Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Archive 6

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Dutch people: accuracy dispute 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Scottish people]] article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Biological, genetic and perceived ancestry 

message: 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)
thread_title: Muhammad Ali nominated for U.S. Collaboration of the Week

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Is Palestinian an ethnicity? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  American ethnic categories for renaming 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Short list of missing topics 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Change the project's title 

message: Template: 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)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:Infobox Ethnic group beta}} 

message: 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)
thread_title: Resource: List of African Americans

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Bisaya--one ethnic group?

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Related Ethnic groups in template 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Project Peer Review 

message: 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)
replies: text: That does sound reasonable, Tobias. -Fsotrain09 17:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article naming 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Armenian community of Dhaka]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[WP:SPOTLIGHT]] work on [[Icelanders]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Problem at [[List of ethnic groups in Myanmar]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. AecisBrievenbus 09:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slavic peoples 

message: 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)
thread_title: Dayuan FAR

message: 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)
thread_title: Request for comment, [[English people]]

message: 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)
thread_title:  Argentina's Demographics 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Help with some classifications of Nilotic people 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Nordicist racist bias in these peoples articles.  

message: 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)
thread_title:  RAcism, are you serious? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Aromanians 

message: Please help save it. Relir 12:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Multiracial]] article nominated for deletion 

message: Please read & comment: new verbiage Ling.Nut 18:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  new verbiage: ethnic groups and the burden of evidence 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Project's "Model Article" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Population groups of mixed ancestry]] nominated for deletion  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Racist motivations and editing Wikipedia articles