Archive 5 ← Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 → Archive 15

White American RfC

WikiProject members might be interested in this RfC regarding use of terminology in the White American article. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Relevant RFC

A RFC about BLP categorization and ethnicity has been proposed to the attention of the community. Your input, being the wikiproject directly concerned, is particularly welcome. --All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 08:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Naming discussion at Norwegian diaspora

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Norwegian diaspora#Renaming about a proposal to rename the entry. I'm notifying this Wikiproject since the entry is a part of it.Griswaldo (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to rename Category:Diasporas

It has been proposed to change the name of Wikipedia's category "Diasporas" to "Emigrations and emigrants." WikiProject members might be helpful to the discussion because the reasoning is that emigrants from some ethnic groups consitute a diaspora while emigrants from other ethnic groups do not. Sharktopustalk 05:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Twenty-five redirects nominated for deletion

I've nominated about twenty-five redirects regarding "secondary migration" (i.e. of the pattern "Chinese Fooians in Barland", such as Chinese Mongolians in Indonesia) for deletion. Your comments are appreciated at the two bellow discussions:

Thanks, cab (call) 11:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Infobox Images for Ethnic Groups

Something needs to be done about the obsessive inclusion of Infobox images in ethnicity articles (especially X-American ethnicity articles, like Norwegian Americans). They're almost always OR, often unsourced, and frequently randomly-selected (no evidence given to support that the individual is widely considered a "poster child" of their ethnic group). I propose - simply - that we not include any user-created or user-selected people montages in the infoboxes... for any ethnic group. I outlined the main points above. Bulldog123 12:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Update Since there seems to be a lot of commotion about my proposal blanket-banning any image, including pictures of sleds, I'm revising the proposal to only be a ban of user-selected or user-created people montages, like the type found on the majority of ethnic group articles. Bulldog123 09:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't need a source that Pericles and El Greco are Greeks. And even if external sources were needed, we couldn't include every sourced X-American in the montage, hence a discussion and consensus would be needed. As far as I know, consensus trumps everything. If there is OR, sensible editors will object and consensus will not be reached. So if I see a meaningful consensus, that tells me that OR concerns have been dealt with. Athenean (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
You might not need sources that say Pericles and El Greco are Greeks if there's enough in their articles to support that (and clearly there is), but you would need to prove they are the "poster-children" of Greek ethnicity. Otherwise.... yeah... you're pretty much just choosing whoever you (and your colleagues) want. Ethnicity changes over a span of a two-thousand years. It's not our job as Wikipedians to call El Greco more or less authentically Greek than someone like Aristotle Onassis. These montages, as they stand now, are OR no matter how you do it. The only way they wouldn't be OR was if you found some external source that says, "Quintessential examples of the Greek ethnicity include such figures as... blah blah blah." Good luck finding that. Bulldog123 19:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, if a solid consensus emerges about who to include and people stick to it, it ends there. Athenean (talk) 07:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, you know, that's not how it should be. Consensus is fleeting. The article is (or rather, can be) forever. I'm just not buying most of the reasons you give for why these images are beneficial. Surprise at discovering stuff like - "Oh wow, I didn't know that guy was ____ " - doesn't seem like a compelling enough reason to try to maintain something so unmaintainable. After all, if you didn't know that guy was ____ , he probably isn't the best example of ____ -dom. Why have images in the infobox anyway? Why not just put them in the List of Greeks? Bulldog123 16:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Not all consensus is fleeting. Some consensi are rock solid. For example, the current montage at Greeks has been there for a long time. And even if consensus changes, that's not the end of the world. Just get a new consensus. That's how it works for articles, so why not montages? As for the educational purpose about the montages, not everyone is knowledgeable about every ethnic group. If I'm not very knowledgeable about Georgians, for example, the infobox montage can give me a sample of notable Georgians. The List of Greeks argument is also a non-starter. If we include an image for every person listed in there, there would too many images, people would complain that the page takes too long to load, there would be copyvio issues all over again (and a whole lot more of them), and so some people would once again propose a blanket ban...you see where this is going. That images can be problematic is not a reason to do away with them. Athenean (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
There's also a "Gallery of Georgian people" on Georgians which seems to serve the same exact purpose as the infobox but inherently makes less of the "poster-child" statement. Why can't we have these galleries on List of Greeks? If we believe Wikipedia users are smart enough to find Greeks in the first place, we have to expect them to be smart enough to find List of Greeks and be able to CLICK A LINK to see someone's picture. Why would every entry on a list need a picture? I thought this was just about "examples." Bulldog123 19:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I've changed my !vote from "strongly oppose" to just "oppose" now that Bulldog123 has changed the proposal to focus only on user-created montages of people, and struck the relevant part of my rationale. --Avenue (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I also do not agree that all individuals shown must be a "poster child" for of the ethnicity in question, or an acknowledged archetype of it. I'm not sure it matters whether you (as in "we") agree about that or not. The presence of the image in the infobox itself is making the statement that those people are poster-children or acknowledged archetypes. And more importantly, by choosing the images ourselves, we're engaging in a little bit of OR-laced example-finding. Why are the people in the German American image montage greater embodiments of their ethnicity than other German Americans? Why do they get that special status? And how are we sure they'd even agree with that placement? All because a bunch of Wikipedia editors "found consensus?" The old image in Maori is certainly better than the one that's there now, although it's really unnecessary to begin with. If anybody wants to know what a Maori person looks like, I'm not sure why they can't go look at an image put in List of Maoris or something. Would it change your mind if the ban was only on user-compiled montages instead of just any image? Bulldog123 22:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
If someone wanted to know what a Maori person looked like, the obvious place for them to look would be Maori, not List of Maori. Ditto for Greeks or any other ethnic group for that matter. Athenean (talk) 01:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Ethnicity has next-to-nothing to do with appearance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, this all sounds worrying like early anthropology. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
How people present themselves is partly determined by culture, so ethnicity can indeed have something to do with appearance. I think the photos in the top line of the Maori montage are a good example. A picture is worth a thousand words; these convey aspects of traditional dress and adornment, gender differences in moko (facial tattoos), and much more.
The selection of photos for the Maori article's infobox was driven by availability of images of reasonable quality and the desire to show how Maori of each gender have presented themselves in different periods. I have trouble seeing much OR in that, although I suppose someone might wonder why those three periods were chosen. The individuals were generally not chosen as widely acknowledged archetypes of Maori people (and I still don't see why they should be); Hone Heke and Apirana Ngata are probably the only ones there who would qualify. I don't think readers would interpret the infobox photos as necessarily being archetypal representatives, and I don't believe we were making any such statement.
I don't see why the problems with certain infobox montages, mentioned above, should mean that all user-compiled montages must be banned. This is simply overkill. So no, I would not support a complete ban on such montages. Guidelines and editing restrictions would be appropriate, but not a ban. --Avenue (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I would not be averse to establishing guidelines and editing restrictions, where the infobox image is concerned. My concern is to avoid long and drawn out discussions like this one regarding Somali people. I don't mean to cast aspersions on those involved in that discussion by bringing it up, but I think it suffered from several of the issues that have been raised in this current discussion. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that discussion does look like a quagmire. Do you have any ideas about guidelines or editing restrictions that might have helped there? --Avenue (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Seriously though, what's wrong with the idea of just not using a wikipedia-user-selected montage in the infobox? I still don't get why you are opposed to this. The discussion is less about having "any image" as it is about having "the montage image." I'm not strictly opposed to the picture of the sled in Inuits or the use of representative-images somewhere else. Why does it have to be in the infobox, where it can be misinterpreted to mean "an archetype" or "a posterchild." Bulldog123 18:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad you're moving away from requiring a total ban on all infobox images. I personally feel that infobox montages should be quite small (no more than 3x3 images), and I agree there are many excessive examples out there, but I don't see a good case for banning them completely. I don't see what you find so objectionable about the Maori montage, either. --Avenue (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment. It is clearly insufficient that people are "mentioned in the article", even with references. To be 'representatives' of an ethnicity, it will at minimum be necessary to show that (a) the 'ethnicity' itself exists, and isn't a synthesis, or a construct of a minority POV, (b) the persons concerned actually are of that ethnicity, and recognise themselves as such, and (c) a reliable source can be found that states that they are notable as members of the ethnic group. If a Wikipedia contributor 'selects' individuals as somehow representatives of an ethnicity, this is WP:OR, and impermissible. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
What rubbish. We choose what to put in and what to leave out of articles, what examples to cite and what examples not to cite, what to illustrate and what not to illustrate, all the time. It's called editorial judgment, and it's an issue for editors to thrash out on talk pages. Jheald (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Not where it contravenes policy, we don't. See WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:BLPCAT etc... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
(a) and (b) I would agree with you. (c) I wouldn't -- this is neither WP:OR nor WP:SYN, just an editorial choice of how to illustrate the topic at hand. Jheald (talk) 00:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, not rubbish at all. (a), (b), and (c) are all required per WP:NOR. The whole point of adding images to the infobox is to make the statement, "These people are notable examples of this ethnic group." If that weren't the case, the images would be placed elsewhere, not there. I also like how Andy points out that we should look out for whether "the 'ethnicity' itself exists, and isn't a synthesis, or a construct of a minority POV." Yugoslav American, Multiracial American, and People of the United States are all premium examples of this point being overlooked (Note how they all have infobox images). Bulldog123 02:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It is unnecessary that the people are notable as members of the ethnic group, just as it is not necessary that images in the lead section of any article have been put forward externally as representative of that topic. See e.g. frog, sarong, flower. Some editorial judgment regarding images is both desirable and allowed as a specific exemption to WP:OR (i.e. WP:OI). Of course this can be abused, but that doesn't change the general principle. --Avenue (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Andy, that doesn't contradict my point. I cited some general rules that should be met, you mentioned stronger ones, but the point is the same: they are not impossible to met. If an infobox with a collage follow all such rules, why shouldn't it be included? MBelgrano (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that is a good example of a bad montage. But why do we need to ban all infobox images to address the bad ones? --Avenue (talk) 00:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd say the ratio of bad montages to "good" montages speaks for itself. In most cases a "good" montage only means it's not contested (yet). I get the feeling the image on Maori isn't being challenged because few Maori-interested users edit wikipedia and even fewer who know anything about the Maori people. The ethnic group is minuscule compared to most, so it's really not hard to find a handful of representatives. Compare that with something like Irish American or Italian American. It's clear that for the vast majority of ethnic group articles, this is an issue. Still, I don't see the benefits outweighing the drawbacks. So we get to see what a few of these people look like... big deal. It doesn't contribute anything new or meaningful to the article. In most cases, the images are used only to make a statement. "Hey THIS guy is definitely a X even though some people think he's a Y. Let's put him in X's infobox to show everyone the truth." Not encyclopedic, IMO. Bulldog123 02:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
In many cases, I'd agree. I just think that clear and well enforced guidelines would be a better solution than an over-broad ban. And okay, there may be fewer Maori people than Italian- or Irish Americans, but our Māori article gets more page views than either of those. It doesn't lack scrutiny. --Avenue (talk) 04:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Different ethnic groups do often have distinctive visual characteristics, which the article should in some way try to convey. It's worth mentioning though that I don't believe "visual characteristics" has ever been the sole factor used for considering who to put in an infobox montage, and I don't think it will ever be. This is especially true for something like Polish American versus German American, where "visual distinctiveness" is non-existent. In fact, you could say for the vast majority of European-originated ethnic groups, "visual distinctiveness" is negligible factor. Your argument seems to apply only to images like the South Sea Islander picture, which is not really part of the ban. It's the user-created montage that should not be allowed for WP:N, WP:NOR, and sometimes WP:POINT reasons. Bulldog123 19:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Polish Americans are pretty distinctive compared to say Somali people. Don't assume white Americans are necessarily the reference against which everything must be measured. No, of course "visual characteristics" is only one thing that these images serve. They can also communicate a diversity of well-known faces belonging to the group, or a diversity of people with interesting stories to find out about. All of that adds to the article. Jheald (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
The South Sea Islander picture would certainly be covered by the proposed ban. We are !voting on the following: "I propose - simply- that we not include any images in the infoboxes... for any ethnic group." This does not just cover montages, even though most of the discussion here seems to focus on them. --Avenue (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Also, many photos serve to illustrate ethnic dress, jewelry, hairstyles, tatoos, housing, livestock, etc. rather than specific people. Those would also be excluded by this ban. — kwami (talk) 01:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
And why do the images about ethnic dress, jewelry, hairstyles, tattoos, housing, livestock, etc... have to be in the infobox and not elsewhere in the article? This last point is beginning to look like a red herring. The crux of the argument is for user-selected montages. To my knowledge, no published encyclopedia maintains such things. More importantly, can somebody clarify what the "baby" is in this baby-bathwater comparison we keep making? Bulldog123 04:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Have you read the update? It's a "draconian" measure to proposal eliminating original research from infoboxes? Bulldog123 21:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The burden of proof is on the user who returns unsourced material, not me. I can remove egregious WP:V-issues on sight, and White Americans is a perfect example of one. Removing completely unsubstantiated material has nothing to do with the proposal. I wouldn't be in my right to touch Polish Americans as those four individuals are legitimately verifiable as Polish Americans in their articles and on List of Polish Americans. Bulldog123 06:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
What would these rules for image inclusion be? And could we ever get community consensus for them? It seems like an impossible task. Bulldog123 08:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Responded in Alternative section below. – Liveste (talk • edits) 05:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't including it in the infobox be making a different statement than merely having it in the article with a caption explaining it? The infobox is meant to be "indicative of a group" -- that's why it exists. Bulldog123 00:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Not necessarily; we have to go with the best pics we have all the time here. But it might. Johnbod (talk) 02:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I had hoped that "best pic" (aesthetically speaking) would have trumped any and all other concerns, in a discussion with which I was involved. In other words, rather than arguing whether this sub-group or that was over- or underrepresented, why not simply select the best photograph regardless of the subject? Of course, that's entirely subjective as well, but at least it's "neutral" compared with the other criteria. (In any case this idea was rejected. FWIW.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 05:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Support - it's too often arbitrary and capricious, and efforts to make it otherwise are unduely distracting from the improvement to the body of the articles. Perhaps there is something elemental about images of people, but the effort that goes in to including - or REMOVING - these pictures on these articles is too often bitter and contentious that it would seem better to can the whole idea of montages there. Notable examples placed in the body of the article that comply with Wiki standards can always include a portrait. Shoreranger (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

General Comments

I think is a good idea...but is this even a proposal that a WikiProject can have and/or enforce? Would this talk not have to be done at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes)? Not sure its possible for one Wikiproject to tell our editors what they can and cant do if its not policy based as per WikiProjects do not own articles. Think this might lead to counts less edit wars if its not back by the community as a whole - rather then just one Wikiproject that our editors might think our pushing there POV on images on article within this projects scope. Lets face it "People articles" and "projects" overlap very very often. How would this be enforced would the projects members go around deleting images from articles even the FA and GA ones? This sound like it might cause lots of conflict if not done with policy rather then a projects POV that realy holds no weight.Moxy (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

You raise a valid point. I think the answer is that no single discussion, be it here or at the MoS page you mention, can actually create a binding decision that could simply be "enforced". What we can do here – and this does seem to be the appropriate location for it – is to develop a recommendation, just like other recommendations a wikiproject might offer for articles in its scope. Implementing it will always be subject to the consensus principle on each individual page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I see what your saying - but the wording must be right and not binding. As we have had some major problems with this before and has led to the isolation of some projects. The WP:POV pushing that comes to mind is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes were they tell our editors "only following consensus" may they add an infobox to articles in there scope. They have been told many many times that this is not within the power of a WikiProject to tell our editors what they can and cant do if its the opposite of our policy and/or if they cant get it passed as policy. This project has basically been left in the dust because of this with editors avoiding there articles on purpose. It has also led to "biting" of many many new editors that have tried to add the boxes. Will this happen here aswell and give the project a bad reputation? Like i said i think its a good idea no images just not something that i think will be enforceable if its not policy. Moxy (talk) 08:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I think if anything the ethnic groups project would have somewhat of a weaker standing if it came to enforcing its preferences than the classical music project did. The classical music project actually represented a very substantial, active core of editors who were responsible for having written a large part of the articles in question, so they had every right to voice their consensus in a forceful fashion (I'd disagree with you about that, I guess.) With ethnic groups, membership and editorship is probably much more decentralized. Many, perhaps most, ethnic group articles are written and maintained by people who have no relation to this wikiproject at all, for instance because they are simply interested in this one ethnicity. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
We may not be able to 'enforce' anything other than existing policy, but if that is done properly, it will at least deal with the most problematic examples. For a start, any image that doesn't have WP:RS on ethnicity can go, and likewise, copyvios need removal. The only remaining issue is whether the creation of an 'ethnic montage' is OR. I'm inclined to suggest that under existing policy, it may well be. It occurs to me that one could prove this by creating a (hypothetical) montage to demonstrate why. For white British (which includes me, not that I'd classify myself that way) I'll produce a montage consisting of Ian Brady, Myra Hindley, Peter Sutcliffe, Harold Shipman, Dennis Nilsen... Obviously biased, but if anyone complains, I'll ask how a non-biased montage could be made. Pick people at random perhaps? If a montage of 'bad guys' is wrong, isn't a montage of 'good guys' as well? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Seems to me the issue there is more one of WP:ATTACK rather than WP:OR. Selection of what examples to illustrate a topic with is a normal part of wiki-editing. (In the context of mathematical/scientific articles WP:SCG even spells this out). What is not acceptable is attack images being used to tar the perception of a particular group. Jheald (talk) 13:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but what criteria are being used to make the selection? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Do we care? Jheald (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
If someone doesn't care what criteria are used to select images, frankly I'd say that they shouldn't be involved in contributing to Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Jheald said "Do we care?" (i.e. "is that relevant?"), not "I don't care." --Avenue (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid this is quite wrong. It is not necessary for a person to be notably a member of the group; it is only necessary for them to be verifiably a member of the group. This is a very important distinction. It is being verifiable that defends something against charges of being OR, not being notable. WP:NOTABILITY has little to do with the content of articles anyway.
Furthermore, it's not even necessary for a reliable source to be provided to show, for instance, that Pope is German. It is merely enough that such a source could be provided if someone were to challenge it. This is the essence of WP:V.
Thparkth (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality: "When in doubt, err on the side of respect and the right of people to define themselves", "Inclusion must be justifiable by external references. (For example: regardless of whether you have personal knowledge of a notable individual's sexual orientation, they should only be filed in a LGBT-related category after verifiable, reliable sources have been provided in the article that support the assertion.)" I'd call that strong grounds to suggest that unsourced inclusion in an 'ethnicity' infobox is against the spirit of policy. In any case, if the infobox is challenged, then sources must be provided that demonstrate that the person involved self-identifies with the ethnicity attributed to them - the "right of people to define themselves". AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
The guideline you refer to relates to the inclusion of people in categories. It is not particularly applicable here. Even so, I doubt that there is strong consensus behind the idea that describing Queen Elizabeth II as "English" may only be done "after verifiable, reliable sources have been provided in the article that support the assertion". Of course it should be verifiable but that is not the same thing. Thparkth (talk) 21:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Also, Thparkth was primarily rebutting the claim that people should be notable as members of the ethnic group to appear in an infobox. None of Andy's points address that issue. Nice change of subject though. --Avenue (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I think Thparkth may be confusing nationality with ethnicity. As for the issue regarding 'notability', if that isn't a criteria for inclusion in an 'ethnic' infobox montage, then what criteria should be applied? Simply leaving it to 'editorial choice' isn't an answer - on what basis should the choice be made? There are quite sufficient examples already given to demonstrate that leaving this to an individual can result in controversy, and regardless of the niceties of which policy applies where, unsourced inclusion of an individual in an 'ethnicity' infobox is making an assertion about them that may be unjustified, and possibly contentious. It isn't Wikipedia's job to apply arbitrary labels to individuals on the whim of editors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think anyone has suggested that notability isn't a criteria (one of many) that can be considered when selecting images for a montage. This is true both for general notability and for notability as a member of that ethnicity. What Thparkth and I object to is a requirement that notability as a member of that ethnic group is a necessary condition for inclusion. Some other general criteria have been mentioned already above: diversity, availability and quality of images, montage size, etc. --Avenue (talk) 23:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Furthermore, it's not even necessary for a reliable source to be provided to show, for instance, that Pope is German Now I'm getting confused. The big issue here isn't whether the people actually are members of the ethnic group (though - in some cases - it would need verification), but whether they are notable as members of that ethnic group. I can give a pretty solid example. Henry James is a member of the Irish ethnic group - though it is unclear whether he ever identified - but it doesn't matter because external sources explicitly state that despite being "a full-blooded New York Celt," he is rarely identified as "Irish American" by scholars (for a multitude of complex reasons that I won't get into right now). Therefore having Henry James in the infobox image for Irish American would be OR on the part of the editor, because most external sources do not list him as a notable example of Irish-American-hood. Similarly, Bing Crosby actually doesn't have a pure-blood Irish background but is widely considered to be a "notable Irish American." We're not looking for whether "these people have Irish blood" but whether they are notable as members of their ethnic group. That's what the infobox image is stating. These are notable examples of Irish Americans. NOT Here are some random examples of people with Irish ancestry. Now replace "Irish American" with just about any other ethnic group. It eventually becomes an impossible task... and instead of wasting time with all that... why can't we just keep the montages elsewhere (or not have them)? Bulldog123 00:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
"whether they are notable as members of that ethnic group" - you keep saying this, but it really isn't true. It's simply not necessary, or normal, to establish separate notability for every item in the content of an article. If a reliable source describes someone as having a particular ethnicity, then it is not original research to include that in the article. (It might raise other issues but WP:OR is not one of them). Thparkth (talk) 00:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm honestly not sure what you're talking about anymore. Bulldog123 05:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I think a better example of how problematic this can be would be Andrew Jackson, who can variously be described as American, White American, Scotch-Irish American, Irish American, Scottish American, Ulster Scot, or whatever. Which is/was he, and who gets to claim him? I'm for canning the whole idea of "poster children". Eastcote (talk) 04:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
This is very true, and more importantly, there is no evidence Andrew Jackson is notable as a member of any of those ethnic groups. Bulldog123 08:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Never mind, the move was reverted. --Avenue (talk) 01:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
For the benefit of anyone who is still unclear about how problematic this issue can be, look here [1]. It seems impossible to persuade editors that you can't just dump random people into an infobox montage with no evidence of their ethnicity at all. I'll assume they are all Argentinian, though that isn't sourced, but 'white'? Who says so? Given that the article doesn't actually provide evidence that the term 'white Argentine' (or any reasonable translation thereof) is used in Argentina, the whole thing is nothing but WP:OR of the worst sort. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
If it is OR, then it is already prohibited by the existing policy against OR. Why do we need an extra rule? Thparkth (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Because people are ignoring it. That's why the images on White Americans are being returned despite not having a single source. Bulldog123 06:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Then we should follow the usual procedures to have WP:OR enforced, instead of entertaining the idea of new and overly restrictive rules. I think excessive prohibitions are even more likely to be ignored. --Avenue (talk) 13:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
We've been trying to do that for years. It's clearly not working. Something new has to happen. If the overall removal of montages isn't supported, then something else needs to be proposed. I felt like just having a blanket ban would be easiest because "specific rules" confuse people more (especially new editors). Bulldog123 23:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the Argentina's particular case expressed above, I think that labelling people as white Argentines is useless since except from racist slurs and small racialist environments there is not such divisi on in todays' Argentine society. Being a 'white' (blanco) or a 'black' (negro)-comprising indigenous, mestizos and zambos- has become a cultural term rather than a racial one. Pale skinned Argentines but with a high academical or economic position may deem as "negros" to other fair skinned Argentines who in fact live a marginal life.- Periptero (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Participants in this discussion might like to take place in a discussion regarding the infobox montage at White American, taking place here. Cordless Larry (talk) 04:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to add "statistics" section to List of states with limited recognition

It has been proposed that a "statistics" section is added to List of states with limited recognition. Please contribute to the discussion at Talk:List of states with limited recognition#Statistics RFC. Alinor (talk) 07:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to limit use of ethnicity-based lists and categories

A proposal has been made at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#No_valid_consensus to expand the WP:BLPCAT policy to include lists and categories based on ethnicity. This proposal, if adopted, would eliminate all living persons from ethnicity-based lists and categories, unless two stringent criteria are both met; namely (1) the person must self-identify themselves as Irish/Russian/African-American/Jewish/etc; and (2) their ethnicity must be relevant to their notability. Input is welcome. --Noleander (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add that the motivation of the proposal is to limit the current practice of inclduing people in ethnicity based lists or categories based on arguments such as "it is common knowledge", "obviously he looks X" or "his grandfather was X" and enforce the policy of WP:V also in the area of inclusion in lists and membership of groups. The proposal is basically to require that WP:V (our most basic policy) also applies in the case of group membership ascription. We wouldn't classify somone is a socialist with out attribution to a source, why can we call someone irish without attribution merely judging from haircolor, name or genealogy?·Maunus·ƛ· 21:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Maunus, I fully support what you just said. However, strict application of WP:V isn't what's coming here. It means that even if someone repeatedly self-identified as ethnicity X, even on national television, they wouldn't be listed as that unless it was somehow agreed that it was "relevant to their notability (and how to figure that out?). This isn't a hypothetical, I actually had to endure one such discussion earlier this year. I won't name the article, but it was an actress who was born to two parents of that ethnic group, who repeatedly self-identified as X, in print and on television, and of whose X status there was no debate or dispute. Yet, someone brought up the notability criteria, which was impossible to qualify. This resulted in a long debate that wouldn't have been there if these guidelines hadn't existed elsewhere. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I think this strict policy is fully justified by the fact that the opposite case is now rampant all over wikipedia's ethnicity related pages. The list of Jewish Nobel Laureates for example contained untill recently several persons who had publicly disclaimed any affiliation with Jewish identity and publicly stated that such issues were irrelevant to their being a Nobel laureate. Even worse is the rampant tendency of ethnicity infoboxes having galleries of persons whose identification with the group in question "E.g. White Mexicans" is completely unsourced. I much prefer the strict policy to the sloppy laissez faire we are forced to endure now where every nationalist can claim people as members of their favored category based on surname, looks, place of birth, etc. Ethnicity has to be relevant to be relevant.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, but just because WP:V is being violated, that doesn't mean we need stricter policy. We just need to enforce WP:V. The fact of the matter is, this new policy won't change much. All that will happen is that people who self-identify as X will be the cause of pointless edit wars and discussions about whether they fulfill the notability criteria. That's really it. That's time spent that these same editors could use to actually enforce WP:V (and I include in those people myself, having removed hordes of these categories). Oh, and it also means that probably 90% of List of Jewish Nobel laureates could be deleted if someone wanted to, simply because their Jewishness isn't likely to be related to their chemistry. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with lists of Nobel prize winners by ethnicity being deleted.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think we should put down ethnicity simply based on looks, names or hometowns, but I think referring to ancestry is legitimate. As for notability, if you're going to push the issue, you need to push the issue in terms of the categories as well. Half the time, a person's hometown and alma mater aren't really relevant to notability, so we should work harder to police those categories as well. (sarcasm) I'm surprised that you'd want to remove "Nobel prize winners by ethnicity", given how much push there's been lately to get more minorities involved in STEM fields. One way to promote that goal is to publicize the contributions of ethnic minorities--not to hide it. Aristophanes68 (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Can you change this obscenely non-neutral header or do you wish to not be taken seriously? Bulldog123 21:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Can you, Bulldog, behave yourself on Wikipedia for once and chill with your hyperbole?

    I have no problem with ensuring a proper, broad rule applies to “ethnic” (often race-based) lists and montages. Raquel Welch has been learning Spanish lately and giving public speeches in Spanish and better trying to embrace her Spanish heritage. Yet, I doubt there is a single quote from her publicly declaring “I am a woman (so you may write about me being female) and I consider myself to be Spanish American.” Notwithstanding the inability to locate such a flat declaration, it doesn’t seem improper to me—given the copious totality of the available evidence—to include her in a montage of Spanish Americans.

    By the same token, were Michael Jackson alive today, he would no-doubt take deep offense to being labeled as an African American—every bit of his personal behavior made it clear that he eschewed that identity.

    Having mere wikipedians undertake to decide these sort of things can be a violation of WP:SYNTH unless good common sense is used. Since Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that “anyone can edit”, common sense is often in short supply.

    Probably the best way to tackle this is a case-by-case, article-by-article approach. And if anything can be discerned from the results of the above RfC (which Bulldog started), is that the community consensus is to merely handle these on a case-by-case basis. Greg L (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Asian American article scope

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian American#South Asian Americans are not considered Asian Americans. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC) (Using ((pls)))

Scandinavian diaspora

For your information, Scandinavian diaspora has been nominated for deletion. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 04:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Asian American article Undue template discussion

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian American#Undue tag. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC) (Using ((pls)))

Various page move proposals

User:Alphasinus made a number of page moves proposals during the weekend. Everyone's input is welcome at the below discussions.

Regards, cab (call) 08:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Undue?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Rosie O'Donnell#Does the "Chinese language parody" merit inclusion or not?. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC) (Using ((pls)))

Redirect into article

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian Hispanic and Latino Americans#Change from Redirect. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC) (Using ((pls)))

Filipino American image infobox

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Filipino American#Changing of Pictures. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC) (Using ((pls)))

Chink

The ethnic slur against Chinese, "Chink", has been requested to be renamed, see Talk:Chink. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 05:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Filipino Americans second or third largest ethnicity of Asian Americans?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Filipino American#second or third. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC) (Using ((pls)))

Should WP:WikiProject Asian Americans become a task force?

WikiProject Asian Americans has very few active users. Should this wikiproject become a Task force of another WikiProject, perhaps WikiProject United States? I have began a discussion about this possibility here. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

Discussing rename of prejudicial term "Chink" to more appropriate article title06:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:Chinamen

Category:Chinamen has been nominated for deletion. 65.94.44.141 (talk) 04:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction in content between Filipino American & Indian American articles

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Filipino American#June 2011. This is the second event regarding similar content. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC) (Using ((pls)))

Native Americans in the United States

Native Americans in the United States has been requested to be renamed. See Talk:Native Americans in the United States

65.93.15.213 (talk) 05:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Peer review open for Chinese Indonesians

Hello. I have opened a peer review on the recently rewritten article on Chinese Indonesians, which has also received a copyedit from the Guild of Copy Editors. I would like to bring the article to featured status and am soliciting input from participants of relevant projects on possible improvements. Thank you in advance for any suggestion. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 18:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

FAC nomination of Chinese Indonesians

The article on Chinese Indonesians is a featured article candidate. Editors from this project, whose scope covers this article, are invited to participate in its review. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 04:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is the article "White People" rated as "High Important", while the article "Black People" is rated "Mid-Importance".

Really, thats unbalanced.

I am white myself btw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.81.72.11 (talk) 07:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

"Nationalist myths" vs. "National myth"

I found a lot of sources for the subject of "Nationalist myths" (sometimes referred to as "Nationalistic myths"). Those terms have many hits on Google Books Search (3.180 + 581):

Based on such numerous sources I started to prepare a draft of an article (User:Antidiskriminator/Drafts of articles/Nationalistic myths). But then I realised there is an article National myth. That term also has big number of GBS hits (16.800):

I first thought that term "National myth" is same as terms "Nationalist myths" or "Nationalist myths". But now I am not so sure. I now think that "National myth" is something more connected with epics, legends... On the other hand terms "Nationalist myths" or "Nationalist myths" looks like they are more connected with politics, nationalism and ideology.

I think that I have now two alternatives:

  1. If those terms are the same, then I would try to use draft I prepared to expand the article "National myth".
  2. If not, then I will create new article about "Nationalist myths".

Can anybody help me with opinion if National myth is the same as Nationlist myth? Any help will be highly appreciated.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

In answer to your question, I think that your article and our existing one are dealing with essentially the same topic. However, there is a more serious problem with your draft article: it seems to contain several sentences copied from copyrighted works, with only minor amendments. I suggest that you take time to read Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Your article would need substantial work to be acceptable under these policies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I will resolve copyright issue before I expand existing article. Thanks.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
@AndyTheGrump: I think I changed all close paraphrasing parts. Will you please check again my draft (User:Antidiskriminator/Drafts of articles/Nationalistic myths) before I start adding its text to the existing article?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Related ethnic groups

We really need to establish a policy on what consitutes a relation between ethnic groups. Some editors are arguing that such a relation can only be established by linguistic and genetic criteria, which is contrary to all recent scholarship on ethnicity. Personally I would prefer to remove the field alltogether as it can only be an impressionist estimate and very rarely wellsourced. It basically invites disputes and OR, and provides no information in most cases.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It can only be impressionistic - and certainly shouldn't be in an infobox. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed move of Greeks in the United Kingdom to Greek British

User:MarkMysoe has proposed that Greeks in the United Kingdom be moved to Greek British. Your comments are welcome at Talk:Greeks in the United Kingdom#Requested move. Thanks, cab (call) 08:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Germans again

At Talk:Germans editor is arguing that ALbert Einstein should not be included in the article about "Germans" because he was ethnically Jewish. Please participate.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment on article naming conventions for peoples, ethnicities and tribes

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#Articles on peoples (ethnicities and tribes) on how ethnicity articles should be named. Specifically, whether the article on the Foo people should be at "Foo", or at "Foo people" with "Foo" as a disambiguation page distinguishing the Foo people and the Foo language (and any other uses). The current convention is to disambiguate, but this is based largely on discussions at WP:NCLANG and I have suggested that a wider consensus including people interested in ethnicity and indigenous peoples as well as languages would be desirable. joe•roet•c 21:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to change first paragraph of naming conventions for ethnic groups

A new proposal for ethnic groups naming conventions can be found here: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#New proposal for "Articles on peoples (ethnicities and tribes)". I'm trying to do this correctly, with real consensus, unlike the drafting of the current naming conventions. I've posted on the Wikipedia talk:Article titles, Village Pump, etc. Your input would be greatly appreciated since members of this Wikiproject have dealt with ethnic groups naming issues the most. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Asking for help

On the Wikipedia page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Croatia#Information it takes a while exhausting debate on the writing and writing at all of minority languages in articles about settlements in Croatia. Please if you have time, look at the page and try to help us in forming some kind of agreement. We will highly appreciate your effort.--MirkoS18 (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Assistance is requested as a new editor is violating an MOS (WP:HEADINGS) and is not responding to requests to talk. The new editor is also violating WP:NOTPROMOTION through attempts to edit as Filipino Americans & List of Filipino Americans in a way to enhance an individual's notability. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for opinions and input

There is currently a debate going on about the content of the Anglo-Indian page As the page falls under the scope of this project any advice, opinions or input you may wish to offer would be gratefully received. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romper (talk • contribs) 00:03, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Azerbaijani people

I have nominated Azerbaijani people for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKiernan (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

People in infoboxes

These should probably be removed. 174.252.23.157 (talk) 11:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC on Indigenous people

I have started an RfC at talk:Indigenous people regarding the definition and scope of the article because some editors are using the page to include all ethnic groups who claim to descend from the first known inhabitants of a place - such as Germans, Finns, Russians, Georgians etc. This definition would exclude several indigenous groups that have migrational histories from the scope and conflict with the established political definitions of the term. Please weigh in on which definition to use.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:African-American people

Category:African-American people, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Asian American infobox discussion

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian American#Infobox Image discussion 2012. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Would would be the best name for the article about the Israeli Ethiopian Jewish community?

Please participate in this discussion and express your opinion on the matter. TheCuriousGnome TheCuriousGnome (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Infobox pictures

These are just pictures of mostly actors and athletes with some other people such as scientists and politicians thrown in. Most if not all are not notable for being part of that ethnic group. They are not neutral and should be removed. They do not add anything to the article. Is there even any criteria? Why are there no pictures of people notable for being criminals? 174.226.202.182 (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I focus on indigenous peoples of the Americas articles and believe it's incredibly important for the public to see images of 21st or even 20th century Native peoples, whether notable or not, when available. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi
That's a point, that I do understand. I am a little weary of the trend of putting in celebrities, because while they may be notable they are not always representative. For example when I put in a picture of an indigenous man ploughing a field in rural Mexico I was accused of stereotyping (the vast majority of indigenous peoples in Mexico are poor and live in rural areas). The other editor wanted to put in the picture of a rich and famous man who claimed indigenous descent but had no cultural connections to any indigenous communities. Basically the infobox turned into a cavalcade pictures of mythical heroes and the the part of the Mexican upper class that likes to claim indigenous heritage while complaining about how unisghtly all the poor peasants are. For reasons such as this (and for the reason that in non-indigenous cases the picture cavalcades often leads simply to ethno-national or racial stereotyping) is the reason I am against pictures in infoboxes.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I am also against pictures (of mostly actors and athletes with some other people such as scientists and politicians thrown in) in infoboxes about ethnic groups. They are unrelated with the topic, they do not add anything to the article, it is impossible te set a reasonable criteria and they are often "turned into a cavalcade pictures of mythical heroes" which "leads simply to ethno-national or racial stereotyping".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of the photos or the edit wars they tend to provoke, but there was a long discussion of the subject last year (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Archive 10#Infobox Images for Ethnic Groups) and there was no consensus to remove them from the infobox. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to that discussion which was never actually closed. I think that the result of the discussion can also be interpreted that there was no consensus to include pictures either. Additionally:

  1. The purpose of the infobox is not to be a navigation bar (which most pictures of notable people are), but to to summarize key facts about the article in which it appears, in this case about the ethnic group.
  2. Such pictures are unnecessary content and according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes "wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content."
  3. the article about certain ethnic group is not an article with list of notable members of that ethnic group. Therefore images of notable members of one ethnic group do not belong to the article about ethnic group itself WP:IRRELEVANT
  4. the Template:Infobox ethnic group says nothing about the pictures of the notable people so it can not serve as a basis for adding such pictures in wikipedia rules.

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I support photos of members of ethnic groups, particularly in poorly known about ethnic groups, since actual photos of living (or recently living) people cuts through pervasive stereotypes in a NPOV manner – or images of tribal flags. Presenting an image in the infobox does not impede readers' ability to quickly glean basic facts from the infobox. If anyone would care to eliminate, montages of photos, I could support that. -Uyvsdi (talk) 22:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Perhaps we could establish some guidelines for how to choose pictures for the infobox. Such as for example a source mentioning the persons included as being representative of the group. I.e. not just selfidentification but mutual identification between group and individual. (although this would mean that "ordinary folks" might not go in infoboxes) or that pictures should attempto to statistically representative of the population. I think definitely that we should have a guidelines say that for notable living persons a source of identification as a group member is essential. I don't know how to get around the problem of photos of ordinary folks from whom it will of course be impossible to find a source of identification.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
In the articles about small Amazonian groups, especially uncontacted peoples, perhaps no one in the group could be considered "notable" by WP standards. I don't think that should prevent their inclusion. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Neither do I as I have argued. But how to balance the infoboxes between "notables" of doubtful representativeness and ordinary folks is a problem.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Editing The Akha People and in need of some tips.....

I am currently working on improving the stub article for the Akha people. I was wondering if this group might be able to give me some pointers on where I could find some quality information about these people. Many of the websites I visit seem to be poorly written(or translated) and I was hoping to just get some pointers on where to find information and images.--Lric9 (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Question

What is the general standpoint on the use of the "-oid" terms in articles describing modern peoples? I am currently engaged in a dispute with a Slovene IP at Tatars, who would like to include information regarding the "North" and "South Caucasoid" (1 result for each N S on JSTOR), "Mongoloid", and "Lapponoid" (13 results) faces of the group. It is my understanding that most experts outside of forensic anthropology have discarded such terminology; as such, it should not be used in articles. I removed the information as being grossly outdated and borderline racist, but the IP has been persistent in re-adding it, with the near-meaningless statement of "re-adding anthropology facts" being the only reasoning given. I will admit up-front that I have been curt and caustic in my minimal dealings with this user; I personally regard such terms as discredited trash and have low tolerance for their serious use. A third-party opinion from someone here would be appreciated. (I have posted this to all Wikiprojects listed at Talk:Race (classification of humans) to generate more discussion) ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I would encourage very strongly not to use them as they are now only in use within Forensic anthropology (and other branches of American lawenforcement) - but not in physical nor cultural anthropology - and they have index a pre-scientific understanding of human biological variation. If you need to refer specifically to physical traits characteristic of European (or other) populations I'd use that wording. Or if it is a question of origin you may be able to find population genetic studies that mention the prevalent haplogroups. These would be the contemporary ways of describing genetic ancestry - the -oid suffixes went out around 1950.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
That's my take on the matter as well. However, the anon does not agree. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Canadians

Looking for input at the Canadians article. Question is does the article need an etymology section. Pls see Talk:Canadians#Etymology.Moxy (talk) 06:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

"Importance scale"

Why is the article "White People" of High Importance while the "Black People" article is of Medium Importance?

There are almost as many Blacks in this world as there are Whites so I suggest we change them both to Medium Importance or to High Importance.

--85.165.215.245 (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Have changed the importance. -Uyvsdi (talk) 06:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Started the Ainu Task Force

File:Flag of the Ainu people.png

For those interested, WikiProject Japan has agreed to host the Ainu task force, so for any Ethnology enthusiast interested in the indigenous peoples of northern Japan and the edge of the Russian Far East, come give it a look! MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Plurals for names of peoples

I have posted a call for discussion at WT:PLURAL concerning a guideline on the use of plural titles for articles on peoples (nationalities, ethnic groups, &c.) which are currently almost always titled in the plural (e.g., Anglo-Saxons, Ukrainians) or with an adjective plus the plural "people" (Manchu people, Fur people). If you care, please feel free to discuss the issue there. —  AjaxSmack  02:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Montages of notable persons in infobox

I would like to revive the discussion here which was archived without a discussion summary. I am wondering whether any consensus had been actually reached in this issue. We need a clear policy regarding the inclusion of of montages (either as a single image file or as a collection of individual image files) in ethnic group articles. Most importantly, such a policy should be universal, i.e., something that all ethnic articles are obliged to abide by. I am concerned because there is an apparent discrimination from certain editors towards articles on Indian ethnic groups. My question is, if British people can have it, why can't Saint Thomas Christians? --InarZan Verifiable 02:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know the particular circumstances, but there is a policy distinction between making assertions regarding ethnicity or nationality, which only require a reliable source, and assertions regarding faith, which require a reliably-sourced self-identification as belonging to that faith. Personally, I'd like to see such montages done away with anyway, as subjective and unencyclopaedic, but that is another matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
More