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

We need more voices over at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Speedy#Opposed_nominations for a discussion of hyphenation for several ethnic-American literature categories, following the recent mass hyphenation of African-American and Asian-American categories. Thanks. Aristophanes68 (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I'd like to bring your attention to the recent debate at Talk:Turks. "Turks" has been a redirect to "Turkish people" but there is a minor edit war/debate as to whether it should direct there or redirect to the "Turk" disambiguation instead. I for one believe that "Turks" should redirect to the "Turkish people" and that the disambiguation of "Turk" is sufficent. My main reason for this is that most offical censuses, including that of Turkic nations, refer to the Turkish people as "Turks" within their data. Turco85 (Talk) 17:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Filipino American#Lack of images. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to visit the article's talk page and comment on inclusion criteria. Zepppep (talk) 09:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a discussion Talk:Steeler_Nation#Hillbilly_and_Appalachia_references. referencing an area of Appalachia as "hillbilly" and "white trash" (not my words) based on a free publication citation, also stating that the fanbase (not the team or the team's city) is the sole Applachian fanbase. Please add your insight. Thank you. Marketdiamond MarketDiamond 23:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I am sure this is not the first time this question has come up here, but does this project claim any sort of oversight on categories such as Category:American expatriates in Sweden, Category:People of Moroccan descent and Category:Italian emigrants to Brazil? I ask because I am looking for existing standards on these categories. I am mostly an editor for the various basketball projects, and players commonly move across borders so these types of categories are used a lot. Lately I have noticed some category heirarchy that doesn't make sense to me. For example, in the case of the American expatriates in Sweden category, it is a sub-category of Category:Swedish people of American descent. That does not seem correct to me - an American expatriate by definition is not a "Swedish person." This structure seems to exist for many of these categories. My other question is about categories like "People of Moroccan descent." What has prompted me to ask for clarity is that this category has caused a minor edit war on Mike Flynn (basketball). This is the case of an American citizen born to American parents in Casablanca. I would think he wouldn't qualify for "of Moroccan descent" just because he happened to be born there, but would prefer to follow an existing standard and be able to put this to rest. Can anyone here help me? Am I in the right place to bring these things? I also posed this to Wikiproject International Relations, Wikiproject Sociology, and Wikiproject: Globalization. Rikster2 (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

As a part of a class assignment, Rbm7 and Michelle Rice propose to revise the page Ethnic enclave under it's section specifying ethnic enclaves in the United States. The page itself is in need of much revision and so we invite you to join us in the improvement of the various sections on this page. We are focusing on the section entitled Ethnic enclaves in the United States because most of the sources we plan to use are based on research and data collected in the United States. Our revision would address assimilation, mobility, modes of incorporation (economic, social/civil, and political) and the enclave debate. We plan to incorporate scholarly research from well-known Sociologists involved in this discourse, including Alejandro Portes, Douglas Massey, Cecilia Menjivar, George Borjas and Ruben Rumbaut. Our contribution will be abundant in theory and provide a comprehensive explanation of what scholars have already found on this topic. Our contribution will not include any new data or suggestions and will remain unbiased to our best ability. Our objective, being to improve the quality of this article and Wikipedia scholarly articles in general, implies that we are open to suggestions and comments. The current information available on Wikipedia related to ethnic enclaves in the US is scarce and poorly informed, so through these revisions, we hope to offer more well informed, easy to understand information on the topic. Ethnic enclaves impact varying and diverse aspects of their surroundings, and as such deserve the focus and attention of this article. By connecting issues such as assimilation, mobility and modes of incorporation we hope to convey the importance of and complicated nature of ethnic enclaves. For a more detailed summary of our proposed contribution please refer to the Ethnic enclave talk tab. Please check back with the page as we will be starting edits shortly. (Michelle Rice) 05:49, 03 October 2012

Think it may be best to move the section on the USA to Ethnic enclaves in the United States if your planing to greatly expanding it.Moxy (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian American#Infobox ethnicity representatives. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, my name is Saima Toppa and I am student at Rice University. As part of a Wikipedia course assignment for a Sociology course entitled, "Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities," I will be making substantial edits to the Black Middle Class Wikipedia page. I would love feedback on my edits to the page in the next couple of weeks as I believe the mission of Wikiproject Ethnic Groups directly aligns with the topic I am studying. This group connects most directly to identifying groups whose members share a common history or culture. The legacy of the transatlantic slave trade and the persistence of contemporary discrimination in the United States render this WikiProject useful to my Wikipedia page.

Very briefly, the current article on “Black Middle Class” offers a sparse examination of literature on black mobility. I will preface the article with a definition of who precisely constitutes the “black middle class,” noting certain metrics such as education, wealth, home ownership, income, and occupation. Then, I will add a section on the history of the black middle class in the United States. I will also explain how certain government policies, particularly those implemented after the Civil Rights Era, allowed more blacks to obtain middle-class status.

Furthermore, I will add a detailed and comprehensive section on the social characteristics of the black middle class. My motive in this section is to illustrate how precisely black middle class experience differs from the white middle class through looking at shifts in family patterns, residential environment, and wealth. In one sub-section, I will focus on one realm of the black middle class experience—the neighborhood context—and investigate how racial segregation, shifting economic structures, and disproportionate black poverty affect the quality of life for the black middle class. I plan to use scholarly resources to explain why despite modest increases in wealth, societal and institutional factors constrain African American success.

Please provide me with feedback so the quality of this article can be further enriched! Thank you! saimatoppa —Preceding undated comment added 17:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Portal:Society is now up for portal peer review, the review page is at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Society/archive1. I've put a bit of effort into this as part of a featured portal drive related to portals linked from the top-right corner of the Main Page, and feedback would be appreciated prior to featured portal candidacy. Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 02:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian American#Selection nominations. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a problematic category. As we know, ethnicity may mean several things including culture, language, and ancestry. Ancestry of Turkish people seems to be primarily Ancient Anatolians according to several studies, so I put that in the ethnic relatedness part of the infobox [1]. User:Mttll, however, insists we should only include Turkic people there. I think if Turkic people is going to be there, so should Anatolians OR the entire thing should be left blank. Anyone care to comment? The issue is being discussed here: Talk:Turkish_people#The_Infobox Cavann (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I insist on including other Turkic peoples only, because that's what the sources say about Turkish people. User:Cavann quotes sources that say Turks are genetically related to peoples despite not being not ethnically related and then draws an WP:OR conclusion that this genetic relation leads an ethnic relation as well in spite of the fact that the very sources he presents explicitly states otherwise. --Mttll (talk) 09:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

This source is not only about genetic studies [Yardumian, A., & Schurr, T. G. (2011). Who Are the Anatolian Turks?. Anthropology & Archeology Of Eurasia, 50(1), 6-42. doi:10.2753/AAE1061-1959500101]. You were provided the abstract before [2], if you cannot read, this is your problem. And no source I cited "explicitly states otherwise." Cavann (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they do: --Mttll (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Due to its long-term geographic position as gateway between Europe and Asia, the genetic constitution of Anatolia is highly complex. In spite of its overwhelming diversity, most citizens of the Republic of Turkey are first language Turkish-speakers and consider themselves ethnic Turks.

The present results suggest a common ancestry of all Balkan populations, including Aromuns, with a lack of correlation between genetic differentiation and language or ethnicity, stressing that no major migration barriers have existed in the making of the complex Balkan human puzzle.

I do not understand why you bolded the parts you did, doesn't make sense. Yes most people in Turkey are ethnic Turks, duh. And in the second, it says that even though people may be from different ethnicities, they may have common ancestry. No one suggested Turkish ethnicity is the same as some Balkan ethnicity. Ethnically related does not mean ethnically same. Cavann (talk) 07:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Once again, the source clearly say genetic relations are in contrast with ethnicity and language. And the published sources one can find in Google Books and Google Scholar identify Azeris, Kazakhs, Tatars, Uyghurs; in short, other Turkic people, as ethnically related groups to Turkish people, but never Hittites or Serbs. Your case is WP:OR. --Mttll (talk) 13:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

No it's saying just because they have similar genes does not mean they have the SAME ethnicity. As I said ethnically related does not mean ethnically same. Cavann (talk) 03:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Portal:Society

I've nominated Portal:Society for featured portal candidacy, discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Society. Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian American#Representative approval. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Americans#Black and African Americans. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Recently in a conversation it was pointed out to me that "Jews" are not indigenous to the Eastern Mediterranean/West Asia based on a Wikipedia article.
After having a look, and reading the proceeding talk page discussion I realised there was something wrong with the entire subject, and which I proceeded to correct.

In the first place the talk page discussion somehow evolved into the "if Jews are included, so must be the Palestinians". Since when is the indigenousness of one ethnicity conditioned on the indigenousness of another ethnicity?

In the second place the term "Jews" is not the ethnic/cultural self-identification of the ethnic population. In this case the term for the people is Yisrael, rendered into English as Israel, not unsurprisingly synonymous with the modern state. Moreover, most of the ethnicity population regardless of their residence in Israel or the extensive "Jewish" diaspora over two millennia refer to themselves as Yisrael (Levi and Kohen excepted), and have done so since before the creation of the Kingdom of Judah. For reasons unexplained anywhere, the English academia have chosen to refer to the historical Yisrael as Israelites (ancient history), Hebrews (medieval history) and Jews (early-modern and modern history) and Israelis since 1947.

After editing the list to reflect the name Israelites as IMHO the most suitable English rendering of the plural Yisrael (which seems to be singular and plural use in Ivrit as Am Yisrael), I was immediatelly reverted despite providing required references! The reasons eventually created for the repeated reversions were:

• Israelites are different to modern "Jews"
• Israelites don't fit the Wikipedia definition of indigenousness, though there doesn't appear to be a single universally accepted definition
• Israelites are only acceptable if Palestinians are included; I included Arabs in my original edit in place of Bedouin who by their nomadic lifestyles can not be considered indigenous to anywhere outside the Arabian Peninsula
• Because there is an 'edit war' although only one editor was reverting my edits, I have never reverted his though one other editor has, and in one case where I engaged in discussion on that editor's talk page (User:Nishidani), the entire discussion was deleted without reply
• Because genetic evidence is lacking, although no other ethnicity in the World requires genetic evidence to substantiate indigenousness, and certainly not for an ethno-religious group that allows inclusion of individuals based on practice of traditional culture, for example Native American tribes

I am not an ethnographer or anthropologist, and in coming to edit the article did not intend to become engaged in such a duplicitous "discussion" so devoid of reason, logic and so biased in political views.

I'm seeking the participation of the project members to put this issue right. Crock81 (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian American#Cambodian American infobox representative run-off. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a lively discussion about what it means to be an indigenous people, and how wikipedia should define it, at Talk:Indigenous peoples.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Er...I think Maunus meant to say, how Wikipedia should reflect the sources on the subject Crock81 (talk) 07:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, all wikipedia articles define their topic in the very first sentence. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, you are ill-informed Crock81 (talk) 12:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I am exactly as ill-informed as our Manual of Style. You on the other hand are taking "ill-informed" to entirely new levels.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

We've run into a snag with ethnic labels at the FAN for the Maus article.

In Maus, there are three major ethnicities to which animal metaphors have been assigned: "Germans" as cats, "Jews" as mice, and "Poles" as pigs. The main character is a Jewish Pole, and is represented as a mouse. Since he was also a Polish national, it was suggested that "Poles" be qualified, and I changed it to "ethnic Poles". MarchOrDie changed it to "non-Jewish Poles", pointing out that "ethnicity" is a sticky subject, and that that stickiness is in fact one of the major themes of the book. I can't disagree, but at the same to, doing so seems to me to require qualifying every other "ethnicity" in the article: "Non-Jewish Germans", "Non-Jewish Americans" (all non-Jewish Americans are depicted as dogs, regardless of other "ethnicity"), "Jewish Israelis", etc....which would be a chore to read.

Would anyone like to chime in on this? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 23:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I would advice to do what sources that describe the comic do, instead of agonizing over making the least problematic of a series of problematic choices.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The souces use "Poles", but MarchOrDie argues that Wikipedia should be held to a higher standard. In his/her words: "I think this is important; Wikipedia should try to follow the sources but at the same time we are bound by policy constraints that an exernal source may not be. This is an important and sensitive one, and it's worth getting right."

It would be helpful if you could inject your opinion over at the FAN. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 23:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Wikiproject Ethnic groups! This translation of the New Testament is in Sorbian language? Doncsecz^talk 10:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. The language has only about 25,000 speakers. Maybe ask one of the editors with a Sorbian language userbox, if one of them is still active. See Category:User_templates_dsb and Category:User_templates_hsb, pick one of the templates and use "What links here" from the toolbox on the left hand side. Hans Adler 18:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Apparently it's Czech. It's essentially the same text as in the 16th century Moravian Bible of Kralice (online here). This version was printed in Bratislava in 1814 though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The article Min Chinese people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was moved from Min peoples (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) on 24 December 2012. The article that replaced it at "Min peoples", was moved to Mountain Ok people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) on 7 January 2013. Someone might want to verify links -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 07:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

There is currently a quite heated discussion at Talk:Germans about whether to exclude Marx and Einstein from the photo-collage in the inforbox for Germans. This has raised the question on how Germans should be defined in the article. Please join the discussion if you you have an informed opinion or something else of value to add to it. With regards, Iselilja (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Americans#Country names in infobox. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that the article Talk:Pashtun_people describes the Pashtun people as a "high-importance" ethnic group, while Talk:Ainu people describes the Ainu as a "top-importance" ethnic group. Is it possible determine the relative importance of various ethnic groups without imparting a cultural bias to each article? Jarble (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Importance in this case refers to the article, not the subject of the article. Just some clarification, for what that's worth – it's still entirely possible to reflect some bias. Based on this explanation, both articles should be "Top "High" importance. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

In general, should all main articles about ethnic groups (such as Americans, Japanese people, Uyghurs, etc.) be rated as high-importance, to avoid a disparity between the "importance" rankings of different ethnic groups? I noticed another disparity in ranking: the article about Japanese people was rated as "high-importance", while the article about Uyghurs was rated as "mid-importance". Jarble (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I also noticed that a few ethnic groups have been rated as "low-importance" by WikiProject Ethnic Groups: these include Bedouins, Cantonese people, and Enets people. Why are these articles being described as "low-importance"? I'm concerned that this "low-importance" ranking might reflect some kind of prejudice against these specific ethnic groups. Jarble (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Based on the "Importance scale" explanation, you are correct, any article about an ethnic group should be rated as "high" importance. Lower importance ratings may or may not be due to bias – I'm guessing a lot of people haven't seen that Importance scale, and the importance was grandfathered in from one of the other projects. I'd suggest fixing these as you come across them, though it sounds like a job for a WP:BOT (if the 'bot could was somehow able to distinguish the article content). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Wait a sec here - not every article about an ethnic groups should be rated as "high" importance. Only those that are overviews that lead to other articles. i.e Aboriginal peoples in Canada would be high - but its sub article like Aboriginal peoples in Northern Canada would not be (its a subaticle). Why because its a sub article of the first - ever article in the project scope would be rated high if we rated all ethnic type pages has high (its a project only about ethnic groups) . Pls take the time to see if the article is a main jumping off point to other articles before rating it high.--Moxy (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in. The importance scale defines "high" as "all actual ethnic groups and similar entities and articles on the history of any ethnic group within a particular country or region" which, as I read it, would include Aboriginal peoples in Northern Canada. If we shouldn't do it that way, that's fine, but that's what the instructions currently say. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I've stopped for now in any case – way too many of these to go through. Would you agree that, for example, Talk:Abazins should have been "high" based on the importance scale? It was under "Low". -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

We need to fix the importance scale - I did not see that before - I think that is way off no way Canadians and its sub-sub-article Asian Canadian should be the same rating. There is no doubt in my mind that overview articles are much more important then sub articles. i.e

• List of ethnic groups (Top) even though it looks horrible
• Polish – Slavic people (high)
  • Demographics of Poland (mid)
  • Ethnic minorities in Poland (mid)
  • Polish American (mid)
  • Polish Australian (mid)
  • Polish Argentine (mid)
• Polish diaspora (high)
  • Poles in Azerbaijan (mid)

Moxy (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

@Jarble and others - the thing to remember is that the banner is not about the "importance" of the ethnic group, but the priority of the article for improvement. In fact, given the potential sensitivities involved here the project might want to change the banner to replace importance with priority, as WP Biography have done. As for how to take some of the emotion out of assigning these priorities, remember that you are here to serve the reader above all else. I've found that readership statistics correlate surprisingly well with what several different WikiProjects reckon is the subjective importance of articles. The boundary between Low and Mid is about 300 pageviews/month, the boundaries between Mid and High is about 3000 pageviews/month, and Top/High is about 15000 pageviews. I know this sounds arbitrary in theory but it really does seem to work in practice and given the potential sensitivity of this topic it might be good to use a less subjective method to assess priority. Obviously it's not perfect as we live in a world where more people want to know about the Klingons than about the Ainu but what I've found works is to use pageviews as a first cut and then manually tweak importances down by no more than one category if they're inflated by topicality or popular culture; conversely "overview" articles are more of a priority for improvement than their pageviews would suggest, so they often go up one level. I have a bot that semi-automates the assessment process but it needs quite a lot of my time to oversee it and that's one thing I don't have a lot of just now; feel free to give me a prod if I've not got round to doing anything in the next month or three.... FlagSteward (talk) 15:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The name of Belgian Dutch dialects is up for discussion, see talk:Belgian Dutch dialects -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It's proposed to rename Category:Aruban people, Category:Curaçao people and Category:Sint Maarten people - see the discussion here. Le Deluge (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi there,

I have recently come across 78.150.178.151 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). This IP is editing a number of pages associated with Jat people and Balochistan. The edits often seem to be about tribal affiliations. The edits don't seem to be totally vandalism, although some of them come close and I notice ClueBot NG has reverted one on them.

I have reverted a few of the edits but some of them may have value in them. It may be worth someone with an understanding of ethnic groups going over some of the edits and working out what the IP is getting at.

Yaris678 (talk) 05:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I think Template:Ethnic slurs is useless and should be removed. Please join the discussion at its talk page. --91.10.13.118 (talk) 10:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

An editor is posting Aryan race theory material as fact at the Kashmiri Pandit article. As far as I'm aware this is an outdated and discredited theory. They have provided sources but the ones I can check look pretty dubious. They are not happy with my rationale for removing their material and have also been removing cited material which presumably doesn't fit with their views. Can someone better versed in the topic take a look and some action if warranted? Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Could you find Number of yao, dong and yi people by county of PRC like there: Miao_people#By_county ?--Kaiyr (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Filipino American#Malay or Austronesians?. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I've noticed this on two pages, there may be more but I don't have as much time to edit/watch pages as I used to. Somebody changed the infobox numbers of Thai people to reflect only citizens of Thailand. I also found the same issue on Khmer people. The problem is that these are pages about the ethnicities, not the nationalities. For example, not all citizens of Thailand are Thai and not all Thai people are citizens of Thailand. Furthermore, many (if not most) ethnic groups have no nation state at all, making consistency across all ethnic group infoboxes impossible. Having numbers of citizens of "country x" in an ethnic group infobox is not only inaccurate but can be grossly misleading. In the absence of reliable sources for population numbers, no number at all would be preferable. Hopefully somebody can look into this or sort it out, I wish I had the time.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 18:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

There is some edit warring going on in this articles: Galician people, Valencian people, Catalan people. Some of them deleting the words "ethnic group", others reverting... Maybe experts could help clarifying and referencing. --83.213.59.145 (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

File:NativeHawaiianGroup1890.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 08:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

image:AjmanMen-Arabia.jpeg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 07:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Asian Americans#Asian American interracial trope. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

See Talk:Anglo-African#Proposed move to British in Africa. Helen (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. We're having a discussion on the fate of Horrible Histories TV show at: Horrible Histories (2009 TV series)#Moving on. As a relevant Wikiproject, we would greatly appreciate it if you would voice your opinion on the talk page, or to have a crack at editing and improving it. Thankyou for your time. :)--Coin945 (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

A requested move is ongoing at Va people, which aims to move the page to the more conventional spelling, "Wa people". Please comment there. RGloucester (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Because of the CFD on Category:Squamish people, which is about the ethnic group, rather than "people who are Skwxwu7mesh]], which created/renamed a category now anomalous within Canadian FN categories and articles, I've started a list/discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Indigenous_peoples_of_North_America/Name_issues#FOO_people_issues. The Squamish CfR was rooted in a questionable RM where the argument was made because other articles were "FOO people" then that should apply there, with the native name rejected "because it's not English". The further problem in the case of that "FOO" is that Squamish's primary meaning and usage is Squamish, British Columbia.Skookum1 (talk) 04:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I hear lots of talk about consistency in Wikipedia, and that was the rationale used for adding "people" to scads of FN and NA articles which did not need that and where other "FOO people" articles in the same categories are primarily "people who are FOO". I advocated removing/reverting the "people" from the ethnic group articles, and revisiting that guideline because of the namespace collision that results in similar category names with different contexts, and/or which can be confused with other meanings of FOO in many cases. Blind application of the "people" rule in combination with the "category name must match the main article name" guideline (it's not a rule, it's interesting how the exceptions are never taken into account when imposing that, nor the conflicted meanings as with Squamish) is resulting in a confused situation, e.g. re those in Category:First Nations in British Columbia, all the Category:Sto:lo, Category:Nisga'a, Category:Ktunaxa would "have" to become Category:Sto:lo people, Category:Nisga'a people, and Category:Ktunaxa people - all of which currently exist for "people who are Sto:lo/Nisga'a/Ktunaxa. The easier and common sense solution is to revert the main articles (nearly all of which were speedied without discussion, often by a particular editor who IMO has gone rogue) to "FOO" from "FOO people" so that the articles match the categories, as was originally the case before the mass imposition of "FOO people" name-format upon "articles that formerly were just 'FOO'".Skookum1 (talk) 04:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

See talk: Jewish question and talk: Armenian Question about "question" casing -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to perpetuate an edit war, so I'm inviting a third opinion regarding Template talk:Ethnic groups in Croatia. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

See talk:Sze Yup about a Mandarin Pinyin, Mandarin Wade-Giles, Cantonese transcription issue for naming the article. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I have updated Missing topics about Ethnic Groups - Skysmith (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello,
If you go back over the past week or 10 days, you'll find a lot of categories involving people with different ethnic descents (African-American, Chinese, Japanese, Hispanic, Indian, etc.) have been proposed for deletion, merging or renaming. I thought members of this WikiProject might want to register an opinion, pro or con. Here is the latest:

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 20#Category:African-American players of American football

..but if you look through Wikipedia:Categories for discussion for the past few weeks, you'll find a lot more that have been nominated. I look forward to your participation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm considering looking at Ethnic groups of Canada, but would like some help, and this project seems inactive, anyone able to help? --Donagluithan (talk) 11:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Eskimo.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I see that Baltic Germans has been added to this project. The Baltic Germans were not an ethnic group, more of a social group, being educated traders. As the article says, "It should be noted that in the course of their 700 year history, Baltic German families often had not only ethnic German roots, but also mixed with peoples of non-German origin, such as native Estonians, Livonians and Latvians, as well as with Danes, Swedes, English, Scots, Poles, Dutch, Hungarians." Maproom (talk) 13:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

"Ethnic" does not imply a homogeneous origin. An ethnic group is "a socially defined category of people who identify with each other based on a shared social experience". As a social group they still qualify, though the lever of intermarriages in the group should probably be mentioned. Dimadick (talk) 09:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

As a result of this article blanking and restore I have added an Ethnic groups project tag to this article. Is there a sub- workgroup related to Asia? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I have proposed a move/renaming from Bushmen to San people following a clean up and expansion of Bushmen#Ethnic nomenclature. Please participate in the discussion so we can resolve this long-standing name issue. HelenOnline 07:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Please submit your comments regarding on-going discussions at Talk:Latin_peoples 79.117.160.159 (talk) 11:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there a reason why we don't have categories and article son this subject? FunkMonk (talk) 07:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a moverequest for a number of articles on Native American ethnic groups, proposing to move them from "Foo people" to just "Foo" here. And another one here User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

All of those discussions are centralized at Talk:Chipewyan people#Requested move; because of the 30-title limit on bulk RMs, there wound up being four groups of them, with other listings of the other 90 articles at Talk:Cayuga people#Requested move, Talk:Yaquina people#Requested move, and Talk:Yupik peoples#Requested move. All twelve Canadian provincial and territorial ethno-article categories and about seven US state categories containing titles having the problems which these bulk RMs are intended to address, towards a usable guideline, instead of willy-nilly application of differing guidelines and false claims of PRIMARYTOPIC. Conflict with the usual meaning of "FOO people" meaning "individuals who are FOO" is a problem best resolved per WP:UCN re conciseness/brevity of titling is to make them simply "FOO" (rather than use a confusing designation). "Established practice across all ethno articles" was falsely claimed, as this is demonstrably not the case e.g. Cree. If "people" has been needlessly added to ethnic group titles in Africa, Australia or wherever where disambiguation was never needed, why that was done is up to question, as also by who, as around 90% of the items in these RMs (if not more, as may well be the case) were done, without consensus or procedure of any kind, by in the case of the North American articles on editor acting alone (an editor who is not known for ever admitting he was wrong in doing something, and bitterly fought back against five related RMs last year, all of which produced "FOO" (where FOO=native endonym) as the result. Established practice that ignored consensus, and whose proponents don't even acknowledge such titles as existing ("established practice across ALL etnno articles" is a quote from the above editor's post at Talk:Chipewyan people#Requested move and, as usual, is not just misleading but blatantly false.Skookum1 (talk) 19:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

There is a discussion going on right now at WP:Categories for discussion that involves changing the category names for all cultures, from, for example, "Afghan society" to "Society of Afghanistan". I can see that next will be changing "German culture" to "Culture of Germany" and the like. This would be for all ethnicities, nationalities and cultures.
If you would like to weigh in, the conversation is occurring at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 March 27#Society by country. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The usage of Taku (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk: Taku people -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 09:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

also Talk:Tlingit people, Talk:Tsimshian people, Talk:Tagish people and others still open. Tahltan, Kaska Dena, Nisga'a, Gitxsan and many more have already been moved to without-people titles, though in this case the Taku River - not really an ambiguity elegible as a disambiguation for Taku - might get more hits in view results; but it is not the same title so not a candidate for PRIMARYTOPIC.Skookum1 (talk) 09:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List_of_people_of_African-American_and_Native_American_admixture#Requested_move. Thanks. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Your comments on the requested move of the article Greater Romania are welcome here. Borsoka (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Some extra opinions are needed at Template_talk:Pan-nationalist_concepts. Avpop (talk) 13:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone want to start dedicated articles on ethnic groups in Montreal? I posted possible book sources here: Demographics_of_Montreal#Further_reading WhisperToMe (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Black billionaires (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been proposed to be renamed to African billionaires (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), for the discussion, see talk:Black billionaires -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:People by ethnic or national origin has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. 068129201223129O9598127 (talk) 10:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:People by ethnic or national descent by continent has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. 068129201223129O9598127 (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I have started a page at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Ethnic groups/Encyclopedic articles listing the articles and named subarticles in a reference work which may be useful, particularly as I was told named subarticles can be used in at least some cases as one of the indicators of notability.John Carter (talk) 15:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Americans#Poll Secondplanet (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Several editors are arguing over what the first line of African American should consist of. As per custom, the first line is the definition. See the discussion at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African_American#Antebellum.3F

Thanks. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I started a pair of articles about Indo-Canadians:

• Indo-Canadians in Greater Vancouver
• Indo-Canadians in British Columbia

I started them separately because there is a large amount of literature that directly addresses Indo-Canadians in British Columbia and there is also a large amount of literature that directly addresses Indo-Canadians in the Vancouver region (in particular the cities of Vancouver and Surrey).

One Wikipedian argued that I should not have started the articles separately because he feels that the Indo-Canadian community in Vancouver is so closely tied to that of the entire province that they should not be regarded as separate. I started the province-wide article anyway because, with the amount of literature existing, I felt it was very obvious that separate articles should exist for both concepts. There is precedent for city-wide ethnicity articles from three AFD cases (one being Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irish Americans in New York City back in 2007), and I was involved in two of them: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Hmong in Merced, California, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Armenian Americans in Los Angeles. Knowing the precedent, I believed the best way to remedy the situation is to immediately create the separate provincial article (the metro area article came first) and build it up to demonstrate that there should be two separate articles: one focused on the province, one focused on the city.

However I do want the community's input on how/in which ways these two articles should be differentiated. The idea is that the former focuses more on local politics, the local culture, local institutions, and local people, while the latter covers the entire province broadly and has some focus on Indo-Canadian communities not in the Vancouver region (in particular, Paldi, British Columbia). I'm certain it can be done (and I have some sources on order from WP:RX), but I would like to hear some input about it. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

RFC at: Talk:Indo-Canadians#Merge_discussion: Should Indo-Canadians in British Columbia and Indo-Canadians in Greater Vancouver be separate or should the latter be merged into the former?

Another question: Would it count as WP:SYNTH to have a dedicated article on the Indo-Canadian population of Metro Vancouver? (Vancouver, Surrey, and other Vancouver suburbs) WhisperToMe (talk) 06:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian American#Radical infobox changes. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:African American#Straw poll. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I have submitted a move request for Chinese_Canadians_in_British_Columbia to be moved to Chinese_Canadians_in_Greater Vancouver. Another Wikipedian believes it is improper to have ethnicity-based articles focusing on a city, so he moved Chinese_Canadians_in_Greater Vancouver (I created this article with the intention of focusing on the Chinese community in Vancouver) to Chinese_Canadians_in_British_Columbia. My move request is here: Talk:Chinese_Canadians_in_British_Columbia#Requested_move. You are welcome to discuss whether it is proper to have an article focusing on a Chinese ethnic population of a particular city or metro area, or whether there should only be such articles focusing on prefectures/provinces/states.

For full disclosure, both I and the Wikipedian who moved the page are together currently involved in an editing dispute regarding Indo-Canadians in Greater Vancouver and Indo-Canadians in British Columbia over whether the articles should remain separate or be combined together. You may see the pages of this dispute here:

• Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#If_you_make_articles_on_ethnic_Indian_populations_in_Canada.2C_be_sure_to_include_info_on_Air_India_182.27s_impact_on_the_community.
• Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#RFC:_Indo-Canadians_in_Greater_Vancouver
• Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Ethno-Canadian_article_merges
• Talk:Indo-Canadians
• Talk:Indo-Canadians_in_Greater_Vancouver
• Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Is_it_WP:SYNTH_to_make_an_article_on_the_Indo-Canadian_population_in_Greater_Vancouver_separate_from_that_of_the_Indo-Canadian_population_of_British_Columbia.3F
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_British_Columbia#RFC_on_Indo-Canadians_in_Vancouver
• Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources#About.com.3F

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

This notification is contrary to guidelines and includes editorializing which falls under WP:POLLING.Skookum1 (talk) 07:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:POLLING is about the collection of votes or deciding things by votes. The purpose of this message is to inform all interested parties by WikiProject. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Then I used the wrong wiki-cap title; WP:POLL maybe, the attempt to enlist sympathetic votes rather than simply stating the existence of the the discussion; your inclusion of the ancillary links is also a violation; for an admin, you sure aren't in habit of respecting things like that; not that lots of admins behave questionably.Skookum1 (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The article Cumandins states they are related to the Kachins. This is impossible as the Kachins are Tibeto-Burmese. Could someone please look into the matter...?04:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The article is about a medieval ethnic group dwelling in present-day Ukraine or Moldova. All comments here would be appreciated. Borsoka (talk) 05:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Should there be a Vancouver-centric split of Chinese Canadians in British Columbia?

See Talk:Chinese_Canadians_in_British_Columbia#Enough_sources_to_prove_standalone_notability_of_Vancouver_Chinese_and_do_an_article_split.3F WhisperToMe (talk) 05:34, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

All comments here would be appreciated. Thank you, Borsoka (talk) 12:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Melanesia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. There's a long-standing discussion that has just been revived about the education section of the Somalis in the United Kingdom article. I figured it might be a good idea to get some wider input, as the current content of the section isn't very satisfactory in my opinion. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

There's now a Request for Comments for this article, regarding alternative suggested wordings for additions to the article. Your input would be welcome! Cordless Larry (talk) 14:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The usage of the pagename Table of Nations is up for discussion, see talk:Sons of Noah -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 12:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi everybody. On behalf of the teams behind the Wikipedia Primary School research project, I would like to announce that the article Khoikhoi (of interest to this wikiproject) was selected a while ago to be reviewed by an external expert. We'd now like to ask interested editors to join our efforts and improve the article before March 15, 2015 (any timezone) as they see fit; a revision will be then sent to the designated expert for review (please see the article's talk page for details). Any notes and remarks written by the external expert will be made available on the article's talk page under a CC-BY-SA license as soon as possible, so that you can read them, discuss them and then decide if and how to use them. Please sign up here to let us know you're collaborating. Thanks a lot for your support! Elitre (WPS) (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion Talk:Greek Muslims#Requested move 24 February 2015 that needs additional input. The RM has just been relisted to allow for it. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The naming of Indigenous Aryans is under discussion, see talk:Indigenous Aryans -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The following OP has been multiply posted and my suggestion is that Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes) might act as a centralised location for related discussion.

Use of the pluralisation of a demonym where this is possible

A recent successful RM was made for the following:

• Azerbaijani people → Azerbaijanis
• Bahamian people → Bahamians
• Bangladeshi people → Bangladeshis
• Barbadian people → Barbadians
• Bolivian people → Bolivians
• Chilean people → Chileans
• Colombian people → Colombians

– And many similar articles which, on the same president, I would like moved - as would apply to all demonym based population describing articles in those cases those cases in which the plural form of the demonym differs from the singular form of the word.

(explanation was given)

As per: Albanians, Americans, Armenians, Australians, Austrians, List of Bahranis, Belarusians, Bosnians, Brazilians, Bulgarians, Lists of Cameroonians and Canadians, ...
As per WP:UCRN as demonstrated in searches ...

Designations that seemingly should remain as "... people" as the demonym retains the same form when indicating either singulars or plurals: Bhutanese people, British people and Chinese people,

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes)

On this basis I would suggest that any editor with authority to directly make sensible changes to article and category contents could go ahead and make sensible moves (as relevant to article content naturally).

I would say that this issue also relates to content in which two ethnicities are mentioned such that relating to Afghan American(s) and perhaps this will also need to be sorted out at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes).

I propose that the table on that project page might read as something like the following:

Peoples for which two nationalities/ethnicities/descents are referenced

In the case of people who are described by use of two national/ethnic descriptions I was interested to see the navigational content at: British Korean which reads as follow:

British Korean or Korean British may refer to:

• Koreans in the United Kingdom
• British people in North Korea
• British people in South Korea
• North Korea-United Kingdom relations
• South Korea-United Kingdom relations
• Eurasian (mixed ancestry) people of Korean and British descent

Mention of this content is also made at: Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board#What to do with articles for Britains with other nationalities, ethnicities and/or descents and, as potentially an example of good practice, I thought I would also present this content "here".

Again, this OP has been multiply posted and my suggestion is that Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes) might act as a centralised location for related discussion. This is by no means meant as a discouragement of location specific discussion.

GregKaye 11:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The usage and primary topic of Dominicans is under discussion, see Talk:Dominican people (Dominican Republic) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian American#Indian American in infobox. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

This editor is making a mass amount of moves of diaspora articles to immigration articles ..I dont think they understand the differences between the two. What can we do here to fix all these? This has come up before -- Moxy (talk) 04:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

They also seem to be creating completely unsourced articles such as Mexicans in Panama. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey all,

I've opened up an RfC to try and clarify some of the language around the inclusion of ethnicity or sexuality-related information in the lead sections of articles about people. Comments appreciated! Ironholds (talk) 04:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Two things:

1. If you have a lot of time and some strong coffee, the RfC on how to handle the section on the Native American heritage controversy is still ongoing, though kind of at a standstill, over at Talk:Elizabeth Warren#RfC Native American Ancestry Controversy section. I don't envy anyone trying to get up to speed if the issue is new to you, but we could really use some eyes on it that are familiar with issues of Native sovereignty and the differences between speculations about distant heritage and being listed as a "minority" based on those speculations (vs. Tribal citizenship). One concern of the minority viewpoint is that the issue of sovereignty (the reason the Cherokee were protesting) be touched on in some way, while the majority viewpoint is favoring leaving that out.

2. Any interest in a Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias task force on ethnicity/race? - CorbieV^☊☼ 20:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi CorbieVreccan. I'd support a systemic bias task force. There was some discussion of this at Talk:Somalis in the United Kingdom, where a number of editors were proposing a policy about systemic bias, although I don't think they ever took it beyond that talk page. I had the feeling at the time that they were just making the point to try to have material on khat use removed from that specific article. Nonetheless, I'd support a genuine attempt to address this issue. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The article Bamar people is subject to a requested move. Project members are invited to participate.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian American#Cambodian American in infobox. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

For "civilized" peoples, we use the article names "Foo people" (or "Foos") vs "Foo language", with "Foo" being a redirect to both. (E.g. French, German, Russian, Japanese, Korean, Malay.) But for "primitive" peoples, we are switching over to a pattern where we use the names "Foo" vs "Foo languge" (e.g. Twana, Bazigar, Khoikhoi, Noongar) despite agreement in our naming conventions that we should use the first pattern for everyone. Oddly, several editors concerned with the rights of native peoples have gotten extremely angry about treating them the same as "civilized" peoples, seeing that as racist, and have attempted to make a rigorous distinction between the two. IMO, all peoples should be treated the same, with case-by-case exceptions. Should we switch the naming conventions of "civilized" peoples to match that of "primitives", should we shut down the indigenous-rights editors, should we change our naming policies to officially reflect a distinction based on whatever it is it's supposed to be based on, or should we continue to allow the distinction to be our de facto policy while denying it? — kwami (talk) 17:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I think consistency is overrated. Also I don't think there is any actual connection between the naming pattern choice and "indigenous rights" editors. Those two issues are not related except they became part of the same dispute. Indigenous rights concerned editors tend to favor endonyms. The question of giving people articles primacy over language articles was a separate issue which I see mostly as motivated by personal animosity between one "indigenous rights editor" and some "indigenous languages" editors. I think the discussion you propose is unnecessary, we don't need to consistency or a single policy on this point. Phrasing it as a difference between "civilized/primitive" is of course not going to help having a meaningful discussion about this topic at all. Enough said. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The problem goes beyond using endonyms. It occurs even when we use the same name for the people and their language, as we do at Twana. — kwami (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

No it doesnt go beyond. They are two distinct issues altogether, which is why talking about "indigenous rights" and "civilized/primitive" is only muddying the waters and creating a position for yourself where you cannot expect to have a meaningful discussion anyways.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Then don't use those terms.

Of course it goes beyond. There is still a dispute about what the base name is used for. For European languages, it's a dab page. For Native American languages, it's the article on the people. That has nothing to do with whether we use the endonym. Now, our naming conventions say we should go with the former pattern. So, should we amend the naming conventions to reflect reality, should we move the articles to conform to the naming conventions, or should we continue with the status quo, which is basically a lie? — kwami (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

That is not how the world works. With your conflictive word choice you have effetcively made a rational discussion about this topic impossible. By using that framing you have muddied up your own personal disputes into the simple question of whether we want to use the "X + X language" or the "X people + X language" for all ethnic groups. But is is not going to be possible to have that discussion when you start by picking a fight with pretty much anyone who might have an opinion on the matter.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

So, you're saying you're incapable of rational debate if you don't like someone's word choice? Lovely. Personally, I don't much care which convention we go by, but I would like an honest account of whatever we decide, rather than claiming we do one thing when we actually do another. The combative wording, BTW, is because that's what this simple naming-convention discussion has repeatedly become. We might as well start with the ridiculous positions that have been taken, and hopefully reject them from the outset, so that we can discuss the issue without constantly reverting to them. — kwami (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

What in the name of heck are you talking about? What is a "civilised people"? I imagine the Germans must not be civilised, nor the Swedes, the Hungarians, the Czechs, the Poles, or the Finns. The basis for whether a term is plural or singular is a grammatical one, which is something that we cannot determine. That is something for reliable sources to do. RGloucester — ☎ 18:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Note the scare quotes, and you got the argument backwards. The grammatical plural only determines whether we can adopt "Foos" rather than "Foo people", but has nothing to do with whether we use "Foo people" or "Foo". — kwami (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The current situation is rather chaotic. At one point we had consensus to use "Foo people" (alternatively "Foos" in cases where it's grammatical) and "Foo language" as our default naming convention for ethnicities and their languages. Plain "Foo" would be a dab page. That's what our naming guidelines advocate. More recently we've had an editor or editors (I don't know how many) who have been moving the ethnicity articles to "Foo", using a hat note or "Foo (disambiguation)" for the dab. That's not unreasonable: Languages are dependent on people, and we don't usually want dab pages for just two articles, which is often the case here. On the other hand, someone looking up "French" is most likely looking for the language, not the people, and we have more complete coverage of languages than we do ethnicities, with some editors insisting that "Foo" must be the language article if there's no ethnicity article. So, which convention do we want to follow? Do we want the status quo, and revert recent moves back to "Foo people"? Do we want to expand the change, moving most "Foo people" articles to "Foo"? Do we want to update the naming guidelines to something like the current situation, saying we use "Foo people" and "Foo language" for Eurasia and Africa, but "Foo" and "Foo language" for (North) America and Australia? Update the guidelines to say the two conventions are in free variation, and we can use whichever we like (edit-warring or creating dozens of move requests when we disagree)? — kwami (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The good article reassessment of British Bangladeshi is going to be closed without anyone apart from me (who requested the reassessment) having commented, unless someone does so soon. Would anyone be able to take a look at the article and provide comments on how it measures up to the good article criteria? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hephthalite Empire to be moved to Hephthalites. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Sindhi people to be moved to Sindhis. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Bihari people to be moved to Biharis. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Pamiri people to be moved to Pamiris. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Dominican people (Dominican Republic) to be moved to Dominicans (Dominican Republic). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of ethnic minority politicians in the United Kingdom is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ethnic minority politicians in the United Kingdom until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The usage and primary topic of Dominicans is under discussion, see talk:People of the Dominican Republic -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The naming and topic of Algerian Arab is under discussion, see talk:Algerian Arab -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

FYI, there's an RFC going on at WP:VPR the Village Pump, concerning article naming for using "XYZ American" or "XYZ Americans" as the title of these ethnic articles -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

A discussion about the appropriate name for the Bulgarian Turks‎ article is taking place here. Input would be welcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

British Bangladeshi, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

There is a relisted RM discussion. Join in there for comments. --George Ho (talk) 00:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Viriditas (talk • contribs) 09:22, 28 May 2008‎

Category:Women by ethnicity is being considered for deletion. Anybody interested in commenting, can do so at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_4#Category:Women_by_ethnicity.

One of these articles is rated as "top-importance" within this project, while the other article is only rated as "low-importance". Should both of these articles be labeled as "high-importance", or should they be rated as "top-importance" instead? Jarble (talk)

Hello. The following requested move discussion would benefit from broader input: Talk:Turks in Bulgaria#Requested move 7 November 2015. Thanks in advance for your participation. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

There have been several back-and-forths at Yazidis to push either the idea that this people is a religious group within Kurds or the opposite one that they are a completely separate ethnic group. I think the existence of this diatribe can be inferred from the very lead sentence of the article.

Right now, I'm particularly worried about a single-purpose account repeatedly adding a picture (to Kurdification, too) that's apparently of herself holding a "Ezidi are not Kurds" sign. I think that falls very short of WP:SOAPBOX, and we don't even have any means to verify that the person in the picture is in fact Yazidi.

LjL (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I've seen that as well. I think that the present language in the lead that describes Yazidi's as Kurd AND as an ethnoreligious community is satisfactory. Any change to that should be supported by an unopinionated source. Which will be hard to get by. Also, Wikipedia doesn't get to decide the question at the top of this section. Neither does it have to. We are not a platform where people can establish their favorite "truths" and write them into stone. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Having read the lead better it doesn't say AND, but OR. I'm not sure if that's good. The controversy is explained, which is good, but the opening sentence could be improved. "Kurdish speaking (ethno)religious community"? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 02:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure the lead is very satisfactory, there must be a better way to reflect WP:Conflicting sources than to say "snow is white or black" (at least, last time I checked the page it said "or", not "and", otherwise it could just say "a Kurdish ethno-religious community"). Anyway, I don't have an answer to the question in this section's heading and I don't expect us to answer it for the article, but I don't think it's appropriate for a WP:SPA to push their opinion to the point of WP:SOAPBOXing with pictures of their personal political slogans. Since there has been a fair bit of this SPA on the article lately with little to contrast it, I brought it here. LjL (talk) 02:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Forgive me if this is in the wrong place, I do not know my way around Wikipedia and its protocols at all. I am alerting you to the fact that an article of interest to you (and you are marked as this article being relevant to you, in your case it is a 'top priority' article) is currently being debated for removal/merging. It is being argued (I believe wrongly) that the article is irrelevant and has no place in having its own page, so I do think someone from your group should keep an eye on the discussion on the talk page. They already merged the article today into another article without any discussion but I managed to get an admin to move it back again. Conversation has now started on the talk page and I think it is definitely something you will want to keep an eye on. Talk page here; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Semitic_people Taurusthecat (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Taurusthecat: It is OK (even recommended) to inform WikiProjects about discussions in their scope. But, the information has to be neutral. Notice about ongoing discussion that is not netral is considered a kind of WP:Canvassing. You are notice above is not neutral, as you call other editors to join discussion and also tell them which side in the discussion is "wrong". You should not make such canvassing notices in the future. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place at Talk:Somalis in the United Kingdom#Classifications about, amongst other things, the classification of Somalis in official British ethnicity classifications. Input would be welcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)