Funkynusayri (talk) 05:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Well technically, the word Syriac does not exist in the language of the Aramaic-speaking population. The Syrian Orthodox Church declared to differ the translation of Suroyo from Syrian to Syriac in 1950, to differnatiate itself from the Arab Syrian state. Since the Syriac Orthodox Church took this action, that is why Syriacs in the English language is mostly used to describe members of the Syriac Orthodox Church (just like Chladean to Chaldean Catholic Church.) If you called a Chaldean Catholic Syriac, he would generally correct you by saying he is not Orthodox (because the typical Chaldean understands Syriac as a word describing only members of Syriac Orthodox Church.) Here what it comes down to;
  • No ACOE person calls themselves Syriac or Chaldean
  • No Syriac Orthodox calls themselves Chaldean, but some do call themselves Assyrian (Yusuf Akbulut, Naum Faik for example)
  • No Chaldean Catholic calls themselves Syriac, but some do call themselves Assyrian (Raphael I Bidawid, Agha Petros for example)

So since Assyrian is used universally (either fully or partially) in all Churches, compared to Chaldean only for Chaldean-Catholic, Syriac only for Syriac Orthodox, then generally the term Assyrian is accepted as the name of the entire ethinc group. Chaldean (talk) 01:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Not in terms of refering to the group of people. Syriac language is only a dialect of the greater Aramaic language. We don't call Italians Romans or Romance after their Romance language. And Syriac Christianity is a subgroup of Christianity, that is a reference to Syriac-speaking Churches (which would includes people from India - take a look at the page Syriac Christianity). Think of the title of Syriac Christianity like Greek Christianity = there are many people belonging to the Greek Churches in Lebanon and Syria, but they certianly are not Greeks or Greek people. Now to tie it with in terms of refering to the group in the English language, Assyrian people by far outnumbers Syriac people in English Acedemics - book [[2]] [[3]] scholar [[4]] [[5]]. To go back to your question of Why isn't there Assyrian langauge, the ancient Assyrian langauge was by all means Akkadian. But due to the Assyrian empire's assimilation policy, Aramaic (which would become Syriac when Christianity arived) became the primary language of the Assyrian people by the 8th century BC. Although, sometimes Aramaic langauge is dubbed as Assyrian language. If I didn't explain the langauge issue well enough, this scholar does it perfectly startin with page 19 under linguistics. Chaldean (talk) 08:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I do in fact know these arguments, but in the end, I believe we should check out what other encyclopedias use as common denominator for all these people. Otherwise it would be akin to original research, I believe, with the Google ranks and stuff. Funkynusayri (talk) 09:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I remember there is a Wiki page where it gives you bulletin of what to use in situation like this (book ans scholar search wsa one of them) and it did mentioned some specific encyclopedias to use, but I forget where the page is. Chaldean (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Seems like it comes down to that then? Anyone know where it is? Funkynusayri (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks like there's another revert war going on at Assyrian people. Please help if you can! Helikophis (talk) 16:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Awful mess

Hi. I have been looking at a couple of particularly problematic categories, Category:Afro-Caucasian people and Category:Eurasians. In both cases it is apparent that the categories have been added in the vast majority of cases without any supporting information. In the absence of any good third party references that the ethnic category is significant to the subject's notability, these need to be removed, and I have been doing so. Especially on articles on living people, categories, like everything else here, need to be verifiable. --John (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Same answer for "awful mess" and "help with Britons" threads; see here Ling.Nut (talk) 05:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that removing these categories unless there is clear reliable sourcing that the person is in the category AND that it is somehow significant (mentioned in third party sources as influencing their story/career/achievements/etc not just mentioned as part of a description) that we should be blind to race/ethnicity. I may be a Pollyanna for saying that, but it's my view. The alternative has the potential to be much more divisive I think. ++Lar: t/c 22:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Mmmm. I'm beginning to agree. Will consider nomming for deletion. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Infobox images

I've noticed that many ethnic groups only have a "x in traditional dress" image, while others have "notable x" image. I think all of them should be changed to the latter. Sorry if this has already been brought up. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 04:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. For some reason, people are offended by variety. People always come along and wanna make everything the same. There is no reason to do this. Consistency is not always a virtue. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Saimdusan, have you noticed how it is only the smaller ethnic groups that have the traditional dress infoboxes, while larger ones have notable people ones? This is because, for many of these groups, there are no notable members. But we don't want to give readers the impression that these ethnic groups are any less important because of that, so we show an image of traditional dress, an important aspect of culture.--Yolgnu (talk) 05:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

renaming 'Cats:Booian(-)Fooians' to 'Cats:Fooians of Booian descent' and also renaming articles to the same naming convention

Firstly I would like to draw attention to the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 28#Argentines, Czechs, East Timorese, Ecuadorians, and Danes by ancestry / national origin which I understand follows several other nominations of the type rename 'Cats:Booian(-)Fooians' to 'Cats:Fooians of Booian descent'.

If the rationale holds for categories then I think articles should be similarly renamed according to the same convention.

Is a discussion here adequate or should we have a discussion at ... well where? I notice for example that multi moves are being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty#Two Brand New X-Rated Move Surveys! - ie a wikiproject talk page is acceptable. Articles are tagged though to draw attention to the discussion - we would need to tag hundreds of articles I believe if we were to go down that path. Any views on the way forward?--Matilda talk 01:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

My view: "Oh God, not again!" I'll try to draft a respectable response later, but this quest for clarity and consistency (and PC-ness) is frankly harmful to the encyclopedia. Its logical extension is to shoehorn the entire definition of "ethnic group" immediately before the ethnonym, thus creating articles such as: People who self-identify with, or are descended from, or have legal citizenship in or are accorded membership by other publicly acknowledged members of the ethnic group known as Romanians (or Rumanians or Roumanians). Please. Please. Please. Find more productive and useful things ways to contribute to the encyclopedia. I say that with the utmost respect, but with exasperation at the constant cycle of short-sighted, well-meaning efforts to split hairs that remain fundamentally unsplittable. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Afghan (Australia), Australians of Sudanese origin, Maori Australians, Romanian-Australians, Russians in Australia, Thai Australian, Ukrainians of Australia
We can of course sort out at the Australian level but it seems to me to be preferable to have a more global view. If its too hard ... we can drop the discussion :-( However I think I think Fooians of Booian descent is indeed preferable to Booian(-)Fooian(s) or Booians in Fooia or Fooians of Booian origin or Booian (Fooia) all of which are represented in a category of size merely 39 pages. i don't think this is splitting hairs nor do I think it is about PC-ness. For an example of poor ambiguity please have a look at Jamaican Brazilian - the name means either (according to the article Booian Fooian or Fooian Booian. The article asserts it covers both but are both covered by majority of the Jamaican population are located in the Southeastern region of Brazil.? - all that is clear is muddled and unreferenced thinking. A better framed article title would help. --Matilda talk 01:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I have rethought my support for the renaming following the debate at the category renaming discussion because it would allow for the category to become too broad. For example I am of Huguenot descent. I could therefore be categorised as an Australian of Huguenot descent but not as Huguenot Australian - the descent is too far back and the latter would not be an appropriate categorisation. Renaming the categories thus does not increase precision. I would like to see a conventian applied to the format of Cats:Booian(-)Fooians . I prefer no hyphen but I don't mind which it is if it could be consistent please. I do not think consistency is interfering with ethnic groups self-perception until somebody explains why. It does help though when using categories or articles to know how you expect the name to be formulated. --Matilda talk 06:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
These articles should be deleted, unless they can prove some notability... aside from the fact of their existence, what is notable about Jamaican Brazilians, or Huguenot Australians? Ling.Nut (talk) 06:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I am unaware of an article on Huguenot Australians, I was using it by way of an example - actually a rather extreme example to show the difference between Australians of Huguenot descent and the others. Articles such as Chinese Australian on the other hand are of notable population groups. The issue with Jamaican Brazilian it is unreferenced and not clearly presented - it is a mere stub and not very useful. However, it is an ethnic group (according to the stub) of 56,000 - I suggest notability would be difficult to contest. --Matilda talk 06:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
"I suggest notability would be difficult to contest." As per the precedent of Thomas Jefferson High School. Yes. Ling.Nut (talk) 07:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
So if they aren't not notable ... the aim is thus to put some bounds around the articles by using the policies associated with Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:NOR to ensure that at least the articles are factal and limited in bias. This is not political correctness. Matilda talk 07:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit war over related ethnic groups

At Native Americans in the United States there's an active edit war over what to list as related ethnic groups in the infobox. I've started a thread on this at Talk:Native Americans in the United States#Related ethnic groups. If some folks here could comment I'd appreciate it. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Languages

If the majority of an ethnic group speaks a certain language as a second language, should we add it to the language section of the infobox? That is, should the languages of the Dutch, for example, be "Dutch, German, English" because 87% speak English as a second language and 70% speak German as a second language? Or, to give another example, should the languages of the Maltese be "Maltese, Italian" because 66% of people in Malta (36% of Maltese overall) speak it as their second language?--Yolgnu (talk) 06:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If ... then yes but with a reference and perhaps some qualification to explain the proportions - if the qulaification is too lengthy then the information should be in the article instead.--Matilda talk 07:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Icelanders GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I have reviewed Icelanders and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have left this message at this WikiProject's talk page so that any interested members can assist in helping the article keep its GA status. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left messages on the talk pages of the main contributors of the article and several other related WikiProjects. Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix if multiple editors assist in the workload. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I have also reviewed Jew, and the article has multiple issues that need to be addressed. I would appreciate any assistance from members of this project in helping this article in keeping its GA status. If you have any questions, please let me know on my talk page. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey, me again! Irish people could also use your help. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 04:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Last time, Amish is on hold. Let me know if you have any questions. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Infobox mosaics

Hi there,

Although I'm not part of the wikiproject, I've noticed that a lot of ethnic group articles have image mosaics in the infobox. Most commonly, someone has used an image editor to paste several thumbnails into a single image. I've used an alternative approach at Russians, which places appropriately sized thumbnails into a subpage. Russians/infobox collage. This presents a few advantages:

  1. Alt text for each of the thumbnails is preserved, so vision impaired users can better identify notable individuals in the thumbnails
  2. Users can click on individual thumbnails to reach the description page for the specific image
  3. Licensing is simpler, as no derivative works containing multiple sources are required
  4. Individual thumbnails can be easily swapped in and out if they need to be replaced for whatever reason
  5. The subpage can be protected against vandalism/edit wars if required, without having to protect the entire article
  6. High resolution thumbnails can be used, allowing the mosaic to be dynamically resized

Feel free to make use of the mosaic approach in other articles if you think it would be beneficial. Cheers, Papa November (talk) 16:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 505 of the articles assigned to this project, or 44.6%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subsribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


There are many lists of ethnic groups. It would be great to also have a list with pictures because it is easier to search if you see a picture. --helohe (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

A discussion

An important discussion on " Should WikiProjects get prior approval of other WikiProjects (Descendant or Related or any ) to tag articles that overlaps their scope ? " is open here . We welcome you to participate and give your valuable opinions. -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - , member of WikiProject Council. 14:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Polish Americans deleted

This discussion apparently took place without seeking input from regular editors at this project, and was decided for deleting the "Polish Americans" category, though the comments were 6 to 4 against such a deletion. Badagnani (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

There were in fact 5 in favour of renaming as the nominator should be included in the count. --Matilda talk 21:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It was not the consensus in the discussion presented above, and input from regular editors of the relevant articles and projects was not sought. Badagnani (talk) 21:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The closing admin found there are lots of recent precedents to make this change, and there is nothing new presented to make this the exception - I think as one who has followed several of the similar discussions that his conclusion was fair enough. --Matilda talk 21:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

There was no such consensus in the discussion you mention, and regular editors as the relevant projects were not consulted. Badagnani (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

regular editors on this project have shown little interest in the related discussions and to the extent they ahve they have been prepared to let the status quo of the change proceed. I see no convincing arguments in the debate to go against the consensus established for naming categories into a more generic and consistent name. There were 6 keep do not rename votes. To deal with them:
  • Hmains keep the many Polish Americans are not to be discriminated against by not allowing them to have a category of their own
nobody is taking away a category rather placing them in a better named category
  • Johnbod Keep per Hmains & many precedents. Neutral/rather against on rename - I favour the Foos of X descent formula normally, but not for the best known American combinations, of which this is one, which avoid the usual ambiguity.
since Hmains argument is not particularly valid ... why favor Foos of Xdescent normally and not htis time - doesn't explain
  • Cgingold KeepAmerican ethnic groups have distinct histories and relate to the overall society in ways that are not necessarily comparable to the situations that may obtain in other parts of the world. Renaming these to conform to the X-nationality of Y-descent pattern would not be acceptable.
Mayumashu replied and how do you decide who is 'Polish American' and who is merely 'American of Polish descent'? half ancestry qualifies and less does not? the article page Polish Americans documents distinctiveness but category pages need to be clear, and not incorporate arbitrariness - there was no answer from Cgingold
  • brewcrewer Do not rename (no opinion on keep/delete) "Descent" as applied correctly is overinclusive and undefining because it includes people with any Polish ancestor.
Mayumashu replied But so does 'Polish-American', or is the description Polish American wrong? and there was no response from brewcrewer
  • Wassermann Keep and do not rename per User:Cgingold. I also recommend deleting Category:Americans of Swiss descent and changing it back to the correct Category:Swiss Americans.
but since Cgingold argument's did not hold water against Mayumashu reply ...
  • roundhouse0 Keep and do not rename per many above. I think the term 'Fooian American' is usually well known and understood. (The article Polish American states "A Polish American is an American citizen of Polish descent." I don't think we are at liberty to vary this definition.)
since the many above did not explain how the term Polish American is better than Americans of Polish descent which falls in line with the convention established by numerous similar discussions ... and moreover why is Polish American better than American of Polish descent - it was not made clear. WP:ILIKEIT is not an argument and the arguments on renaming categories have already been through the difference between the article titles and the category naming.
Note very importantly WP:PRACTICAL which deals with consensus in community discussions. In determining consensus carefully consider the strength and quality of the arguments themselves, including the evolution of the final positions, the objection of those who disagree, and in complex situations, existing documentation in the project namespace. ... In the few cases where polls are used, note that they are actually structured discussions, your opinion is much more effective when you provide a rationale during a poll, not just a simple vote. This was not just a simple vote. The arguments in favour of keeping and renaming were not convincing and did not deal with why this category should be different to other similar categories. Those expressing their view against renaming chose not to engage in that discussion of why this category is different to the many other Fooian Booean categories which have been renamed to Booeans of Fooian descent. --Matilda talk 21:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

If highly opinionated editors don't believe in such a thing as a Polish American (or an Category:Italian-Americans for that matter), that is their personal point of view. However, for the rest of us, those are actual ethnic groups. The poll had no consensus for the deletion of this category, which matches dozens of others, and regular editors of relevant articles and projects were not informed nor consulted. Badagnani (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The category wasn't deleted, it was renamed (or ratehr the contents were nmerged into Category:Americans of Polish descent - American of Polish descent is a better descriptor than Polish American. For example I am of Huguenot descent but I could never be described as an Australian Huguenot - the renamed category is broader but allows for verifiability. I am not sure what your problem is - except that I think you have mistaken the debate as resulting in deletion when in fact it was an effective renaming - the ethnic group still has a category. --Matilda talk 22:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Whether the group of four editors believes the ethnic group Polish Americans does not exist (on contrast to Category:Italian-Americans or dozens of other similarly named ethnic groups) is immaterial; there was no consensus for the deletion of the "Polish Americans" category, nor prior consultation with regular editors at related articles or Projects. Badagnani (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

  • My comments reacting to the proposal to delete the article; do not mischaracterize what I said for the purpose of making it sound silly. The real debate here should be whether the 100+ 'fooian Americans' categories are all to be replaced by 'Americans of fooian descent' categories. I understand that, except for the American categories, there are now changes happening to change all the other countries categories to this naming convention; that is not in dispute. For the American categories, however, precedents (which an honest someone can look up; I don't know find these things) are rather consistent that the American categories will be 'fooian Americans'. The reasons stated in the CfD discussions that have occurred are generally that this is how ethnic/minority people are referred to in American society and do to otherwise would not reflect the real American world. Instead of piecemeal changes, it would better to debate the whole issue, make a decision, implement the decision and make it stick. Hmains (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree that it would be better to treat the whole series of categories rather than a piecemeal approach. That isn't what you stated in this CfD and the nominator was not the usual nominator of these renamings (Mayumashu ). As for do not mischaracterize what I said for the purpose of making it sound silly - I am not sure how I have done that - I quoted you!? I did so to show that the deciding admin was in my view correct per WP:PRACTICAL which deals with consensus in community discussions. In determining consensus carefully consider the strength and quality of the arguments themselves, including the evolution of the final positions, the objection of those who disagree, and in complex situations, existing documentation in the project namespace. You (nr the others who were opposed to renaming, did not come up with strong arguments of any quality :-( You did not raise the piecemeal approach as being an objection to having this debate. --Matilda talk 21:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
There was clearly no consensus to delete a category for a recognized ethnic group in the United States (comparable to Category:Italian-Americans or several dozen others). It's also clear that the "delete" voters did not seek the input of regular editors at the relevant articles and WikiProject. Badagnani (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Not every American citizen who is of Polish descent identifies as a "Polish American" in an ethnic sense. We could only list people as members of an ethnic group if they openly identify as an ethnic "Polish American", "Italian Ametican" etc. The problem is: We usually don't know, if they do. Ethnicity is not based solely on descent, but ethnic descent or national origin is the only way to list people in such categories. Therefore I usually favor the naming sheme "Fooians of Booian descent" (the US are maybe a special case, because the "Fooian Booian" sheme is very established in everyday language). The question is: Should there be some restrictions (degree of descent etc.) or would they be too arbitrary? --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking for editors on South American ethnic groups

There seems to be no WikiProject covering South American groups. I had a question on one such group and couldn't find anyone to ask? Is there area simply neglected or did I miss something? Rmhermen (talk) 22:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


It seems that the article "list of ethnic groups" is removed. Please revert. Thanks (talk) 11:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion

There is an en masse deletion proposal at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afghan British‎. You input would be appreciated. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion regarding ethnic groups articles

See Wikipedia_talk:UK_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Ethnic_group_articles. Badagnani (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion regarding blanking from ethnic groups articles

Badagnani (talk) 05:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to Remove List of X-American lists

It's been about a year since this AfD (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Portuguese_Americans), and there has been exactly zero improvement to the state of these lists. The situation remains the same where the lists become a repository for COI additions, a conglomeration of totally unrelated famous people and celebrities who's ethnic background is either too distant or insignificant to ranthem alongside people who's ethnicity in America may have meant something to their success. Categories prove to be completely sufficient for List of Canadians.

It seems appropriate to list the most exemplary of ethnic-Americans in their respective articles, such as Portuguese Americans, but it has proven to be unnecessary, and definitely unmaintainable to sustain these lists. Of the articles that do have sources, the sources seem difficult to pinpoint in authority and relevance. Many are of self-published sources or sources with little credibility. Bulldog123 (talk) 00:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, here are my thoughts on the subject after the dust has settled a bit. In my mind I never have thought of the X-Americans lists as something that would determine someones ethnicity or nationality but rather something that refers to someones heritage, descendance, the roots so to speak. This seems to be the key difference between Bulldog123 and the rest of the editors that were recently involved with the lists. Now, since such different interpretations lead to conflicts due to misunderstanding, it seems obvious that something needs to be done about it.
Without doubt, if I interpreted the lists the way Bulldog123 has been doing it, I'd say the only true X-Americans would be people that have X + American citizenships. Just that listing people under such criteria would be invading the privacy of these living people big time. So I think common sense would say, it's a very bad idea. Now, I think calling anybody X-American without concern to the citizenship(s), but on the basis of ethnicity is not too far either from invading someone's privacy. The only solution I can see, is to make very clear what the lists are all about and rename those accordingly in case a consensus can be reached that the lists are a value for WP.
Also, I've looked through the articles on listed persons and as a rule, Americans of X-descent are listed under categories X-Americans. I'd get rid of the X-American categories for the same reason like the naming of the X-Americans lists. Once this is all about as originally intended in my mind, about heritage, the roots, that should be based on a fact, rather than ethnic or national labeling, it all would make sense in my opinion and hopefully would avoid conflicts around the subject in the future. Thanks--Termer (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep all - The lists of "X Americans" are an invaluable resource, when our readers wish to know who the notable, verifiable Jamaican Americans are (such as Colin Powell), or descendants of immigrants from other nations. These lists serve a different function as categories in that they may be sourced, and listed together on a single page, grouped by occupation, etc. They also exist because in many cases the parent article ("X Americans") would be too long if the lists of individuals are retained, so they are split out. The solution is simply to include a few words of explanation after each name, with a source--such as something like "Josh Groban, maternal great-grandparents from the eastern Norwegian district of Toten." Sourcing should be added for all names, and we can and should work together to identify names that are not sourced with "fact" tags, then add the sources one by one. Regarding citizenship, "X Americans" are typically defined by permanent residence (whether the individual holds citizenship, green card, or similar document). For example, the National Heritage Fellowship, the U.S.'s highest honor in the traditional arts, is only awarded to "X Americans," but many of them are permanent residents and not (yet) citizens. Badagnani (talk) 19:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
This isn't an AfD. Bulldog 20:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Go to Wikipedia_talk:Lists#Single_Column_Lists_-_are_they_needed.3F. Bulldog 20:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a good example what I was talking about:

List of Americans with Finnish ancestry

The following is a list of Finnish Americans, or United States citizens of Finnish descent.

  • I'd suggest renaming all X-American list accordingly.--Termer (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - It would seem fine to include both Finnish Americans and Americans with verifiably Finnish ancestry in a single article, and not have two articles for each ethnic group. Such an article would serve as the break-out for the parent article (Finnish American). We should keep short annotations for each individual, along with the reference(s), as were removed in this edit. Badagnani (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
If you want a brief sentence for each person, that almost defeats the purpose of having a list. I did attempt this here: Norwegian American. Are you only cool with it when you suggest it? Bulldog 23:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
If you want to rename all accordingly, then you can. Though I feel people might not want that. I'm fine with it. Bulldog 23:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys, I'm giving up on this since the miscommunication that's going on is just amazing. I thought my suggestion to rename all list of X-Americans to List of Americans of X ancestry according to List of Americans with Finnish ancestry was clear enough that would avoid confusion. But it seems the effect is opposite. Since there is no separate List of Finnish Americans it directs you right to the Finnish ancestry list, I'm not getting it from where the idea of having 2 lists came from? Have fun guys, hope you can sort it out what are those lists all about and that you can come to an agreement!--Termer (talk) 05:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Ethnic groups

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


I've nominated the article Iyer for a peer review. Do drop by and participate in the review process. Thanks-RavichandarMy coffee shop 11:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


I have contributed to the the article on Bearys, it contains a lot of research work too. I have tried to provide references wherever necessary. Will do more once I get some free time. Abushahin (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of writers from peoples indigenous to the Americas. Badagnani (talk) 21:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7

Wikipedia 0.7 has selected these articles from WikiProject Ethnic groups. I'm gonna ask for a few of them to be rmvd from the list, and then try to improve the rest. Wanna help? Later Ling.Nut (talkWP:3IAR) 03:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Removals from List of Cambodian Americans

Please look in at Talk:List of Cambodian Americans. An editor has stated that s/he does not believe that an American individual of half Thai and half Cambodian ancestry may be considered a Cambodian American. In this edit, s/he removed this individual from the article. Attention and comment from knowledgeable editors would be greatly appreciated. Badagnani (talk) 06:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sri Lankan Tamil people

It has been nominated for FA review.Taprobanus (talk) 12:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:People by race or ethnicity

There is a major CFD discussion taking place re this SuperCategory that may be of great interest to members of this Project. If you would like to participate, please go to this CFD section. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 00:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


Although the Csangos article includes the template {{ethnic group}}, its talk page does not have an {{ethnic groups}} tag. Should it have one?

A dispute about article content was listed on Wikipedia:Third opinion nearly three weeks ago, and there has been no response to the request. The dispute seems to be beyond the scope of the volunteers on the small WP:3O project (see Talk:Csangos#Recently deleted referenced material).

After spending most of the past hour studying the page history for the article (it has been plagued with edit warring and protected from editing at least once), I concluded that it would be much improved by simply restoring an earlier version, e.g. 11:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC), but that's a more drastic action than I am willing to take.

Could WP:ETHNIC help out on Csangos and Talk:Csangos? — Athaenara 05:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The article is a jumbled mess, as perhaps should be expected. These are very deep waters. i found what looks to be an excellent source: Baker, Robin (1997). On the Origin of the Moldavian Csángós. The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 75, No. 4 , pp. 658-680. It will take days to sort through this though... Ling.Nut (talkWP:3IAR) 06:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for picking it up so quickly, Ling.Nut! — Athaenara 07:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Right now basically everything is referenced in the article, so I don't advise reverting to any earlier version. The dispute was because there seemed to be contradictions in what the Council of Europe report stated. There was no distinction made between what the Romanian government and what the Council of Europe said in that report. Now everything is listed in a transparent structure.
I don't really see how this article is a "mess" especially compared to the earlier version. A number of references have been added in wikified format, the structure is clear, the external links section contains the real titles of the websites, the article went through quite a cleanup... The only problem may be the reliability of some of the references, but that is not that difficult to modify if necessary. Squash Racket (talk) 06:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a mess. Wikipedia does not separate articles into one POV and another, listing a large number of sources for both... and I have doubts about the reliability of the sources. It will be rewritten, top to bottom, even if it takes weeks (which I think it will). Ling.Nut (talkWP:3IAR) 06:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
If there are contradicting POVs, Wikipedia lists all of these POVs which may seem a "mess" to you. The report of the Council of Europe is an important source with a detailed bibliography, no doubt about that. The comments of the Romanian government show a dissenting opinion, but these also should be presented, the opinion of the Romanian government is notable.
The question is whether a POV is properly presented. The Council of Europe report says serious scholars from both Hungary and Romania agree on the ethnicity/cultural background of the Csango people. So a fringe theory seems to be presented at "Romanian sources", I only didn't remove it to avoid edit warring.
  • you can see the structure of the article at the first glance (you may disagree with it of course)
  • almost every sentence/paragraph is referenced (some references might be disputed)
  • at least one neutral, reliable reference is presented based on a research with a detailed bibliography
A "messy" article on Wikipedia usually has zero references, not 15 like that one. Obviously every improvement is welcome. Squash Racket (talk) 07:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Squash Racket, it's really better to keep the discussion on the Csangos talk page rather than reiterate arguments here. — Athaenara 08:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
There's no argument. The article will be rewritten (albeit slowly— I'm very busy, and am feeling bonked or burned out with respect to Wikipedia these days). I have no stake in this argument. I don't care if the Csango are Hungarian or Romanian (I'm neither, nor do I have any inclination to favor either). If folks want to discuss the changes that are made, I'll just point them to the relevant sources. If folks want to revert the changes that are made, they'll have to walk with me up the chain of Content Dispute forums. Ling.Nut (talkWP:3IAR) 10:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

CFD for Category:Fictional Americans by ethnicity

Here's another major CFD that may be of interest: Category:Fictional Americans by ethnicity and all of its sub-categories. Please join the discussion if wish to express an opinion vis-a-vis these categories. Cgingold (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Revert war at Assyrian people

Hello, after a comment I made trying to cool things down, my help was requested at Assyrian people. I guess I wasn't very helpful, as I have become involved in a revert war there. I feel like my neutrality is shot, so I'm calling for help (whether you agree with me or not of course). If there is anyone interested in helping calm this down, please feel free! Thanks. Helikophis (talk) 23:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Pashtun people is at featured article review

Pashtun people has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 05:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

User box

is there a proper user box with simple code instead of the cryptic stuff that comes from the curret template's "edit" section? Lihaas (talk) 07:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Articles currently listed at AFD

Please contribute to the discussion. Uncle G (talk) 21:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Naming conventions for people of

Generally, people is not a part of the name of a people, for example, the Kurds are not called Kurdish people, they are Kurds, Koreans are not called Korean people, and Basques are not called Basque people, they are called Basques. So not only are the examples wrong, but the article names are wrong in two cases. People is a qualifier, not part of the name, so it really should be in parentheses if it conflicts with the country or ethnic name. Elbonia, Elbonian is fine, but if the name of the country was Elbonians, then the people of Elbonians would be Elbonians (people), not Elbonians people. (talk) 02:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

For reference, note that this was discussed here some time ago. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Berber people: Genetics

Since yesterday (6 December 2008), there is huge duplication of material on Berber genetics in two placed in the article: under Genetic evidence and under Influences on Europe. The duplication extends even to identical subsection headings in these two sections. Someone needs to decide what to keep and how to merge. --Zlerman (talk) 06:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Semitic peoples

As a result of a CFD for Category:Semitic people I had occasion to look into the article, Semitic people, which was recently converted from a redirect page back to a stub article. As it stands, the article is very sketchy, and partly overlaps the content of Semitic (which was the target of the redirect), in particular the section on Ancient Semitic peoples. The material in the stub could, of course, be merged into that article. Alternatively, someone could take on the job of expanding the stub into a real article (which actually should be at Semitic peoples, also currently a redirect page). I'll check back in a few days to see what folks here think best. Cgingold (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Using national flags to represent expatriate people

I've seen a proliferation of pages using national flags to represent ethnic groups of people residing outside of their so-called "homelands", for example British Pakistani and British Indian. This usage is problematic, because flags represent countries, and not people. A nation might not represent the majority of that group, or the group might be outside the homeland precisely because they oppose political rule by the government represented by that flag. Has there been a discussion regarding this here? DHN (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's been discussion but I'm inclined to agree with you on flags not being appropriate in the case of ethnic minority groups. Ethnic group articles such as English people don't seem to use flags other than to represent countries, so I don't see why articles about ethnic groups outside their "homelands" should.Cordless Larry (talk) 23:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (flags)/Archive 3#Flags_on_articles_about_immigrant_populations didn't get much comment. In my opinion, the only sensible use of flags on these articles is if the {{Infobox Ethnic group}} is listing population figures for a bunch of countries; then the flags actually serve as an aid to eyeballing the list, and not just as decoration (for example, see Koryo-saram). cab (talk) 09:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not Geocities. Gratuitous graphics splattered all over the page perpetuates the perception that Wikipedia IS Geocities. Destroy at will. Ling.Nut (talkWP:3IAR) 09:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with Ling.Nut I am not a fan of flags in articles especially in regard to people and should be removed. BigDuncTalk 19:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Agree. We do not need flags, and their inclusion only promotes unnecessary arguments and pendantry. Kransky (talk) 11:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Disagree. The flags are there to represent the main countries of birth of people who do no consider themselves to be White British in the last Census, not to represent nationality. If you want to delete the flags then do it to all the articles describing immigrant populations after a vote, and not just some and not others. --Pankration2008 (talk) 23:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
But they don't necessarily represent countries of birth. The articles are about ethnicity, not country of birth. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. Flags do not violate or offend anything or any person affiliated with a ethnic group and show and represent as symbols and indicators of the country of ethnic origin that the ehtnic group hails/descends from and shows links between the two countries of the particular ethnic group. They should just me treated as mere symbols in the article rather thna making an issue out of it. However putting too many flags isnt good either but just two would be fine to indicate the two countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Australians in Britain

Your input would be appreciated here on the proposed move of Australians in Britain to Australians in the United Kingdom. Thanks. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion proposal

The proposer has apparently failed to list this one here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatian British. Badagnani (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I listed it in the appropriate place, namely Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ethnic groups. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I see that now, thank you. Badagnani (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merger

I have proposed merging Greeks in South Korea to Greece-South Korea relations as an alternative to deletion. Please discuss at Talk:Greece-South Korea relations#Merge proposal, where I have given a more detailed rationale of why I feel this is a better merge target than either Greek diaspora or Immigration to Korea. Thanks and regards, cab (talk) 11:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed category merger

There is currently a proposal to merge Category:English people of Cypriot descent with Category:British people of Cypriot descent. Comments are welcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

x people vs. x ethnic group

I think it is important to distinguish a certain nationality and an ethnic idea with the same name. Following this, Swedish people would be split into "Swedish nationality" and "Swedish ethnic group", as an example. (talk) 09:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Kayan and Karenni Title conflict

Recently I reverted an article move made by user Haabet that moved the article on the Burmese Kayan to one titled Long Neck Karen. He explained his move by claiming that the word "Kayan" isn't an English phrase and when I pointed it out on the discussion page, elaborated that "The official of Kayan is Long Neck Karen (a translation from thai)."(sic) regardless of the fact that the Kayan people are not indigenous to Thailand nor is Thai it their first language. My opinion is that when giving titles to articles about tribes and ethnicities, editors should choose the names said tribes and ethnicities refer to themselves as whenever possible.

After I moved the Kayan article back to it's original title, Haabet in turned moved a related article on the Karenni to Red Karen. In both cases he made the move without discussing it on the discussion page first. Looking at his own discussion page one will see that this is not a singular occurrence as he has been warned about his involvement with several other subjects and, from what I've gathered, has been blocked from both the Danish and German wikipedias.Zainker (talk) 20:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merger discussion

Hi. Please note that I've proposed a merger regarding Latin Americans in the United Kingdom for discussion here. Contributions welcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

British Cypriots good article nomination

Just a note to say that I have nominated British Cypriots as a good article candidate. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

And it succeeded. Yay! Cordless Larry (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Use of national flags in American/Canadian ethnicity infoboxes

I've just spent 1/2 hour reversing changes on articles in my watchlist incurred by an IP user who has been placing national flags in the infoboxes of the various ethnicity articles, e.g. Canadians of German ethnicity, Icelandic Canadian etc. This isn't just because decorative use of flags is contrary to WP:MOS but also because of egregious errors made in the course of this, e.g. for Scotch-Irish American he/she placed the flag of Scotland, rather than the flag of Ulster; in the case of German ethnicity the flag of Germany is inapporpriate as many German-ethnicity North Americans trace their lineage to countries/regions outside of German (e.g. the Volga, the Baltic, Bohemia, Austria, Switzerland, Hungary etc etc). Speaking as someone of mixed lineage (Norwegian, English, Irish, French), I do not associate with any of those national flags, and while some North Americans do, imposing hte national flags on North American citizens who do not is presumptuous. Can someone bot-remove all the rest? I just looked at the IP user's contributions and it's huge long list. Entirely inapprorpriate and presumptuous, but I don't have hte time/energy to fix them all. Thanks.Skookum1 (talk) 14:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't that huge of a list, unless there's another page of it I undid them all, and remarked on some of them how jejune many of the inclusions were, e.g. on French Canadian the use of the French flag is entirely inappopriate; on Chinese American and Chinese Canadian many of that ethnicity are from Vietnam, Singapore, Indonesia, Taiwan and many, many came before the PRC came into existence so teh PRC flag is defintely not appropriate; even with the Italian and Bulgarian and Greek ethnic-hybrid pages the national flags do not necessarily come from the country the flag is for, ditto Ukrainians and others. I also oppose such use, not just on anti-decorative and inappropriate/inaccurate use but also on pandering-to-nationalism use; even on many pages I don't see the point of including teh Hungarian for Hungarian American or the Ukrainian for Ukrainian Canadian etc.; if anything the French form on teh Canadian pages shoudl be used, and most of the other ethnicities do not speak that language and it's not relevatn to the American/Canadian experience except for diehard zealots-evangelizers for multiculturalism. These pages are only about ethnicity , not about nationality, there's a VERY big difference.Skookum1 (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the use of national flags is inappropriate. See here for a previous discussion. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The same IP user has just re-added them to German Argentine and German Mexican, and I also found them on German Chilean and Germans of Paraguay (which needs retitling); there seems to be an agenda to IP 41.x.x.x's edits, I haven't looked at what was doen to Dutch people and Swedish ethnic group but in some cases there've been mega-tweakings of population figtures, as on German Mexican and German Argentine, plus the addition of German-language subscripts (but not Spanish) to the infoboxes.....Skookum1 (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Sigh, I've just re-undone them TWICE today, once by User:Kusamanic and another new-account, and again by an IP user] who posted a complaint on Talk:French Chilean. My response is below that complaint and outlines some of the reasons why they should always be removed; in teh case of items like Syrian Chilean and Palestinian Chilean the flags of the United Arab Republic of Syria and the Palestinian Liberation Organization are especially inappropriate, as the bulk of those exiles are Christians, and some would be from what is now Lebanon or Jordan (or Israel); "Syria" also, before WWI, referred to the region encompassing all of those four countries. This IP user has 3RR'd this, more like 5RR'd only defense for doing the same is trying to follow WP:MOS. Is there a particular archived discussion/decision I can point to regarding this, as it's something more than simply decorative use; it's also POV use. I'm wondering if there's a bot that can be run across all ethnic groups catgories that would "rip" uses of {{flagicon}} out of the infoboxes or other locations in said articles? Because I went through this with Canadian ethnic group articles ,and some have no doubt been replaced sicne I took them off; they're quite likely in ethnic groups articles all over the world....and shouldn't be. Maybe an inbuilt comment in the infobox template to NOT use them would be a good idea?Skookum1 (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the above. It's also important to note that many, say, German-Americans migrated to the US before that flag was even used! In fact, many Germans emigrated to the United States before Germany even existed as a nation-state. This is likely true of other countries. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 23:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I've just gone through some of the major US ethnic group article because flags had reappeared on some of them. There is still work to be done though so if anyone has some time to browse through them, help would be appreciated. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Blanking/redirection of British Chilean

New contributor User:John Rushton83 has for the secone time blanked all content and redirect British Chilean to English Chilean, on the premise that English=British and apparently that Scots and Welsh aren't also British (there are also Scottish Chilean, Welsh Chilean and Irish Chilean articles btw); I reversed his redirection/blanking once, I'm in no mood for a firefight of edit war, as has been going on with the persistent re-insertion of nat'l flag icons on Chilean ethnic group pages; thankfully someone on a recent fix has provided WP:FLAGCRUFT as a policy reference for that. To me, the need for separate British Chilean and English Chilean articles is as clear as the need for different articles on Britain and England and also United Kingdom. "Blanket" British articles are of course not just about the English; would someone else please care to take this on? Ethnic group pages aren't normally my "thing" and maybe there's a policy guideline that applies here re such blanking/redirects in teh name of "ethnic levelling"....Skookum1 (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Featured article review

I have nominated British African-Caribbean community for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Spurious ethnic groups based on language families

Ethnicity does not necessarily follow language—there are plenty of cases where an ethnicity may speak multiple, sometimes unrelated languages, and conversely, there are plenty of cases where peoples speaking the same language are ethnically distinct. Yet we have anthropologically unjustified articles based on linguistics but masquerading as ethnic articles, such as Finno-Ugric peoples. (Well, one editor claimed it has nothing to do with ethnicity, but it is tagged as a member of this wiki project.) I've been trying to delete or merge these articles as I come across them, but have been getting pushback on some. Skim my rant at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Reified linguistic constructs for why I think this is pseudoscience. I would be very happy if these articles were to receive some serious anthropological justification, but in most cases no such justification is available. kwami (talk) 08:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal of person of color into racism

discssion at Talk:Racism#Merger_proposal Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Moors # Seensawsee's edits # The facts

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:Moors#The_facts. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC) The Ogre (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Diaspora articles at AfD

There are currently nine diaspora/human migration articles being considered for deletion at AfD. Many have recently been relisted after running for seven days with little discussion; haven't seen much participation in these debates from fellow members of this WikiProject, so I hope you can all add some comments so we can quickly bring these discussions to a close. Have a read over the articles; if you are aware of any non-trivial, reliable secondary sources (newspaper articles, papers in academic journals, or book chapters) on the below topics, or if you can confirm that no such sources exist, your opinion will be appreciated at the below deletion discussions:

Thanks, cab (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 05:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)