Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Proposal: Rename articles that aren't about ethnic groups to Xian national identity 2 When to state Ethnicity in the lead paragraph? 3 Related ethnic groups 4 Help with Britons with Latin American ancestry article 5 Andamanese 6 Help with European 7 Palestinian, Palestinians (singular nown, plural nown)

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

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

I agree on renaming pages like French people, but I'm not sure on renaming it to French national identity. Maybe French Citizens. X - people should be ethnic-base pages only IMO. Chaldean (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Or French nation would be good. But the main thing would be to distinguish it from the Demographics of France article. Possibly we could distinguish in titles between groups with nation-states being called "nations", and other groups being called "national identities".--Pharos (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, have to disagree with all name-changing proposals! What may appear to you to be disambiguation will appear to a casual, less-informed reader as a confused jumble of inconsistent information. Your suggestions increase, rather than decrease, the general level of confusion. Ling.Nut (talk) 02:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

When to state Ethnicity in the lead paragraph?

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

Hi, I went back and looked at those two bios, and I would probably leave them as they are now. The articles go into detail about their ethnicity ect later on. Per the above guideline Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability This is pretty general so I usually leave ethnicity out of the lead sentence unless there is an obvious and relevant reason to mention it. I usually ask myself "IS being of xyz ethnicity why this person is notable?" If not, leave that material for family section, ect.--70.109.223.188 (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that it should only be mentioned if relevant, surely it's relevant for Jeanne Wakatsuki Houston? According to the article, her notability rests on her writings about the Japanese-American experience, so it's surely relevant that she's Japanese-American? Cop 663 (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• I would think that if the article really does go into detail about their ethnicity, then their ethnicity is part of their notability. Aristophanes68 (talk) 15:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Update: I think I've found a solution -- I've added a sentence to both articles that describes why their ethnicity is important, but I left the nationality as "American." Aristophanes68 (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice work. Looks much better. Thanks for working this out. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Related ethnic groups

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

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

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

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

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

Comment You have set your foot upon ground that is far, far more slippery than you imagine. Sometimes it's best just to let things sort themselves out from the bottom up in each separate article, on a case-by-case basis, than to try to inject WP:BUREAU-prone top-down rules. 'Nuff said. Ling.Nut (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

So are you saying that the criterion might (rightly) be different for different ethnic groups, and should be discussed on their particular talk pages?--Yolgnu (talk) 06:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Look at the 'Language(s)' section of {{Infobox Jews}}. Here, we have three different subsections of "Jewish languages", based on three different criteria, which are all equally relevant in their own way. I believe a similar thing could be done with 'Related groups'. The important thing is, that we say in the infobox by what criteria a particular relationship exists.--Pharos (talk) 06:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

All I'm saying is, these are the kinds of ideas that truly and sincerely sound very useful, helpful, clear and good when you're typing them on the talk page of a Wikiproject. They also may even look nice and go smoothly when you're doing the actual writing (but not necessarily so!). However, when you star actually applying them to actual content, things get in a big mess really quickly. Ling.Nut (talk) 09:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason I brought up is because certain editors have been changing the box on various articles from linguistic criteria (which I think is the correct criteria as if two ethnic group speak closely related languages, it means they split not too long ago, and thus are "related") to genetic criteria (which seems to me to be a literal interpretation of "related"). Since it's occurring on multiple pages, I thought it would be better to discuss it here than on every single page where it's occurring. I don't really see what's so "slippery" about this or why it would "get in a big mess really quickly". This is just a simple discussion about definitions; I just want to see what other people think, not make a legally-binding policy.--Yolgnu (talk) 10:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Linguistic criteria are always and everywhere preferable to genetic ones. vastly preferable. In fact, the latter hardly merit consideration... Ling.Nut (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with that in general, but (repeating an earlier debate), I'd go further and say, if there is the slightest indication the criteria are contentious or different legitimate criteria give conflicting results, out with the whole field from the infobox. Did I point out that infoboxes must burn in hell? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Fut. Perf. While some groups (eg. Celts, Slavs) feel a close connection to their (linguistic) relatives, others (eg. English people) don't. If there's a consensus that the ethnic group in question doesn't want to be linked to other ethnic groups, the field should be removed from that particular ethnic group's infobox. (This is already common practice, and I haven't seen any disputes resulting from it.)--Yolgnu (talk) 09:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ling.Nut on this. If you believe in science... a hem!...genetics is a very slippery slope on a continuum, and defining how people relate to each other based on hidden information, that is, information that may not be known or understood by the subject, gets into some huge conflicting issues of ethnic identity, authenticity and essentialism. Linguistics is "one" marker for group relationships that is MUCH better than genetics.... especially for something as fluid as Ethnicity, which has much less to do with one's DNA. The subjects of Austronesian studies and China studies have been stellar examples of the incongruity between genetic and ethnographic relationships. Maowang (talk) 05:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think it's impossible to be consequent when it comes to this, what criteria we use would be different from ethnic group to ethnic group. I think it would be best to look at the individual group and see what fits best. I think genetics and culture are more important than language and geography to establish whether groups are related or not, but again, it depends on the exact group. For example, African Americans would be more geographically and linguistically related to white Americans than to Africans, but we would still believe them to be closer to Africans in Africa due to genetic facts. Funkynusayri (talk) 09:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

African Americans, White Americans and Africans are not ethnic groups but racial groups, which don't have "related ethnic groups" in their infoboxes, so I'm not sure they're particular relevant to this discussion.--Yolgnu (talk) 09:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thats a rather simplistic view. African Americans have distinct cultural and linguistic features which are unrelated to their racial origins, so they're an ethnic group as well as a racial group, the two frequently overlap. Just shows how complicated this issue is, so there's no reason to deem it irrelevant just because its hard to put in a specific box. Ethnicity is an extremely complicated subject. Funkynusayri (talk) 10:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

African Americans (a PC version of "Black Americans") are defined as "Americans who have origins in the racial groups of Africa" - they are a racial group, not an ethnic group. Just because they identify with each other (many racial groups do this, but it doesn't make them ethnic groups) and share a language, English (because they are citizens of the United States of America), does not make them an ethnic group. I don't think the two ever overlap.--Yolgnu (talk) 10:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Also... from looking above, I can see several instances where ethnic identities are being assigned anachronous to its actual appearance. i.e French before France.

Yes, there are several coexisting ethnic identities any one person may hold and choose to deploy. It would help to see how they deploy them.Maowang (talk) 10:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

"coexisting ethnic identities"... yep, been there done that... that tingling feeling in the area of your buttocks you may have just acquired is your body telling you that hashing this question out will require long, long hours chained to the chair in front of your computer.. and the headache that comes from being unable to actually resolve the issue is just around the corner... Ling.Nut (talk) 10:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Funkynusayri hasn't been changing ambiguous pages to genetic criteria - he's been changing pages like Jew and Arab, and there's no way they could be considered racial groups. In fact, they're the best example of ethnic groups that cross racial boundaries. Is there any opposition to me changing them back?--Yolgnu (talk) 10:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Is that what this is all about? I changed it from "Arabs/Jews and other Semitic groups" to "Arabs/Jews and other Middle Eastern groups", which makes a lot more sense in many ways. No one has mentioned race at all. Funkynusayri (talk) 11:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I just saw this quotation and saw you've already gotten into conflict over your strange racial ideas. And don't bother denying you changed Jew and Arab based on genetic criteria - a few days ago you said:

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

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

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

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

Anyone got any popcorn? Ling.Nut (talk) 11:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Burn a few infoboxes and we'll bake the popcorn fresh over the ashes. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

• Sounds nice. Should be a universal feature on the ethnic groups infobox template, not only the Jews one. Funkynusayri (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Funkynusayri, how are linguistics irrelevant in the case of Jews? How are they "related" to other Middle Easteners besides genetically, and why aren't they "related" to Semitic groups? Why is a "combination" good in the case of Jews and Arabs? (And no one's said it should be determined on a case by case basis.) According to your userbox, you only speak English at an advanced level. You do know that "related" doesn't necessarily mean genetically related, don't you?

Pharos, it's good to be bold, but your edit is extremely controversial, and I've reverted it for the time being (and by the way, the phrase "cultural relatedness" is meaningless). Can we please reach a consensus before doing anything; I haven't reverted any of Funkynusayri's linguistic to genetics edits, and I won't until we've finished discussing it. I don't believe genetics and ethnic groups have anything to do with each other, and neither does anyone else here except Funkynusayri, it seems. Genetic connection between ethnic groups is extremely controversial (ie. should we put "East Africans" as a related ethnic group of Greeks??!! - different genetic studies rarely say the same thing), and is discussed in the "Genetics" section of some ethnic group articles (usually along with a disclaimer that many scientists have denounced the idea of genetic relationships as bullshit, and that the greatest genetic difference is found within a community). Let's discuss it a bit more before we make any edits, please - we don't need to include Funkynusayri's theory if it's WP:FRINGE.--Yolgnu (talk) 07:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've gone back to my proposal and simply removed the field from the box. Seriously, guys: the various "relationships" between Jews and other groups is probably one among the most complex issues on this planet. Thinking that you can capture it in three or four words on three square centimeters of a screen space is, quite frankly, preposterous. Don't try to box things that resist boxing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree - it's not controversial to delete the infobox (or to remove something from it), only to add something to it. In the same spirit, I've removed the "Jews" (and the "and") part of "Jews and other Middle Eastern groups" on the related groups infobox on the Arab page, so now it's just a rather vague "other Middle Eastern groups". Seriously, if it's going to be that vague, is there any point having it at all?--Yolgnu (talk) 08:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'll answer your previous questions in a couple of days, I won't have Internet access again until then. Funkynusayri (talk) 10:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Help with Britons with Latin American ancestry article

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

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

Andamanese

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

• Have you added a warning tag to the page? Aristophanes68 (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Please list the portion(s) that you believe are offensive. Thanks. Ling.Nut (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Help with European

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

Palestinian, Palestinians (singular nown, plural nown)

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

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