Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Dutch people: accuracy dispute

I disputed the accuracy and neutrality of Dutch people. The article is inconsistent, but the main problem is that is is pushing a version of the 'Dutch people' and their history from right-wing sources, predominantly from Flanders. Further discussion, for those interested, belongs at the article's talk page.Paul111 12:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree the article is not perfect. I agree, they are not the best source, I agree a lot of work would be welcome, I agree some of the definitions are not well developed, based on historic/linguistic situations and jargon. I fiercely disagree with any allegations of extreme right-wing POV. Actually a lot of the debated lines were inserted to counter German nationalist edits to previous versions of the article. Arnoutf 13:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added a comment on the not-so-simplistic background of Dutch (or anyone for the case). I've also suggested an RfC. --Sugaar 22:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

As the reviewer of this article for GA, I strongly urge members of the Project to watch this article and the associated RfC. Particularly anyone with expertise on European ethnic groups, but any fresh eyes would do a lot for resolving the disputed issues and improving the article (eventually) to GA-quality. --Fsotrain⁰⁹ 23:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Scottish people article

There has been a long-running dispute over the relevance and sourcing of various claims regarding the genetics of Scottish people, particularly the R1b Y-chromosome hapgroup. Any comment on the talk page would be most welcome.--Nydas^(Talk) 11:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Biological, genetic and perceived ancestry

There is an increasing problem with claims in articles about genetic origins and ancestry of groups, often based on popularised science or none at all. I suggest a distinction between biological, genetic, and perceived ancestry. Biological ancestry denotes a hypothetical complete list of all parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, back to the point that no further Homo Sapiens individuals can be added. Genetic ancestry would refer to traceable genetic influences. Since DNA does not contain labelled and identifiable contributions from each and every ancestor, this ancestry is generally smaller. Perceived ancestry is a political, social, and cultural matter. Articles should describe what is relevant to self-definitions of an ethnic or national group, and include any controversy about that. Perceived ancestry is often fictional, and 'pure' ancestry can not possibly correspond with the biological and genetic reality. So long as it is treated as a construct, then there is no problem.Paul111 11:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

A discussion about these issues is one factor on the White people page. I have posted a merge proposal to move the material into Genetic history of Europe.--Carwil 17:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad Ali nominated for U.S. Collaboration of the Week

Please vote for Muhammad Ali at Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTW. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Is Palestinian an ethnicity?

I hope this doesn't offend anybody, but I'm not sure that Palestinian is not an ethnicity, at least not in the same sense as groups with ethnicity templates (such as Into-Aryans or Greeks). At best, it is a nationality. The word "Palestinian," when used to describe the Arabs that once lived in the British Mandate of Palestine and their decendants, is a term that is only about 50 years old. I noticed that Jordanians and Saudi Arabians do not have their own ethnicity template, even though those nationalities are older than Palestinians. I propose deleting the Palestinian ethnicity template. --GHcool 05:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion is happening here Talk:Palestinian_people#Are_Palestinians_an_ethnicity.3F. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GHcool (talk • contribs) 06:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Does the Palestinian people article fall under the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups? Palestinians are not an ethnic group. They are a nationality. --GHcool 05:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Since there is no response here, I guess nobody will mind if I remove the Wikiproject Ethnic groups template off of the Talk:Palestinian people. --GHcool 02:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I object. What definition of ethnicity is being used and how do Palestinians fail to qualify as an ethnicity in your opinion. Tiamat 10:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see #Ethnic, cultural and linguistic groups on this page. Whether they are ultimately to be considered an ethnic group or not, the article still falls within the scope of this project. - Jmabel | Talk 23:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Endangered languages

Wikipedia:WikiProject Endangered languages is up and running at WP:ENLANG. --Ling.Nut 03:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic group and nation

This project does not seem to cover cases where an ethnic group and nation coincide, or nearly coincide, or are claimed to coincide. An ethnically defined nation would fit the definition of ethnic group at the main article. What to do in such cases? Since there is no parallel project on nations, a co-ordinated approach is lacking.Paul111 21:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic group and nation can never coincide. They are 2 different terms.Rex 17:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

They can coincide (I'd say that the Zulu nation is basically an ethnic group, as are, say, the Navajo). The notion of whether marriage into a nation constitutes marriage into an ethnic group is always a tricky one, because it depends on which characteristics of an ethnic group are taken as definitional. But, in any case, the scope of this project should include nations and other similar groupings, we gave it its current short name just so it wouldn't get too cumbersome. There is no reason to handle either differently from the other.

States/countries, however, are an entirely different matter. I just wanted to clarify that, because sometimes (especially with reference to the U.S.) people say "nation" and clearly mean just "state" or "country". It's not a wrong use of the word, but it's not the way we use it in the encyclopedia, because the distinction is very useful. - Jmabel | Talk 19:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

A great example of this distinction (by political necessity) can be found in the numerous pages related to the Republic of China (ROC)(commonly known as "Taiwan," though that name more accurately applies only to its largest administered territory, the island of Taiwan). --Ling.Nut 19:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

American ethnic categories for renaming

Since Category:American people by ethnic or national origin is so horribly inconsistent on hyphenating, I've nominated its hyphenated subcategories for renaming, e.g., I propose that Category:German-Americans become Category:German Americans. I thought that participants of this project would be interested in the discussion. — Laura Scudder ☎ 17:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Short list of missing topics

I have a short list of missing topics related to ethnic groups (and a bit else). I have tried to omit titles that already have a Wikipedia article but I would appreciate if somebody could have a look at it. Skysmith 10:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Change the project's title

The fact that there is no corresponding project for nations has had unfortunate effects on the neutrality of some articles. By appealing to the framework created by this project (infobox, standard terminology), and given the lack of a parallel non-ethnic 'nation' framework, articles have become biased in favour of ethno-national definitions of a particular nation. I therefore propose that the project be renamend 'Ethnic Groups and Nations' and the scope and standard terminology be expanded. That is not to say that ethnic group and nation are synonymous. In some cases they are. In many more cases, they are claimed to be synonymous, by those who seek an ethnically pure nation. Case by case, the contested definitions should be presented in articles. In most cases, that will mean treating nation, nationality, and ethnicity in one article.Paul111 19:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Nations frequently have their own Wikiprojects. I'm having an extremely hard time taking this idea seriously. --Ling.Nut 20:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Individual nations do, nations as such don't, but ethnic groups do. That's the inconsistency.Paul111 20:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Then get to work forming a Wikipedia:WikiProject Nations, rather than altering the scope of this project. Much more work for you, but it fills the need you perceive without recasting the scope of existing projects. As for me, I see no need for such a project, nor for altering this one. --Ling.Nut 22:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If there was such a project, then I would propose a merger, because of the considerable overlap in definition, both in general, and in specific cases. (In some cases, articles already treat a population as both an ethnic group and a nation).Paul111 12:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think "Foo people" articles, where Foo is a nation such as American or whatever, should simply be policed for neutrality. If you add *Nations* to this project, you also add tons upon tons of extra baggage.. unwanted baggage. Uninvited baggage. So rather than rename the project, go to each individual page and check it for inclusiviness. Have a nice day. --Ling.Nut 16:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Per Ling.Nut, I see no advantage or rationale in altering the name/scope of this project as suggested above.--cjllw | TALK 02:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with Ling.Nut. Let's take an issue that I work on for example. Cambodia is a nation made up of 90% ethnic Khmer. There are also indigenous hill tribes (Stieng, Phnong, Chhong) and Cham ethnic groups. All groups have vastly different cultural practices, histories, languages, religions/beliefs, which are all properly described in their respective articles. As Paul rightfully suggests, all of these groups combined do make up the "Cambodian Nation", but that is all they share in common: a nationality, making any potential article on the "Cambodian Nation" simply one sentence long. There's no need for that, let alone a whole project dedicated to the effort.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 04:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Insofar as by "nation" you mean "country", "state", or even "nation state", there is no reason for an article on the people of a country separate from the article on the country (although there may be a reason for an article on the country's culture even though it would heavily intersect an article on the culture of a dominant ethnicity). I would like to remind everyone: this project started partly because there was, three-plus years ago in Wikipedia, far too much of a tendency to identify an ethnicity (or "nation" in the older sense of the word) with a country or state, and that we were ending up with absurdities like linking to Romania on mention of a third generation American being ethnically Romanian.

Conversely, insofar as "nation" is a concept that lets us talk easily (for example) about "the Germans" prior to the foundation of a country called Germany, or the Catalans, who certainly generally see themselves a as nation (rather than an ethnicity; and I know that some people prefer the term "nationality" because "nation" can be seen as "state" or "state-in-the-making"), but have no state, there is no reason at all for an encyclopedia to treat them any differently from an ethnic group. In fact, I would be interested in knowing where there is any case that a nation or nationality in this sense would, in any way, require different handling than an ethnic group. - Jmabel | Talk 04:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Well, the original proposal was to add nations to the project title; but nations is a far broader topic than nationalities. The project scope would have become all-encompassing & thus meaningless.
• The diff b/w nationality and ethnic group is a topic for articles on nationality and ethnic group. Any people that identifies itself as a people deserves an article, and arguing over whatever tag (people, nationality, or ethnic group) to place upon them is a secondary issue...
• If you wanna wade into a tar pit, feel free to read the War and Peace-length debates at Talk:Taiwanese people (including multiple forks in my user space, tho the forks haven't really made any separate progress either) and help find a solution there. I'm afraid I feel quite stymied. A little frustrated too. :-) Ling.Nut 14:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Ethnic group beta

Template:Infobox Ethnic group beta has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Paul111 16:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Resource: List of African Americans

The List of African Americans was deleted, but before it was destroyed I made a copy of it. I also created a Lists of African Americans article, which is a list of lists, linking to list pages for various categories of African Americans. Feel free to take items from the list I've saved at User:Noroton/List of African Americans to use in creating other lists. I think after a couple of months or so I'll delete my copy (and feel free to make your own copy). Noroton 01:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Bisaya--one ethnic group?

Hello. May I ask for help?

I'm not a sociologist so I'm not sure when you could consider a group to be of one ethnicity...

This user (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/210.213.127.212 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/210.213.235.113) is saying that Bisaya should not be considered an ethnic group. He does not seem to know how to use talk pages, so I just copy-pasted his edits here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ethnic_groups_in_the_Philippines#Bisaya_as_an_ethnic_group

Thanks. --Nino Gonzales 06:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as this wikiproject is concerned, the definition of ethnic group may be too slippery to pin down. But that is not at all the main issue. It seems we have an IP address editor making strong assertions. Fine. Everything hinges on verifiability. If the IP editor in question cannot produce valid secondary sources to back up his/her assertions, then revert. However, it would be particularly helpful if you could produce sources to back up your position. If you have access to online academic journals, that helps. If not, then Google Scholar may also be useful. If the IP editor reverts your reversion, then go thru Wikipedia process for handling such disputes... --Ling.Nut 23:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Kanaka 'Oiwi

I haven't seen the indigenous Hawaiians on there yet. Mamoahina 15:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Try Native Hawaiians. I'll make a redirect to the Hawaiian language term you used. --Ling.Nut 16:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Related Ethnic groups in template

I noticed that the Related Ethnic Groups tag in the templates is used very inconsistently. I would expect some measure of symmetry. However in some articles it is not used at all (e.g. English people), in others only very scarcely (e.g. Dutch people), yet in others there are many mentions (e.g. Frisians, Afrikaners). The problem is this. There is symmetry between Dutch and Frisians (both mention each other as related). The same between Frisians and Afrikaners. Problematic however is that both Frisians and Afrikaners mention the English as related while the English mention non of them as related. This is IMHO weird and should be solved either by getting it consistent, or by removing the related group options. Arnoutf 17:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Removing the "related group" option from the template would be a Very Bad thing to do, from a practical standpoint. It would break existing instantiations of the template, whenever those included those variables. If that happened, then someone would have to go find every single article which utilized those variables and correct the broken templates. That assumes that the editors of those articles would go along with the idea... which is unlikely. :-) If you see probs with the groups included on individual articles, take it to the Talk pages of those articles & try to hash out a solution. --Ling.Nut 15:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Project Peer Review

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Peer review is now up and ready to receive requests for peer review of articles within the scope of the Project. If you know of or are working on an article you'd like expert feedback on, please submit a request. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 00:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Article naming

with respect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups#Article naming I would suggest that for avoiding conflicts with articles belonging to Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages it should be stated that "Elbonian" should not be used for the ethnic group article if the is an "Elbonian language". Instead Elbonian should be a disambiguation page linking to Elbonian language and Elbonians/Elbonian (ethinic group)/Elbonian people or so. Articles can be moved between the ethnic group naming variants, but by all means naming issues with language articles should be avoided. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 01:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

That does sound reasonable, Tobias. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 17:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

First All Union Census of the Soviet Union

I have recentlystarted this article before discovering this project. The ethnographers involved had to tackle - from a Soviet point of view - what constituted a people/nation/nationality. This was an issue which was politically fraught with strong involvement of European Social Democrats (from {Austro-Marxists]] to Stalin) on the one hand and a different approach by expert ethnographers who had more of an impact in how the Asian part of the USSR was dealt with. I intend to deal with other Soviet censuses as they show how the shifting notion of nationality affected the peopels of teh Soviet union, sometimes with genocial results. As I read no Russian I hope other more knwlegable people can help in this.Harrypotter 08:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Other possible sources of help:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Soviet Union
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia

Good luck! :-) --Ling.Nut 14:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Armenian community of Dhaka

Started new article, which is not coming out all that good. Need a hand there. Any takers? Aditya Kabir 18:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:SPOTLIGHT work on Icelanders

Howdy folks, we put the spotlight on the stub Icelanders. Its now a fully fledged article.We started off with this. You guys can check out our changes at this link. If you want to join our efforts, just hop into #wikipedia-spotlight on the irc.freenode.net network. If you need any help with this just ask me. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 06:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Problem at List of ethnic groups in Myanmar

Hello all, we're having a problem at List of ethnic groups in Myanmar (see this edit); an editor from Myanmar keeps consistently removing all mention of the Rohingya ethnic group from the article, stating that they are not recognized by the Myanmar government as one of the 135 ethnic groups. This list of 135 does leave some ethnic groups out (such as, for example, the Burmese Chinese, who make up 3 percent of Myanmar's population). This is comparable to the People's Republic of China's official list of 56 officially recognized ethnic groups, and we do discuss Undistinguished ethnic groups in China, in an impartial and encyclopedic way. But the reversion is getting out of hand, especially as I have presented four sources certifying that at least 0.8 million Rohingya live in Myanmar. Are there any admins on this project who could provide input? All these articles are part of this WikiProject. Many thanks, Badagnani 17:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added some comments to the discussion there- it seems to me, that the objections to including Rohingya in that listing are not supportable.--cjllw ʘ TALK 04:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks--thoughtful discussion is always good. Badagnani 04:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Scrap the infobox

Following a discussion on Talk:Briton, I've come to the conclusion that the Ethnic group infobox is undermining the quality of the ethnic group Wikipedia articles. See Template talk:Infobox Ethnic group for a fuller discussion.--Nydas^(Talk) 12:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Nydas's remarks follow, copied from Template talk:Infobox Ethnic group, which was a fuller statement of Nydas's view, but was 'not a discussion at all. Let's try to keep the discussion in one place, here.

[BEGIN COPIED]

It's becoming clear to me that this infobox does more harm than good to the X people articles. Most of the discussion on their talk pages is focused on how best to 'improve' the infobox, whilst the actual articles themselves are left to rot.

Ethnicities are not concrete entities, but this infobox presents them as such. Pretty much all the information contained in them is a matter of opinion. If it's not original research (as the 'total population' figure almost always is) then it's oversimplified or downright ridiculous. For example, the 884 Turkish people in Liechtenstein. Often, citizenship data and self-identification freely mingle together, despite measuring quite different things.

The 'related' box is a particular source of friction and original theorising, since it attempts to distill a whole batch of differing opinions into a binary of 'related' or not. I am not aware of any systematic, non-contentious definition of 'relatedness', so again we have more original research and oversimplification.

Any ethnic information should be interspersed with detailed discussions of the varying opinions of who counts as an member of group X. The list-like framework of the infobox prevents this. As such, it should be scrapped.--Nydas^(Talk) 20:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[END COPIED]

I'm struggling to find a polite response. It is possible that after less than a month on Wikipedia you could have insights that would overturn years of practice by scores of people. This insight may give you license to disrupt the efforts of these editors by imposing yur view..... It is also possible that you may need to wait a while and see if yur conclusions may be hasty. Ling.Nut 14:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to put the infobox on TfD just yet, but I'd at least like to see a defence of it. Thus far, no-one has obliged. As can be seen on Talk:Briton, at least one other editor agrees with me.--Nydas^(Talk) 15:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• It takes time for people to comment on such things, esp. since there are editors from many different time zones involved.
• If your beef is about the impossibility of verifying "related Ethnic groups," I'm not sure I see eye to eye with you.. I was able to find DNA studies for a particular article, and linguistics studies are superabundant.
• If your beef is that people dispute the contents... then welcome to the Ethnic groups WikiProject. Ethnicity is identity, and everyone wants control over who does or does not belong in a given group.
• Ling.Nut 17:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

As some of you may know, I'm relatively inactive these days, but since I'm the one who started this WikiProject, Ling.Nut asked me to weigh in. I think the box should stay. It serves the reader by giving a quick overview of where in the world an ethnic group is found, approximately how large it is, whether it is associated with a particular language or religion, etc. "884 Turkish people in Liechtenstein" is a red herring: it should not be in the Infobox. The fact that a few people out of a large ethicity live in one country should not be Infobox stuff. If there were 884 Mohawks or Romaniotes in Liechtenstein, that would merit a mention. Anything less than about 30,000 Turks presumably does not.

Yes, numbers on ethnic groups are always imprecise, and they deserve good footnoting to indicate what exactly they mean. But as long as the people working on it use reasonable judgment and intellectual honesty, there is no reason they should be misleading, and as long as we apply essentially the same standards to similar groups, even comparisons should not be misleading.

I do agree that "related" is often problematic. There are many types of relation (and, I might add, this project in fact covers many groups that are not exactly ethnic groups, but which have a similar identity, e.g. French people). Relation simply by language or religion are already covered by listing language and religion. But, quite significantly, one group may be a subgroup of another (the Mohawk are Iroquois; the Romaniotes are Jews; Serbs and Croats are both Slavs and, more particularly, South Slavs). DNA may reinforce this picture, but only just.

Not all ethnicities and similar entities are defined primarily by DNA. Certainly, the French are not. The Catalans are only slightly more so (defining themselves mainly by language, although some in the Balearics and Valencia who share their language would chafe at being counted as Catalans). The Basques are defined partly by descent (Sabino Arana was as interested in limpieza de sangre as any Castilian grandee) and partly by language (the Left Basque Nationalists within and beyond the Basque National Liberation Movement favor this approach; in some ways it is more open to a broader sense of nationhood, but conversely it excludes many people in Álava who are of Basque ancestry but are basically Spanish-speakers).

Conversely, Palestinians are, as far as I know, not at all genetically distinct from other Arabs. Still, throughout living memory they have been developing a distinct sense of national and even ethnic identity, and we need an article to talk about them in this respect. It should make it clear in an Infobox that they are Arabs.

For some groups, some of this material may not be easily summarized, but it would be ridiculous to get rid of an Infobox because it doesn't effectively summarize all articles that are in its putative domain. To throw away the Infobox entirely because there are some ethnic or national groups that it doesn't describe well would be like throwing away your hammer because sometimes you need to turn a screw. There is no law against using a different box (or no box) in a particular article when this one doesn't fit the need, but still we need to be cautious when we find ourselves deviating from the norm to discuss own group or one about which we have strong feelings, pro or con.

And if the reason you want to throw away the Infobox is because sometimes it is difficult to get consensus about what it should say, well, ethnicity is one of the most controversial areas of this or any encyclopedia. It won't be less so without the Infoboxes, the controversy will just be less focused. We need norms for how to talk about ethnicity, nationality, etc., and I think this is one of the best. In fact, I believe we could use far more norms, because we still tend to treat (for example) the native peoples of North America in primarily historical/anthropological ways, whereas (for example) Cajuns are handled in an article that is more like a celebration of contemporary Cajun culture. We should have the same breadth of coverage on all of these. We (and by "we" here I mostly mean a collective "you", because I'm barely here these days) also would do well to have two or three articles on ethnic groups, subgroups, or nationalities, preferably featured articles, that we could point at and say "here's how to do it right". - Jmabel | Talk 19:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that the numerical data serves the reader at all. Since it is virtually always a bodge of citizenship data, self-identification, guesstimates from ancestry websites or whatever, it should not be presented as if it is reliable, uncontested, factual information. I disagree entirely that the info in the infobox should be footnoted to 'show what it means'. Disputes over ethnicity numbers should be made in plain view in the relevant paragraph of the article, rather than buried in footnotes.

The 'total' population figure is of particular concern, since it is often original research that features prominently on the page. Sometimes disputes over who counts as a what are 'settled' by means of a X-Y million figure, as in German people, or for English people, 'unknown'. Of course, the problem isn't that it is unknown, it is that it impossible to agree on one.

Imagine if we had an article on Liberal people. Could we ever come to a consensus on a reasonable number to put in the infobox? Would we count people who self-identify as liberals? Would we count people who belong to parties with 'Liberal' in their name? Would we go by some academic's opinion on who was liberal, and present that as objective fact? We could never come to a 'quick overview' number for liberals. People's views on who counts differs too much. And it is the same with ethnic groups. Certainly, you can have detailed discussions on the varying interpretations, as the article on Liberalism does. But the issue is simply too complex to be boiled down to a single number, or even range of numbers.

You say there are many differing kinds of 'relatedness'. This is only half-correct. There are many different opinions on what counts as related. Again, this is information which is entirely suited to sourced discussion in paragraph format, where controversy can be given a fair hearing. It is totally unsuited to the tabular binary of related/non-related.

We are Wikipedia. It is not our place to generate standardised 'norms' on ethnicity, nationality etc because these are inherently fuzzy concepts that defy easy categorisation. All the infobox does is invite people to 'fill in the blanks' (for example the supposed 85 million Irish people) with their own original musings.--Nydas^(Talk) 23:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

We are indeed Wikipedia. :-) However, it seems to me (as Jmabel said more eloquently than I ever could) that you are "throwing the baby out with th bathwater." For every infobox that makes a painful attempt to fill in the cracks in some very large, amorphous and basically non-delineable group, there are many others which cover smaller groups that are much, much more clearly delineated. These infoboxes offer a truly useful service as they provide a one-glance summary of key info. If you claim that one-glance summaries are alway and everywhere impossible, you're playing into the logical fallacy of Loki's wager. — Ling.Nut 01:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I would say that there is a clear conflict of Wikipedia policy, regarding the infoboxes. The infobox can never give anything like a NPOV because it can only present a sinlgle point of view. It isn't really a question of verifiability, verifying things is easy, often we can verify two (or more) points of view, but both cannot be included in the infobox that essentially only allows a single response. I mean that there may be good and valid reasons why sometimes group A and group B are considered "related", and there may also be good and valid reasons why they are not sometimes considered "related", but the infobox can't give the reasons, it can only give a single point of view, it either says they are related, or it says they are not related. So there's a fundamental lack of neutrality. The same goes for the "regions with significant populations" section. Often this includes little more than people with some ancestry or descent collected from census data, they rarely give numbers for people who actually identify as belonging to a specific ethnic group, because censuses do not collect such data. The New Zealand census seems to be an exception. So what we actually have is not regions with significant populations, but regions with people who perceive themselves as having some descent from someone who did belong to that ethnic group, possibly several centuries in the past. I don't think it is much to ask to have a proper guideline about how data should be included, and especially what constitutes "related" from an ethnic point of view. I have looked in vain for a definition of the concept of "related ethnic group" but this seems to be an exclusively Wikipedia concept, possibly constituting OR. If you can provide us with at least a definition of what "relatedness" is supposed to mean regarding ethnicity then it would be a start. For example do two groups have to share a certain number of cultural traits to be considered "related"? What are these traits and how many do they need to share to be "related"? None of these sorts of questions are adequately citable from online sources. Alun 17:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Re whether this infobox is inherently POV because it can 'only' present a single point of view- I don't think this is really the case. For example, if there are a range of population estimates, it is quite easy to reflect this in the infobox by either putting the range or listing the multiple alternative figures in the box. The same goes for any of the other data headings; you are not restricted to enter only one value, and any data heading value can be annotated by text, footnote, and/or cross-reference to another place in the article where the item's complications and qualifications may be expanded upon.

To be sure, there are particular cases where the issue is so contentious and unclear that it might be better not to summarise in the infobox but instead give a pointer like "see [[text section]] for a full discussion" or "[Value], but see [[text section]]". But for every intractable example, there are numerous others that present no such complications and the infobox provides a useful service.

I do agree that the 'relatedness' item needs more thought and definition, but rather than delete the whole thing because there are some sticky situations, it would be better to reform and/or provide sharper usage guideline documentation.--cjllw ʘ TALK 00:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

OK I can see the validity of including a range of numbers and including provisos to the infobox. But what is a "significant population"? In statistical terms significance is simply something that is not due to chance, here it seems to mean something like large, but many of the numbers included are quite small. For example do the 2000 Persian people in Finland constitute a "significant population?", probably it is statistically significant compared to the Persian population of Finland say 50 years ago, but what does that mean? How is this exactly significant, or important, or indeed even vaguely relevant to the article? Surely "significant" in this sense should mean at least several 100,000, a population of 2000 cannot really be said to be important relative to the total number of Persians globally. I was not really supporting the deletion of the infobox per se, but certain sections of the infobox are very ambiguous, particularly the "related ethnic groups" section. What I really want is a proper guideline about what constitutes "relatedness" because at the moment it just seems to be that the "relatedness" of any groups is dependent on the opinion of any editor who happens to think that these ethnic groups share some perceived cultural trait. So what we really need is a consensus about what constitutes relatedness. Alternatively we could just remove the "related ethnic group" section altogether. For a long time it was not included in the English people article. Personally I would support the idea of having some guidelines for this section. Alun 04:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I would love to see some of these supposedly informative ethnicity infoboxes that we keep hearing about. As I have said before, when you have multiple competing figures festooned with text and footnotes (as in Persian people or Dutch people), then the infobox is simply inappropriate. It will always hide information in footnotes or in ambiguous terms like 'ancestry', whilst at the same time inviting original research to fill in the gaps. This normally takes the form of adding the population of the home country to the population of Americans who claim X ancestry, and adding (est) after the rough total. It's original research and we should not be doing it.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

(undent) I have final exams this week, so I'm supposed to be studying  ;-) ... but after a week or so, I would be willing to chip in to any discussion about refining the documentation regarding "related groups" -- Ling.Nut

Infoboxes can give ranges on numbers. Where necessary, footnotes can clarify what the numbers mean (e.g. census numbers vs. affiliation with an ethnic religious institution vs. estimates from a newspaper, etc.) - Jmabel | Talk 17:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't really address the issue of what constitutes a "significant population" though does it? Does any group that has been recorded in a region constitute a "significant population" then? Like if there were ten people from group X recorded in country Y's census then we can include it because it's been recorded or observed. Is this what "significant" actually means? So should we change it to "regions with a recorded population"? This really does need more input so we can get on with editing instead of constsntly arguing on talk pages about what is a "significant population" and what is a "related ethnic group". A good Wikipedia guideline on these two subjects would be a great help to editors of certain "ethnic group" articles. Alun 15:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the 'range' in infoboxes, I don't think that it's a good idea. Creating such a 'range' implies an original synthesis of information. Who, apart from us, has said that there are 80-160 million German people? Some people think that there are 80 million, based on one set of criteria, others think 160 million based on another set of criteria. But turning this into a 'range' would be a Wikipedian invention. In addition, combining figures derived from different opinions into a 'range' seems to me to be mathematically questionable, particularly if it's for 'one-glance' information.--Nydas^(Talk) 18:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, ranges are (arguably) easily misunderstood, and thus (arguably) could be considered a misapplication of the infobox as a convenient tool. But once again, a misuse of a tool is not reason to scrap the tool; it's reason to refine the info that has been presented in the tool. I wouldn't reflexively call it OR tho; that's like calling the common cold a form of cancer. It's more like the numerical equivalent of a weasel-word. So get on the talk page and argue for greater accuracy.... I would argue against a range but would have no problem with X or Y, if well-explained in footnotes... Ling.Nut 19:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You may have a point about the range being a weasel number, although I think it's more damaging than that. Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of encyclopedic information, and it'd be awful if some of these numbers were to be elevated to the status of factoids because of this. As for the variety of numbers + footnotes solution, I have made clear my dislike of this above. It hides information from the casual reader, stripping away vital context. Fundamentally, Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. That means presenting information in paragraph format, not in tables. Furthermore, I do not believe that any aspect of ethnic groups can be agreeably and informatively distilled into tabular format. You only have to look at the talk pages and article histories to see the toxic influence that the infobox has on their articles, especially the related section. Many have simply abandoned it as unworkable.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have added a new optional parameter to distinguish counts by different criteria, i.e. people who would be thought of in their everyday lives as Germans vs. assimilated people in, say the United States, of German ancestry. The new parameter is called genealogy. See Template:Infobox Ethnic group.--Pharos 18:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Scrap the infobox part 2

I must say I largely agree with Nydas. I've often enough observed that details in infoboxes attract a much larger amount of unnecessary conflict than the same information would attract if integrated in text. The "related" box is by far the worst (it's virtually always OR), the population figures come next. There's a reason for this. The natural medium of an encyclopedia is prose text, not tabulated datasheets. This is not just stylistic convention, but closely linked to the requirements of NOR and NPOV. Prose text is superior to datasheet tables because it gives you room to discuss, to hedge, to attribute, to weigh things. With datasheets, there's always the heightened sense of urgency on the part of editors that you just have to hit "The Truth". Infoboxes have their legitimate uses, no doubt, but they should be restricted to data that is uncontroversial and undisputable. Much of the data in the ethnic box typically is not. And to forestall an objection: people might think an infobox is needed to give you quick, easy access to the most important facts. This is (often) wrong. The way to improve accessibility to the most salient information is to write better structured prose (especially lead sections). Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I'd say maybe the solution is not to scrap the box completely, but to make each and every field of it optional, and to get a recommendation out to editors that if anything is contentious about a field they should first and foremost consider just leaving it out and leaving the discussion to the text. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've been trying to go on vacation for two days now but have not yet succeeded.. believe we are leaving tomorrow & will be unavailable for a week... but to your comments: thanks for your thoughts. I believe the two fields that have drawn criticism — "related groups" and "population" — are optional already. I'm sure at least the former is. If the latter isn't, I could change that a week from now....

But these issues are gonna be arguable (and argued) no matter where you put the info. I doubt that moving the info to the lede will make a diff. But am willing to let that point go. Ling.Nut 02:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The 'related' groups may be optional already, but why not simply get rid of it altogether? It's always original research, and it causes endless conflicts, simply because it's so simplistic. --Nydas^(Talk) 09:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

(undent). We've been over this. First, it is NOT aslways OR. Second, scrapping it would break the implementation of existing articles that use it. Doing so would require going to the pages..wait.. first finding all the pages that use it, then going to the talk page of each to seek consensus. Really, this thread should die right about here and now. It is pointless. Thanks! Ling.Nut 21:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

We haven't been over this, since there is still no explanation as to what ethnic group 'relatedness' means. As Alun remarked, it seems to be an invention of Wikipedia, and therefore looks like original research in every case. As for the 'it's too difficult' argument, if an infobox has a category it doesn't recognise, it hides it, so it won't break the pages.--Nydas^(Talk) 22:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

We have been over it — over and over again. Nothing is OR if it can be verified by an authoritative source. "Broken" includes hiding info the editors have duly verified and added. You shouldn't remove other editors' duly verified info w/out gaining consensus. "Related" — linguistic evidence is strong in many cases. Archaeological/anthropological evidence convinces other experts. I have no faith in DNA evidence, since they have no faith in their own evidence. Do you read these sorts of articles? If so, then you would be familiar with the relevant arguments. Ling.Nut 03:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Your claim that it would be removing verified info is a red herring. Virtually no related ethnic group is verified. I looked at over 200 ethnic group articles, and not one had any citation for the related section. The closest was the Flemish people article, which explained the exclusion of Germans with this gem of a footnote:

Note:Germans are not included for various reasons. Germans are a large ethnic group with large internal differences and hence their relation to the Dutch greatly fluctuates and is very region specific.

As for linguistic evidence, for every case where it might make sense, there's one where it doesn't. Who are these 'experts' who are 'convinced' by archeological/anthropological evidence? How many need to be convinced before we upgrade from non-related to related? One? Two? 50%?--Nydas^(Talk) 08:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Good. Then do this:

1. Go through those articles one by one, removing the "related groups" info, leaving a clear edit summary saying that the removal is discussed on the article's TALK, then start a thread on the relevant TALK which says someting to the effect that "...every time someone edits, there's a chance that unverified info can be removed. Please verify all information with credible sources." Find the relevant policies and guidelines and cite them. Deal with the resulting arguments and reversals.
2. Write a <noinclude> note in the infobox template and on its TALK that states that info in infoboxes is also subject to whatever version of WP:V or WP:ATT is currently active. Ling.Nut 10:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

OH PS If you don't know who the relevant experts are, then you haven't researched the article. If you haven't researched the article, then you have no clue as to whether its factual content is verifiable. You may want to find Wikipedians knowledgeable about Linguistics and ask for clues as to the names of generally accepted authorities for a given language family etc. But there is no substitute for being willing to do the work of actually researching a topic! Aside from copyediting, I personally feel every other form of editing requires research. So do the work. Be constructive. Researching info adds value to Wikipedia. Ling.Nut 10:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to suggest that one has to get consensus on each and every talk page in order to remove or reform an infobox. That way lies bureaucratic paralysis. The ethnic groups infobox was created on a whim two years ago. Was there ever any centralised discussion? I doubt it. Until a year ago, it was mandatory to have a 'related' section, forcing editors to do original research simply to get the infobox to look right. Linguists can't help decide what 'relatedness' means, becase only some people think ethnic relatedness has to do with language, many others don't. That's it. We can't make a judgement as to who's right. We just have to report things as they stand, which the related/non-related dichotomy cannot do.--Nydas^(Talk) 15:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it will come as a surprise to the entire field of historical linguistics that they are unable to determine which groups are linguistically related to one another. It's a fascinating field. I can recommend a couple books if you want.

You're right that we can't decide who's right or wrong; all we can do is report current academic thought (or reliable statistics, if such exist). That is another reason to invest time and trouble in doing some research.

Bureaucratic? I'm sorry. So what you're saying is that if you don't agree with people, you should flip a switch and remove their edits en masse? That's OK for vandalism and for slander covered by WP:BIO, but for good faith edits? Really?

I'm trying to be patient, but this argument has no legs. If you don't like the info on a page, and if that info is unverified, then remove it. Leave a clear & descriptive edit summary, giving a brief reason for its removal, and directing comment to Talk. Leave a message on the relevant Talk about why you removed it. Deal with the resulting flak, if any. The process for removing unverified info from an infobox is no different than the process for removing such info from the body text of an article. Thanks! Ling.Nut 15:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that the 'related' section is inherently unverifiable original research, since I and others have repeatedly pointed out, there is no coherent definition of what ethnic relatedness actually means. Some think it means genetics, some think it's cultural, some think it's linguistic, some think it's being part of a sub-group, some think it's geographic, some think it's political. There is no right answer, only different opinions. Even if those opinions are verified, they're still just opinions. And we cannot give a fair hearing to them in the box, which is why it has to go. If we kill the related section, it can always be replaced later if there's a massive outcry (unlikely), since the info will still be on the pages.

It's not a case of not liking the info on a page, most ethnic group pages will have info on related groups - in the text - where it can be given a fair and proper hearing. It's about being opposed to a crass, simplistic method of information display which violates WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:OR, all our core policies.--Nydas^(Talk) 16:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair hearings for both body text and infobox text take place on Talk, not in the article itself. The article only supplies (or should supply) reliable sources for its info. Since verifying infobox text is in every procedural detail identical to verifying body text, then by your definition of OR, every fact on Wikipedia is OR. I am unaware of anyone else whose definition of OR covers all of Wikipedia. Ling.Nut 17:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

What happens when there are conflicting, verifiable POVs? From WP:NPOV:

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

Fair hearings of various points of view take place in the article, certainly not the talk page. As has been repeatedly said, the format of the infobox prevents a reasonable summary of conflicting points of view being presented.--Nydas^(Talk) 11:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

No. You misunderstand completely. Facts are presented in articles. Verifiable, non-OR opinions can be presented as well. However, any questionable or debatable info is removed if it is non-verified... and can be given a fair hearing on Talk. There is no room in the article for — for example — the kind of neverending thread we are engaged in here. Once again, you are stating that the entire Wikipedia is NPOV.

SO, if you see something you do not like, AND if it is unverified, then remove it from the article AND the infobox, provifing a clear edit summary pointing to Talk. Then take the responsibility — the important responsibility — of defending your actions against criticism on Talk. Thanks for your repeated assertions of your opinions. Once again, you are stating that the entire Wikipedia is NPOV.Ling.Nut 12:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV, even if it doesn't always manage. NPOV is a core, non-negotiable policy of the Wikipedia Foundation. You don't appear to grasp that with something like an ethnic group, there are seldom any undisputed 'facts', just different verifiable opinions, all of which should be given a fair hearing on the article as specifically stated in the neutral point of view policy. I can't make it any clearer than the policy itself (quoted above). The infobox fails this at a fundamental level with 'relatedness', a concept which does not exist in any coherent form outside of Wikipedia, and cannot be anything other than a gross simplification of the information at hand.

If you could defend 'relatedness' as a coherent concept, or cite some actual policies, then this debate may yet be productive. Repeating yourself without citing policies and making strawman arguments is not useful. For example, you could cite a policy which agrees with your argument that infoboxes cannot be changed or reformed without first going through every page which uses them.--Nydas^(Talk) 13:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the NPOV/POV typo.

The def of relatedness lies in research, and research is issue-specific. I have already stated this. For the Austronesian people, forex, the linguistic evidence for a homeland in Taiwan is very definitely the accepted, mainstream, consensus potion among linguists. There are few naysayers and their voices are not really heard. The DNA evidence is inconclusive, which does not surprise me at all. The archaeological evidence, which I am not quite as familiar with as the linguistic evidence (see my user page for more about me), tends to corroborate the linguistic evidence, tho it also points to contact with mainland Asia. It's all a bit involved and there is no substitute for research!!!!!

I would be quite happy to put some more formalized text on the talk page of the template, warning against the pitfalls of the "related groups" field, urging the responsible use of citations, and reiterating the fact that unsubstantiated claims can and probably should be removed until substantiation is provided.

As for consensus, please do read WP:CONSENSUS. It is not a guideline. It is policy.

WP:CONSENSUS says in part, "Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome." I can promise you that it will not be possible to get a consensus of editors from the pages that include the related groups field to agree to delete it. You can see a somewhat similar process at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Renaming survey.

Ling.Nut 16:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

(undent). At the very least, if you intend to remove the "related groups" field from the infobox, it is your responsibility to notify the talk page of each and every article that employs it.. and then deal with the flak. I want to say "Good luck," but I'm a little afraid you will interpret it as a sarcastic remark. It wouldn't be. Ling.Nut 22:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

'Research' cannot define 'relatedness' because, as has been said many times before, there may be different sources which all say different things. To attempt to turn these into 'related' and non-related' ethnic groups is an original synthesis. You seem to be implying that the definition of relatedness should change arbitarily based what sources can be found for each different group. A section that looks superficially similar for every page but contains arbitarily different types of data is worse than useless. It can never provide a neutral point of view.

Austronesian people is a very bad example, since their only 'related group' is 'other South East Asian peoples' and it's currently undergoing an edit war purely over the infobox. What, if anything, do homelands have to do with 'relatedness'? Some people might think that homelands are key to 'relatedness', others may not. The more definitions of 'relatedness' that are brought into play, the more useless the related box becomes. Tell me, why doesn't Taiwanese aborigines, an article you're involved with, use the ethnic groups infobox, complete with relatedness section?

It will be possible to get a consensus to remove the related section, since whenever it comes up for discussion on ethnic group talk pages, the consensus is generally to remove it. It's not as if there was any consensus to create it in the first place, and in any case, consensus can change. Regardless of what you think my responsibilities are, I have no intention of going to every talk page. There are easier ways.--Nydas^(Talk) 06:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing this discussion again, I still agree largely with Nydas. Just to reiterate:

1. The OR problem is not so much about how to verify claims about linguistic relatedness, or about cultural relatedness, or about genetic relatedness. Each of these in itself can often be determined sufficiently. The problem is about how to weigh these criteria in those cases where they don't coincide. In those cases, the field is invariably OR and simply must go, because it forces editors to make an arbitrary choice according to their subjective likings.
2. Given the fact that until recently editors simply had to invent something for that field because the template made it mandatory, we cannot safely assume that in each case there is a strong and well-considered local consensus for its usage.
3. There is strong evidence that in a great number of cases the information in that field is indeed highly dubious. In many cases it has been subject to edit-wars and arbitrary choices motivated by political/ideological considerations (the example about Flemish people is instructive).

I'm going to propose a slightly unusual way to proceed. I'll tweak the template code so that it will, by default, hide the "related" field. Instead, it will temporarily display a small unobrusive note to editors telling them a field has been removed, and pointing them to this discussion. After that, local editors will have the choice to re-confirm that they do want the field, by simply renaming the parameter, in which case it will be displayed again as before. This way, we're just asking local editors to make a conscious choice either way, which won't cost them more than ten keystrokes (and hopefully reading through this discussion before). Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been bold and gone ahead. I realise this meant editing a protected page (though protected merely against vandalism, not because of this dispute), so other editors may not have the possibility to participate in the editing. Therefore, if there are objections against my step, I will revert myself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a good answer... will this change show up on anyone's watch list? I don't have time to check; have a 4-hour drive in fron of me...

I think skipping the Talk pages is... there is no nice word for being afraid to take responsibility for one's actions. No, I won't take my words back or apologize. If you're gonna do something that impacts someone's work, especially if you've been votd in as an admin but still true for other editors as well, then you need to tell them in a way they will see.

Ling.Nut 11:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Ling.Nut 11:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware that it won't show up on watchlists, but then again, I'm assuming that a lot of these pages are high profile articles that people not only have on watchlists but actually look at from time to time. This method of notifying people through a template is not really different from what would happen if, say, somebody were to propose the whole template for deletion. That's an even more radical step, and that too wouldn't be advertised on individual talkpages. Heck, just the other day we made one centralised change to a template which in one fell swoop erased hundreds of non-free images from dozens of pages. That wasn't individually advertised either.

I have no problem with notifying people on talkpages; the only reason I'm not doing it here is the practical impossibility (and I resent your ad hominem insinuations about cowardice etc.). I had a look and it seems this template is transcluded on almost 1,000 pages. Posting to 1,000 talk pages is evidently not possible. Therefore, if we were to follow your demand, that would mean there'd be no way to change this template, ever. We'd be stuck with its present shape in all eternity. That can't be the solution. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you've implemented my suggestion. Hopefully this should generate a more thorough debate. One small thing is that I would suggest making the replacement text slightly more informative; it should specifically mention that the related box has been removed.--Nydas^(Talk) 17:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

1,000 pages is nothing if you use WP:AWB or similar. Cheers, Ling.Nut 19:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You must be joking. Even running at bot speed (2-4 edits per minute, more being illegal as per bot policy) it would take a full day of uninterrupted editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Two points:

1. No not joking at all. Back when I was using AWB (now focusing, or trying to focus, on writing) I didn't think anything at all of doing it for several hours per day. So it would take only a few such sessions. That's not "nothing," I admit, but it is extremely far from "impossible."
2. OK, I take your word for it. You said you are willing to notify talk pages; I accept your word. I apologize to you. You are willing to act responsibly.

Gotta run for the day,Ling.Nut 21:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Slavic peoples

A user has added some broken English to the article Slavic peoples. I've tried to edit the grammar of it, but I would like to ask others to check if I haven't distorted the content of it in the process. The section involved is Slavic peoples#Origins and Slavic homeland debate. Cows fly kites (Aecis) ^{Rule/Contributions} 10:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

To add to my above message: this article needs more attention. It is quickly becoming a breeding ground for barely verifiable borderline pov original research soapboxing. Aecis^Brievenbus 09:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Dayuan FAR

Dayuan 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. LuciferMorgan 14:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment, English people

Please feel free to comment on New Zealand numbers for ethnic English people in the Talk:English_people#Request_for_comment. Thanks. Alun 09:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Argentina's Demographics

Many users, me included, are having a very difficult time carrying on a meaningful discussion about Argentina's ethnic composition. One user in particular (along with his sockpuppets, "red" user names, and various IP numbers) seems to have his own agenda and immediately usurps any attempt to bring light to the fact that things are not clear cut in Argentina (see talk:Argentina): Please help! Mariokempes 03:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Help with some classifications of Nilotic people

I'm trying to expand the article Nilotic. I seems to me that the classifications Plain Nilotes, Nilo-Hamites, Maa-speaking people, Maasai cluster, Karamojong cluster and Ateker are more or less synonyms. Does anyone have references that can help figure out the differences/similarities between them? If so, drop a note. Thanks --Ezeu 01:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox

• New thread for "related groups" info removed by two editors (I was not one of them) without WP:CONSENSUS. Ling.Nut 22:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Proposal: Restore "Related groups" field in Ethnic Groups infobox pending consensus for deletion. It has been removed without such consensus, and with strong objection from many editors, and was done by an admin who then protected the box. That was very poor procedure and should be overturned immediately pending discussion on the matter. Badagnani 20:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I am going to second the above. Apologies, I am another latecomer to this thread and judging by the bashing so far, it's fair to say that the Ethnic Groups infobox should be restored. It was removed without consensus and by apparently someone exceeding his/her ADMIN privileges.

The reason was unexplained/or not given, and that's another bone to pick, so I and neither the others can surmise accurately on why the removal in the first place.

Will someone please just get on with it and restore the infobox? Reasons are meant to be debated much later, if and when given. Thanks

Tuai 21:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Just like in afD discussions, issues of NPOV, verifiability and simply good-faith boldness can overrun "consensus" at any time, as long as it is the right thing to do. The "Related" section has ALWAYS been used by ultra-nationalist and racist activists to promote their agenda, without citing any sources whatsoever anywhere. The section, in short, was a disgrace for Wikipedia. Look: Linguistic groups should be grouped in a language section, not here. The current level of DNA studies (and I read a lot of them) is in no way capable to define what groups are "related to each other" as opposed to being related to another group, all you could say is that such and such population share some marker, but then just any world population could be included. For instance, you could say the Greeks and Egyptian populations sampled share most of their Y-DNA haplogroups (and they do). So we must add Greeks to the "related" section about Egyptians?.... Or you could try to say that Slavic-speaking populations are "related". But the fact is that DNA evidence says that Balkanic Slavic speakers like Serbs are genetically much closer to other Balkanic populations, regardless of linguistic groups. So what? One criteria contradicts the other. The only solution is an arbitary choice as to what concept of relatedness you will use. And arbitrary choices are, of course, inherently POV. Scrap this POV section once and for all. KelilanK 00:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

So change it to "closely linguistically related groups." The fact that ethnolinguistic groups are often closely related to one another is empirically provable, not POV. The section is helpful in directing editors to closely related groups and removing it would eliminate this useful tool. Badagnani 00:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Except that it's the ethnic group infobox, not an ethnolinguistic group infobox. There are plenty of ethnic groups that speak the same language.--Nydas^(Talk) 08:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I have always wondered what "relatedness" between ethnic groups was supposed to mean. As far as I can tell, there is no encyclopedically sound definition available. I could understand optional entries for "subgroup of" or "subgroups", but the vague and undefined "related" just invites POV and edit wars, and I'll be glad if it's gone for good. --Latebird 09:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• I've just become aware of this (minor) controversy. I don't have a strong position on it, beyond thinking that specifying 'related ethnic groups' should be an option. Chukchi people, Kereks, Koryaks are good examples of pages that be cross referenced as related. They're little known, and linguistically and culturally similar. -- Ngio 17:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Ngio. Please restore the field pending more discussion. It is empirically provable that ethnic groups are often closely related linguistically, and in all other ways, to other ethnic groups and removing this field with so little discussion, no consensus, and a locked template page, is just wrong. Badagnani 17:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Chukchi people, Kereks, Koryaks, according to their infobox, also speak Russian (and two have Russian Orthodox as a religion). Are they related to Russian people?--Nydas^(Talk) 17:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this a rhetorical question? If not, the answer is "no," as most Lakota (who speak English) are not "related" to European Americans. Russians expanded to the Pacific from west to east and encountered the Chukchi when they reached the east. The Chukchi are a colonized people and thus it is normal for them to also speak Russian. Let's exercise some common sense here. Adding these kind of questions, to which we already know the answers, are not helpful. Badagnani 17:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This may seem 'obvious' but it is not. Did any of these groups intermarry with Russian settlers? Never? Only slightly? How much would they have to intermarry to become 'related'?--Nydas^(Talk) 18:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Vote to reenistate "related groups" from dedicated editor for California tribe and Native American groups it is a way to navigate through related language groups (for example Miwok & Ohlone were good menus) although from experience the "way" they are related was different depending on the author of the page ... so I'd love to see someone program some pre-designated choices like "related linguistically" and "related sub-groups" to clarify that may help.... these designations help people navigate to related topics... the argument its misused for racist agenda can be dealt with as a policy violation . Goldenrowley 20:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's useful to obsess too much about the term 'related'. Ethnic groups can be in lots of different sorts of relationships with other ethnic groups. Chukchis, Koryaks etc live in Russia, these days mostly speak Russian, so the fact that they have some sort of historical relationship with the Russians is obvious. They also have historical relationships with Evens, Yukaghirs, Asiatic Eskimos, but you wouldn't want to refer to these as 'related ethnic groups'. The Chukotko-Kamchatkan peoples form a set of related ethnic groups because they speak related languages, have similar subsistence types, live near to each other, form a distinct genetic grouping, and recognise each other as a kind of (distant) kin. Other sets of related ethnic groups might be recognised by different criteria, but sensible criteria for specifying ethnic groups as related certainly exist. -- Ngio 20:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems we might all settle on a "sub-group" designation. I would find that a useful improvement? Goldenrowley 20:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, Badagnani, I have read genetic studies showing that even within the peoples who speak Chukotko-Kamchatkan languages, there is a tremendous level of genetic differentiation. For example, Koryaks and Itelmen have widely diverging patrilineal histories, according to their Y-DNA data. Their only affinity is the fact that they speak similar languages, live close to each other and are reindeer herders. So what? This is in no way equivalent to being "ethnically related". You should read more about anthropological genetics. Having a close linguistic affinity usually means nothing in terms of genetics, and this is statistically verifiable. And often groups which are very close genetically have totally different languages and cultures. What criterium are you going to choose to define what is "related"? The choice will only reflect your own POV. This oversimplistic, ludicrous idea of "ethnical relatedness" doesn't have a mainstream scientific definiton and therefore is nothing more than a pseudoscience/POV magnet. And it is not encyclopedic.KelilanK 20:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Your rhetoric, which is becoming overblown in a quite unnecessary manner, and does not negate the fact that removing this field with so little discussion, no consensus, and a locked template page, was wrong. The Chukchi are not the Metis and they would most likely not agree that they are an ethnic group closely related to the Russians, whose language and culture originated in Europe, thousands of miles to the west. Yes, language is not always indicative of relatedness, as for example Central African Pygmies speak Bantu languages but seem not to be related genetically to the Bantu. In these cases, common sense will prevail, in a thoughtful, considered, informed manner, on a case by case basis, as with everything else we do at Wikipedia. Yes, DNA evidence may show heretofore unknown links between ethnic groups or show differences between ethnic groups commonly accepted as linguistically related, but DNA evidence wasn't known to traditional cultures until very recently. So it's probably best if a common sense definition, based on the ethnic group's self-definition and linguistic evidence be used.

I also don't think it's well advised, either, to be calling "ludicrous" ideas of relatedness that are accepted by the ethnic groups themselves and are empirically provable by historical and linguistic evidence. Again, the field allows editors to easily navigate between closely related ethnic groups, something that is very beneficial for our users. Badagnani 20:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Plenty of people think that the 'common sense' definition is something else. How do we decide who's right?--Nydas^(Talk) 21:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Page by page, instance by instance, in an informed, thoughtful way, building consensus for the proper groups (if any) to include--the way we do with any other page at WP. Deleting the field without consensus, then protecting the template, was not the right way to go about it. Badagnani 21:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be asserting that in each case, the infobox should contain arbitarily different types of information. To me, that suggests that it should not in the infobox, period. It's also original research to generate lists of 'related groups', even if is on a case-by-case basis.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You guys seem to be confusing the idea of linguistic "subgroups" within larger language families with "ethnic subgroups". There is no way to define "ethnic subgroups" in scientific terms. Languages are languages, not people, and linguistic relatedness often, if not most of the time, doesn't have anything at all to do with genetic, cultural, economical, religious or geographic affinities.KelilanK 20:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not confusing anything. We are talking about related ethnic groups, not subgroups. Badagnani 20:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

A lot of this debate is irrelevant in my opinion. "Related" need not imply a linguistic or ethnic connection, it could be any connection at all, be it ethnic, linguistic, cultural etc. The question of the relationship between different ethnic groups need not limit itself purely on ethnicity- different ethnic groups CAN be considered related to each other on the basis of a similar language, if nothing genetic. And as all ethnic groups are - if you look far enough - related, even genetically, the question is not one of classifications like language or genes; rather, the criterion for classifying different ethnic groups as related should be one of how many ways different ethnic groups are related and, in these ways, how closely they are related. For example, Croats and Maltese are related in that they are both Catholic, but there is no linguistic or genetic relationship, thus common sense dictates that the relationship is not close enough to be listed in the infobox. However, the Chittagonian people and the Rohingya people are related linguistically, culturally, geographically, genetically etc. hence, it makes sense to consider them related and list them as such in the respective infoboxes. Tanzeel 21:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, all that would be fine in the Article main TEXT; trouble is, this is an infobox, often the first thing a reader will notice in an article, and therefore there is no room for such considerations (the different ways groups are "related", etc.). People who want to look for linguistic relations will consult articles on languages, so there is no need for it here. Also, the example you cited is just too clear-cut. But there are countless examples where the choice of defining one group as "related" to others lies in a grey area where just about anything could be used as justification for inclusion, as long as there are many good-faith lay people willing to believe it without bothering to check any sources. As a result, this section in the infobox is often used to further nationalist agendas and propagate racist ideas that, while 'acceptable' in a 1904 Encyclopedia Britannica article inspired by accounts of phrenologists or adventurers, are certainly not useful for a modern reference work.KelilanK 21:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be getting out of hand. Why not create an infobox on languages alongside the one about ethnicity?E.Cogoy 21:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Simple: it's there already. What's the problem with checking each language article?KelilanK 21:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Please restore the deleted "Related groups" field in the box first, pending development of consensus, so that we are all confident in one another's good faith, thanks. Badagnani 21:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Talk:English people. Somebody has written masses of text angrily explaining why the French should go in the 'related' box. Is their view (a)Common sense (b)Not common sense? Because that is what is being suggested here. You have related, you have not-related and nothing in between. It's nonsense. The infobox can never successfully cover the shifting definitions of relatedness, even with an even-handed 'consensus'. WP:NPOV specifically says that we should cover all points of view, and forbids suggesting that some sort of middle ground view is the correct one.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the debate ought to be about language, it ought to be about utility of the listing. Does the axe-grinding outweigh the usefulness? As a non-linguistic example, the pueblo people of the United States southwest are related in culture, but not always linguistically. I suspect that a few problem articles, maybe eight or nine have the problems mentioned, but that shouldn't dictate the result for the infobox. After all we still allow IP editors, and control the level of vandalism that comes from doing so. Keep the "Related groups". --Bejnar 23:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bejnar to keep the "Related groups" part of the infobox, but since this is the ethnic infobox and not the language infobox, the debate must stay clear from language in this case. CJLippert 14:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

To everybody: Sorry I didn't catch up with this discussion in time. Reading through the arguments above, I still stand by my position, which largely coincides with that of Nydas and KelilanK. My offer of reversing the change when asked to of course still stands; however, I notice that none of the people who see a legitimate use of the field have commented on the "compromise offer" that was inherent in my change: you can already now reinstate the field, on an article-by-article basis (by simply renaming it from "related=" to "related-c=", in any article where you're confident it makes sense and is solidly based in the literature. Can I first ask if that is an acceptable model? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

well, since the info was originally added to each article on an article-by-article basis, I'm not sure what this compromise accomplishes — except to add another hoop to jump through, and to add a rather unattractive message to well over 400 infoboxes, at the time I Googled it. So I would say "No," but of course my stance should be unsurprising. -- Ling.Nut 00:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm also a late-comer to the discussion and I have found that, increasingly, it's the "related" box is very subjective and selective. No parameters are set as to what constitutes are relationship and there is no uniformity. Often the body of an article, if written well, can explain relationships with other groups which are viable and easy to understand. Nationalist sentiment tends to creep into the related box or someone decides that they prefer one set of information over another. I doubt we'd see this in other encyclopedias as it's pretty useless and I think we're better off not having it anymore. Cheers. Tombseye 17:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I had still been waiting for more of a response to my last question question for clarification above, especially from those people who had commented adversely on my use of admin powers and on the need to have the field as an "option" (which it had never ceased to be, remember?) But anyway, I'm going to revert the change now (just give me a few minutes to work out how to cater for those pages where the change to "-c" has actually been made.)

The most interesting lesson from this debate so far, for me, is the following: There seems to be a clear divide here between editors working on different fields. Most of the "remove" votes come from people (such as myself) who work on ethnic groups associated with European or middle eastern nation states, groups with a long written history, traditions of statehood etc. All the negative examples cited were from such articles. The "keep" votes, and all the positive examples of cases where the field was thought to make sense, were from people working on indigenous or minority ethnicities elsewhere in the world, such as Native American or Siberian groups. I honestly wonder why this is. There seems to be a consensus in "my" part of the wiki that with national groups such as the Dutch or British or Albanians or Italians, "relatedness" isn't clearcut and is too much subject to ideological prejudice to be a useful concept. Is it really true that matters are more simple in other parts of the world? Apparently the expert editors feel yes. But maybe it's just because we know less about these groups? Perhaps the question of whether Chukchis are related to Kereks is just as much of a hot issue for a Chukchi as the question of whether Arvanites are related to Albanians is for an Arvanite - the only difference being that we have fewer Chukchi editors on Wikipedia who will edit-war about it?

But anyway. Gimme five minutes and your beloved field will be back... Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but perhaps there are (relatively) more man-on-the-street type of editors working on the Euro articles, and (relatively) more scholars working on other areas... and their edits and the resulting discussions & arguments reflect this in various ways...? I personally don't focus on the Native American area; more Asian... Another possibility is that the Euro groups are simply less discrete (in the sense of having well-defined divisions) than other groups..? --Ling.Nut 13:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

PS – The more I think about, the more that the Euro groups tend to seem larger and more amorphous... but this is a topic for another day. I have other things to do... Ling.Nut 13:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call anything about the related box scholarly, considering none of them have citations and ethnic 'relatedness' does not appear to have any academic foundation.--Nydas^(Talk) 17:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It is really a pity that you should bring back this POV-magnet, but if there is no other way... I agree with Nydas, there is nothing scholarly about it. My posts just above, covering genetic data, show that even for isolated indigenous groups there is no clear-cut division about who is related to whom, only misconceptions and old whacky theories left by folk legends and 19th Century wanna-be anthropologists. This sort of outdated, amateurish data disregarding current genetics and archeology shouldn't be included in a modern encyclopedia at all. This is precisely the sort of thing that ruins the credibility of Wikipedia among serious scholars and students.KelilanK 22:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This is my strongest compromise position:

1. There are over 400 articles which use the "Related groups" field.
2. I for one would not mind at all setting up explicit verbiage somewhere on the project page for this wikiproject which emphasises that edits not backed up by reliable sources can be manually removed from any article at any time by any editor, without recourse to TALK.
3. I would not mind pointing out that among all aspects of this wikiproject, the definition of related groups is the slipperiest, and therefore the most readily (and necessarily) subject to this policy. Therefore, all related groups info must be backed up by a reliable, verifiable source.
4. I would have no objections whatsoever to anyone who has the stomach to patrol pages and enforce this concept. In fact, I would give them a barnstar. Or three. Ling.Nut 13:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. This would be okay with me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Hey fut. perf. don't go away! Please create a category "Ethnic groups articles with related groups" (or similar) and then edit the template so that whenever the option "RELATED" field is added/populated, the new cat is added too. This will make AWB'ing (to find articles with this field) much much easier! Ling.Nut 16:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Ooops that would be a self-reference... there must be some way... a field in the wikiproject banner...? Ling.Nut 17:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, self-reference? True. But it's actually a nifty idea nevertheless :-) I'll check round if it would be a big policy breach. Maybe if we said it's only a temporary measure? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hah, found it, there's precedent! People have been doing such things and placed their maintenance categories in Category:Wikipedia infobox cleanup, a subcat of Category:Wikipedia maintenance. So, it's not completely outlandish. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

(undent) OK go for it. Try to think of a short name; mine was too long. Thanks! Ling.Nut 17:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we could then even continue to use the two fields I introduced last time ("related" and "related-c"). A box that uses "related" would categorise as Category:Ethnic group articles with "related" entry needing confirmation, so the category listing would distinguish between articles that have already been checked and those that haven't? (ec) but the long name is ugly, you're right... Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I have to go, will be back about it later. Maybe you could in the meantime try and determine a good place for that "verbiage" you said should be added to the project page? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the extra wording to the project page will help very much. Most editors of ethnic group pages will never look at it, and the wording is exceedingly vague. It seems to be supporting the view that 'relatedness' should change arbitarily from page to page, making the infobox worthless as a source of quick info. It doesn't give any suggestion on how to find sources for 'relatedness'.--Nydas^(Talk) 07:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Nordicist racist bias in these peoples articles.

One example: Spanish people As anyone can see, this article includes references to immigrants or even to very marginal traces of Sub-Saharan African DNA etc. And I support it. I would not like it otherwise. But it is worrying how different articles are dealt with.

Look at the English people article, or Dutch people articles (Dutch people of colored origins are a significant proportion of the population), etc. They make no mention of these or other issues.

It is especially interesting when England (to use a good example) is one of the places of Europe with the largest black population:

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_British#Demographics

Interestingly they show up in an article of their own (Black Britons), but not as English people, Scottish people, Dutch people, etc. In the case of Spanish people the approach seems to be very different. All this smells very fishy.

More examples of this type of bias:

See:

BBC article: Brits Abroad

BBC article: Btits Abroad Country by Country

Guardian article: Spain attracts record levels of immigrants seeking jobs and sun

Bye Bye Blighty article: British Immigrants Swamping Spanish Villages?

Guardian article: An Englishman's home is his casa as thousands go south

BCC article: 5.5m Britons 'opt to live abroad'

BBC article: More Britons consider move abroad

All this information has to do with British population abroad. It is the most up-dated information coming from Britain and pointing to the high population now emigrating to Spain and residing there (with the second largest number of Britons after the US):

Well look at the articles, Briton, English people, Scottish people, etc. Not only no one cares to include this information, it has been deleted several times.

More examples of bias:

Brian Sykes and Stephen Oppenheimer have published two very recent books about the origins of the British people (2006). Look in those articles. Not a single mention. In fact they where deleted and only after a long battle they were pushed out into a prehistory of Britain sort of article.

In short, people have to be blind not to see so much bias in these articles. A lot of it of Nordicist and Anglo-Saxonist ilk.

Now I understand why our professors are telling us not to use Wiki at all. 70.156.139.188 18:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot of that going on where those types don't like to see populations classified beyond National or Social Racial identity. I'm dealing with that right now the the Category:Population groups of mixed ancestry. There were only 5 listed today, but there are many distinct groups both past and present that have existing articles on Wikipedia. So, I added them. A person just nominated the whole category for deletion. They don't mind the articles; however, for some odd reason they prefer not to see them grouped in that way. However the articles themselves all have this common factor. Relir 14:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

RAcism, are you serious?

Well about the same issue above, in the case of peru, a multi racial entity, with some but not all mixed population, see how there ethnic groups articles have been separated: "Category:Ethnic groups in Peru", this might be better for detailed topics about each group (hist, population, esteriotypes, etc) Regards. --Andersmusician $ 04:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Aromanians

I completely support your deletion of the Ethnic groups box because the Aromanians are a people without a kin-state, and therefore should not be mingled into any specific state. Eeamoscopolecrushuva 12:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Multiracial article nominated for deletion

Please help save it. Relir 12:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

new verbiage: ethnic groups and the burden of evidence

Please read & comment: new verbiage Ling.Nut 18:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Project's "Model Article"

Congratulations to Ling.Nut and the other editors who brought Taiwanese aborigines to featured status! I wonder if, in light of the promotion, the Project wants to consider more fully which article(s) we should consider "models" of the ideal ethnic groups article. The talk page archive contains mention of the WikiProject directory inquiring about this in 2004, when Jmabel didn't feel any article was ready yet. The "ideal" standard could perhaps be which FA most fully follows the Project's article template. Category:FA-Class Ethnic groups articles contains six articles, including Taiwanese aborigines. One FA ethnic group article, Dayuan is currently undergoing FA Review. Thoughts? -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 21:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Population groups of mixed ancestry nominated for deletion

Please read and comment; help me save it - Category:Population groups of mixed ancestry. I've been running across people deleting articles on multi-racial identity. The category, started by someone else, only had 5 entries. However there are many distinct groups of the like both past and present that have existing articles on Wikipedia. So, I added them. A person just nominated the whole category for deletion citing my efforts as abusive. They don't mind the articles; however, for some odd reason they prefer not to see them grouped in that way. The articles themselves clearly denote these populations of having this common factor.

There are many Norticists on Wikipedia that use it to perpetuate their limited perception of the world. When categories or articles are created that indicate similarities or distinctions among populations beyond National or Social Racial identity they get nominated for deletion. That is ridiculous. Relir 14:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Accusations get you nowhere! That is very high school.. umm... I haven't looked at your user page...
2. I voted Keep. You forgot to do so. Ling.Nut 14:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Racist motivations and editing Wikipedia articles

These comments were writen by me, originaly taken from the Georg Cantor talk page.

Racist motivations at "Edit wars over Jewishness or otherwise"

"...the only people that called Cantor Jewish in the past were anti-Semites or fervent Zionists...". That's what Tellerman wrote at "Edit wars over Jewishness or otherwise" and its mean that I, whether I'm a Zionist (and that have nothing to do with my writing here about Jewish figures-not that it make any difference), like more than a half of the Jewish people, or not, can't comment on the talk page, and worse, I'm the Jewish equivalence for a Nazi-as Tellerman remind Zionists and Anti-Semics in the same air breath... Tellerman actually saying that any body which claim, using the historical evidence, that Cantor could been from a Jewish ancestry shouldn't be heard and generaly he/she is a scam. No body can deny that Tellerman have an agenda, or that, regardless his accusations against me-is writing is highly uncivil, then. For myself, and these are a storng words which I'm fully aware and standing for I'm sure that Tellerman is anti-semic for himself, otherwise, I cant explain his obsession and the comparison he made between anti- Semites and Zionists ( Zionism= Jews does have the right for a state of their own& Israel is the homeland of the Jews). Wikipedia can and should ask us to assume good faith, but it cant-and don't, ask us to be blind or to be tolerant with racists of all kinds-and this is not a Propaganda but the simple true.I think that Tellerman arguments and statements are highly uncivil and driven by hate-and that his posts, than, should be ignored. for the Jewishness/ non-Jewishness of Cantor, I couldn't find any good reason for not mentioning the fact that Cantor thought his father for being from a Jewish ancestry as well- even if it had no importance for his work. Such an excuses don't sound well even if not as bad as Tllerman claims that to consider such a prominent mathematician as Jewish is some how racist, nationalist and etc (but to consider him as a pure "Aryan", even if there are heavy doubts about it, is quite o.k) .More, Tellerman called my claims "ridiculous" (By the way-Cantor does mean Hazzan and it's a Jewish common surname) -and that's, even if highly uncivil, could be o.k by me- if he only did it in a discussion in which I was present- but he start the debate about Cantor Jewishness while I wasn't present, he didnt tell me about it-and slander me...and that's while he ask users to address him directly and not to write "Tellerman said". My strong objection to Tellerman is not personal-and shouldn't be addressed as such. I'm really O.K with your decision about Cantor Jewishness/non-Jewishness, that wouldn't make him more or less Jewish, and any way, the Jewish people still have alot of other Great peoples which their Jewish origins are undeniable (even if some users consistently tried to hide it, using different excuses). But I do feel bad for getting too late to these discussion.

This is the only place for such a discussion-especially after the debates here, about Cantor Jewishness, in which Tellerman was an eminent spokesmen, if you know about better place-then, tell me about it (and more, can you tell me why you think that is " not the place for this discussion"?) -but please, don’t dismiss these subject as it is a matter of nothing important because it is quite the opposite. Wikipedia consider itself to be an on line encyclopedia which wont stand any kind of racisem or discrimination- if Wikipedia will declare that it is an anti-semic/racist/anti Islamic/anti Hindu or any thing else, then I would have no complains against it, (as I dont have any complains or posts at "Whiteforce" website)-and I just live it-but these is very far from beeing the case-and I do as much as I can against users that would try to change it.Every one who edit in Wikipedia should live his/her own agendas at home. I never heard about any attempt to hide the ethnicity of any European Great person-but when it comes to Jews (and some users told me that it is true to other minorities as well), there is a double standard. My agenda is to fight any discriminating agenda which other users have- and that is very hard since some users strategy is to "play dumb" and make me, and others, to look annoying, stupid or imperious while, again, the quite opposite is true.

I think that only when it come to Jews, and many times to other minorities/ ethnic groups as well, then one can easily find himself standing against endless difficulties, being put by other users, that under different pretexts doing their beast, or their worst-to hiding or to limiting the origins from which great figures came from. When it come to Jews (this is my main interest here, naturally-but I guess that it's true for other groups as well)- you can take a sample of 50 great Jewish figures, and unless you will find that at about 48-49 of them-users tried to hide or to limit their Jewishness even when it's clear and far from being speculative. when it comes to orthodox Jews which were born in Israel-one cant use simple excuses as "he/she wasn't practicing" or " he was born/raised to a non-Jewish environment and etc-so many times users just ask to delete the article or the category- till now, users stickd to the "assume good faith" rule, so tight, that they were left blind to racism of all kinds- as long as it wasn't impassioned or most obvious- but I call you now to start doing something against these insufferable situation.--Gilisa 14:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)