Talk:Dominant minority

message: > For instance, Nelson Mandela gained his immense popularity after years of resistance against the apartheid government of South Africa; some militant members of the dominant minority (Afrikaners) reacted to his democratic ascent with anti-civilian terrorism, by setting off car bombs at polling stations during the election that brought him to power.
While this may be factually accurate, it is deceptive. The words "resistance" was used when 
referring to acts by the ANC. Most objective viewers would label it as "terrorism", e.g.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Street_bombing
http://www.sahistory.org.za/dated-event/amanzimtoti-blast-kills-five
Less people died than during the isolated instances of white resistance than compared to ANC terrorism. 
(More people actually died during ANC-IFP clashes, i.e. black-on-black violence)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.110.159.209 (talk) 02:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed biased sentence 

message: I don't really understand why, but African-Americans are listed as a dominant minority. This is clearly not the case so I am removing them from the list. If someone believes this can be justified please cite you sources.
Snake666 (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with You, but I do, however, understand why they were added. Because of Barack Obama. twitter.com/YOMALSIDOROFF (talk) 02:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  African Americans as dominant minority in the US 

message: Just to note that I decided to be bold. So, do bite the newcomers. That is all. El_C
Nah, it's good!  Terrapin 19:08, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good point. Such examples deserve to be discussed in this article. I suggest that White minority rule, currently a link to this article, be turned into an article in its own right. The case of the whites in southernmost Africa was quite different from that of the Manchus in Qing China, who became so assimilated to the Han majority that by the end of the dynasty there was virtually no cultural or linguistic substance to a separate Manchu identity. The whites in South Africa and "Rhodesia" had no intention of assimilating culturally or otherwise to any Black population, and they certainly did not become Black themselves. Shorne 12:53, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Before another Vote for Deletion: 

message: In both South Africa and Rhodesia, majority rule was brought about through violent upheavals.
Wait a minute.  While the ANC was certainly a violent organization (indeed, described by many as a terrorist organization), and while the pressure its violence put on the white government may have contributed to the collapse of apartheid, it seems to me that larger factors in apartheid's collapse were international financial, political and moral pressures, as well as changing attitudes among South African whites.  Hasn't that been a major source of praise for the new South Africa, that the transition was peaceful and that there was no violent revolution?
Similarly, Rhodesia's white minority government, rather than having been dislodged by force of arms, decided to end its economic and political isolation, and peacefully handed over power after being promised that whites would receive protectively disproportionate representation in the legislature and respect for their private property.  LeoO3 04:26, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Violence 

message: * I have always seen the term "dominant minority" to refer to ethnic, racial or religious groups rather than to political ones. As such, i think the references to the rise of the Nazis and to electoral politics in Tony Blair's constituency should probably be removed. What do people think?
Also, virtually all societies have a dominant class normally called an aristocracy or the bourgeois or the upper-class. The unusual thing about some societies (like South Africa) is that there is also a racial minority that is dominant. This is unusual and, as i said above, i think it is cases like that for which the term 'dominant minority' can most usefully be applied to. Vino s 17:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Types of dominant minority

message: Could be under a separate section, but AFAISI its a good idea to integrate. -St|eve 21:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: An effort should be undertaken to determine 1) are minoritarianism and dominant minority actually terms describing the same thing?, and if so, 2) Which one is the prevailing naming for such a thing?   That said, at this time, I would prefer having two articles that point to each other, and clarify what the differences are in these terms--I have a strong feeling they're not exactly the same thing. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work</span> 02:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe the two are sufficiently different to merit their own aricles, although some sort of "See also" section probably wouldn't be amiss. nae'blis (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge to [[dominant minority]] 

message: I see that the link to Whites in South Africa is redirected to Afrikaners. I think that there should be a own article about whites in SA. And why the afrikaners? The Afrikaners are not the only whites in SA? The is also Anglo-Africans... �Dr.Poison 21:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That should be corrected.  It is impossible to understand South African cultural circumstance without understanding that Afrikaners have tended to be poor and have little interest in commerce relative to groups of mostly British Anglo-African English speakers who dominate commerce. -- M0llusk 19:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not true. Anglo Africans are a minority of the white population in South Africa anyway, and Afrikaans people are NOT poor and bad businessmen.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.214.50.5 (talk) 09:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Not to mention, that article is based on the idea of "White Monopoly Capital", which has been shown to be nothing more than political PR to hide a corruption scandal. See the wiki page White Monopoly Capital for more info. Any objections to removing the line in the article? - Rooiratel (talk) 11:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Whites in SA

message: The claim white South African's own a majority of the Businesses in South Africa is not bourne out by the source.   The article in turn quotes the http://ww2.oldmutual.co.za/old-mutual-investment-group/insights/magazines/tomorrow-2016/who-owns-the-jse which hat the following statistics for 2013:
* 39% foreign owned
* 22% White South African
* 13% Black ownership through institutional investors
* 10% Direct Black ownership.
Black ownership of the JSE exceeds that of white South Africans.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.27.172.154 (talk) 11:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention, that article is based on the idea of "White Monopoly Capital", which has been shown to be nothing more than political PR to hide a corruption scandal. See the wiki page White Monopoly Capital for more info. Any objections to removing the line in the article? - Rooiratel (talk) 11:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: White Business Ownership

message: They are the majority in Fiji
also they don't really fit the criteria for an elite since qoute the wiki article on Fiji
Commodore Frank Bainimarama refused to hold elections by 2010, elections that the Commonwealth of Nations had demanded after the 2006 coup. He states a need for more time to end a voting system that heavily favours ethnic Fijians at the expense of the multi-ethnic minorities. Critics claim that he has suspended the constitution and was responsible for human rights violations by arresting and detaining opponents.[31][32]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.28.6 (talk) 15:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indians in Fiji should not be on the list 

message: Where are the reliable sources for the list of supposed dominant minorities?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.157.86 (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  No sources? 

message: This seems blatantly untrue. Ethnic Russians were the leading political figures in the USSR, both from its foundation and during its seven decades of existence. This seems to harken back to old tropes about Bolshevism being a Jewish plot; it is also unsourced. I am removing it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.157.41.122 (talk) 11:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jews in the USSR 

message: Why are WASPs listed as the dominant minority in the United States? It's ridiculous, just ask our Black president, Catholic vice president, Supreme Court with no protestants on it, Catholic speaker of the House, ect. The sources cited are from the 60s and 70s, they are outdated. This should be removed. Two Tune (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  WASP reference 

message: The term "Austrians" at the time of both the Austrian Empire and Austria-Hungary referred very specifically to the people of Upper-Austria, Lower-Austria, and the Greater Vienna Capital Region. People from Tyrol, Voralburg, Styria, and various others like the Transylvanian-Saxons referred to themselves as "Germans", in fact this was the most common name for this ethnic group until after Austrian independence from the Allies during the Cold War the Austrians began to see themselves as "a separate ethnic group/people", even though many Austrians still regard themselves as "Germans" today.
--1.55.196.214 (talk) 15:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Austrians" 

message: In Poland, the party had 3 million members in a society of almost 40 million.82.177.40.227 (talk) 09:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Communists in Communist countries?

message: The article is truly a mess in general, but one thing a lot of people is getting wrong is that having some sort of overrepresentation of a minority whether in economy, Congress or any other important space is not the same as been a dominant minority. Jews in Russia are an example, even as 50% of the economic oligarchy, that's still not been a dominant minority unless they also hold most power positions in government, army and law enforcement. Same with Evangelicals in Brazil, or Jews/Mormons/Catholics in the US, having a large representation in Congress (more than their percentage in population) again repeit after me: is not the same as been a dominant minority. A dominant minority is a minority that controls the State. That holds power in all the sense of the word, not that is just very rich or that has a lot of seats in Parliament, is a group that holds most of the political, economic and legal power. WASP in the US are a good example of that in fact (albeit it was removed) disregarding that some presidents (like one in 50) are not WASP occasionally. So with that in mind the examples section really need a clean-up. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 09:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of which, empires should not count, otherwise all empires in history should go there. The concept about the dominant minority is about societies rule by a ethnic group that is the minority, all empires had one particular nationality over others but is a different dynamic, especially due to the distant between the periphery and the metropolis which in many cases are basically different countries loosely linked politically. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Per your definition above (local minorities in control of the state), i have reinserted examples that can be reliably sourced. Krakkos (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding entries based on "your definition above" is OR. Let's leave out the list, which is a POV-magnet, and discuss any proposed additions here, particularly including reliable sources describing them exactly that way. Jayjg (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: As per WP:NAD, Wikipedia "groups articles based on what they are, not what they are called by". This article is not about the term "dominant minority", but the concept, as defined in the lead. The lead of this article states: "A dominant minority, also called elite dominance is a minority group that has overwhelming political, economic, or cultural dominance in a country, despite representing a small fraction of the overall population... The term is most commonly used to refer to an ethnic group which is defined along racial, national, religious, cultural or tribal lines and that holds a disproportionate amount of power." The content you removed referred to ethnic minorities that have held political power in various countries throughout history. It was sourced from top scholars such as Peter Heather, Michael Grant, Johannes Brøndsted, Edward Arthur Thompson, Herwig Wolfram and others. It is therefore relevant and reliable sourced. The fact that content is a "POV-magnet" does not justify removal. Wikipedia is not censored. Krakkos (talk) 09:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The article isn't a dictionary entry, so your WP:NAD link isn't relevant. Actually relevant, on the other hand, is WP:NOR. You say a group is a "dominant minority". OK, provide sources that describe them as a "dominant minority". If it's so obvious, I'm sure multiple reliable sources will have described the group that way. Jayjg (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NAD is a WP:POLICY which applies to all articles on Wikipedia. Indeed this article is not a dictionary entry for the term "dominant minority". It is rather, as stated in the lead (i have already explained this, but you didn't seem to hear it), an article about the topic of "a minority group that has overwhelming political, economic, or cultural dominance in a country". Therefore, the relevance of a source is not only determined by its relevance to the term, but also by its relevance to the general topic. Krakkos (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NAD is policy, but since this article isn't a dictionary definition, it's not relevant here. And even if it were relevant, you couldn't "fix" the problem by adding original research. And finally, I hear what you're saying, but unfortunately, it's not correct.  Jayjg (talk) 15:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

text: Your WP:NOR link states: "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." Although they didn't match the term, the sources i provided were directly related to the topic and directly supported the material presented. Therefore there was no original research. Krakkos (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  General clean-up and missconception of the context