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.

I'm curious about anyone's insights into an article I created called Greeks in Omaha, Nebraska. I would like to hear any feedback about the broad notion of creating a series of articles similarly highlighting the identity and history of particular ethnic and racial groups with Omaha; namely, Native Americans, African Americans, Czechs, Irish, Germans, Italians, Scandinavians, Poles, Jews, Slovaks, Sudanese, Mexicans and Latinos. However, I have not been able to identify any other articles particularly addressed, so I am a little leary to be bold, and in doing so, be ignorant. Any considerations are appreciated. – – Freechild (Hey ya. | edits) 07:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I own a copy of the The Encyclopedia of New York City, and it has articles on 68 (!) ethnic groups in the city. And this is a respected specialist encyclopedia, and there is plenty of verifiable information on these topics. But I am aware there are some people who would consider such subjects not inherently notable.--Pharos 05:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Alas, the joy of WP, where notability is proven by reliable sources as well as popular opinion... As the links above show, I've begun this quest, and I hope anybody else will join in. What an awesome addition to WP! • Freechild'sup? 23:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I have recently created a template: ((Racism topics)). It is still not complete. Before it is added to any article, I would like it to be completed. If anyone would like to help, please do.--Sefringle^Talk 03:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

A newly registered user, Ericdep (talk · contribs), has been removing any indications that Alain Calmat, an inductee in the International Jewish Sports Hall of Fame, is Jewish, even going so far as to remove the redirect from Alain Calmanovich, his birth name. He claims to be acting in Calmat's interests, and claims that this information is hurtful. Assumedly, Calmat does not identify as Jewish. What to do?

I have also linked to this section from the WikiProject Judaism talk page --Eliyak T·C 15:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The 'International Jewish Sports Hall of Fame' says it allows anyone to submit an entry. I'm not sure that a sports institute is well placed to be a judge of someone's Jewishness.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI - The following lists & article have been nominated for AfD and the following categories nominated for discussion ....

LISTS:

List of Irish American writers (deletion discussion)
List of Iranian women (deletion discussion)

ARTICLES:

Quechua Wikipedia (deletion discussion)

CATEGORIES:

Category:Irish-American singers (upmerge discussion)
Category:Jewish American singers (upmerge discussion)
Category:Mexican American singers (upmerge discussion)
Category:Italian-American journalists(upmerge discussion)
Category:Irish-American journalists(upmerge discussion)
Category:African-American journalists(upmerge discussion)
Category:Asian American journalists(upmerge discussion)
Category:Jewish American journalists(upmerge discussion)
Category:Arab-American journalists (upmerge discussion)
Category:African American radio-TV personalities(upmerge discussion)
Category:African-American television anchors (upmerge discussion)
Category:Ethnic Newspapers published in Canada (merge discussion)
Category:Jewish American comedians (deletion discussion)
Category:Roman Catholic composers (deletion discussion)

.... in case anybody is interested. --Chicaneo 19:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The article called "History of eye color" was merged and redirect to Eye color, however, there was a substantial section on Peter Frost's theory that I left there. You can see what it said here. A similar discussion of his theory is in the article Blond. It seems more appropriate in an article on race or theories of how the races developed but I'm not sure if there is one, which is why I'm posting here. I'm also not sure if his theory is well-known or believed or what--there was some uncertainty of its legimitacy on the talk page. Tocharianne 21:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I posed the question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Evolutionary biology, but I poked around and came up empty-handed... it's looking kinda fringe-theory to me. Ling.Nut 23:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I've proposed merging Category:People by ethnic or national origin and Category:People by ethnic or national descent at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 18#Category:People by ethnic or national origin. These appear to be largely duplicated category schemes with only slightly different names. (Technically "origin" and "descent" aren't exactly the same thing, but they're very, very close.) I recommended merging both schemes into "descent" since descent is the slightly broader term. Please feel free to post comments and feedback there. Dugwiki 15:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

On a related note to the above merger thread, I noticed that there are certain categories under Category:People by nationality and occupation that were not actually sorted by nationality but rather by ethnic or national descent. The one I noticed first was subcategories of Category:Jews by occupation, where all of the things like Category:Jewish comedians and Category:Jewish writers were placed under nationality. However in this context "Jewish" was referring to the person's ethnic or national descent and not their nationality. Jackie Mason, for example, is of Jewish ethnic origin but his nationality is American.

Therefore I am looking to move these "occupation by ethnicity" category schemes under an appropriate subcategory of either Category:People by ethnic or national origin or Category:People by ethnic or national descent. I will need to wait, however, until the results of the above mentioned merger are established. Meanwhile, I'd love to hear feedback on what you folks would like in the way of a title for a category scheme for "Occupations by ethnic or national descent". Any suggestions or questions or thoughts? Dugwiki 15:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned at the Cfd, Category:People by ethnic or national origin collects all the categories of "Fooians by ethnic or national origin," i.e. those categories which deal with people of the same current nationality, while Category:People by ethnic or national descent collects all the categories of "People of Fooian descent," which group people by their original nationality. It is confusing, and perhaps one or both could use renaming, but I haven't a clue what to. At any rate, a Category:People by ethnicity and occupation or Category:People by occupation and ethnicity would go directly under Category:People by race or ethnicity, just as the nationality/occupation categories go directly in Category:People by nationality. --Eliyak T·C 07:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The "delete page regulars" are continuing to wreak havoc on our categorization system, with delete vote after delete vote. This is really getting ridiculous, as we've lost innumerable important and useful categories. Badagnani 07:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not looking to "Delete" the occupations by ethnicity categories. I'm just looking to move them from nationality parent categories to ethnicity parent categories. Hope that clarifies things for you. Dugwiki 14:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Aren't you proposing the deletion of categories like Category:Spanish-Americans and Category:American-Spaniards? --Eliyak T·C 22:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I never mentioned those specific categories. I proposed, in a separate cfd, that the two parent categories be merged, which would mean these two subcategories would both be moved to the same category. I didn't suggest that the subcategories themselves had to be merged or deleted one way or another - just the parent categories. Dugwiki 15:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. That cfd has little to do with the occupational category move I'm talking about in this thread. They're two separate topics. Dugwiki 15:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Badagnani was refering to that thread, though --Eliyak T·C 17:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then he posted his comment in the wrong place. This thread is for the other topic, not the cfd. Dugwiki 18:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Franks has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.--Peter Andersen 20:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

As per some discussions on the Austrian people talk page, it would appear that there is little historical precedent for considering the Austrians as a distinct ethnic group unto themselves. This concurs with what I am familiar with, but the question of how one ought to categorize the article still stands. So I'm looking for more opinions and perhaps a consensus on what historical and genealogical basis there is for classifying them as an ethnic group. W.M. O'Quinlan 23:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

According to The CIA World Fact Book, Ethnic groups in Austria: Austrians 91.1% etc. ^[1]--Termer 21:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Where does the CIA get it's information? Is it from the same sources that said there were Weapons of Mass destruction in Iraq? Seriously though, I think you might have dig deeper here. How does one characterize Danube Germans, who lived in the Austro-Hungarian Empire (and were hence Austrians) yet were always considered ethnic Germans and considered themselves as such. What about those in South Tyrol, who are German-speaking? I think Austrians are ethnically German, no? --Soulscanner 08:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

The Article on Germans doesn't list the 300000+ Austrian German speakers living in Italy.

I know this will make for a lot of work, but I think the scope of this project should be broadened by renaming it Ethnic, cultural and linguistic groups. I spend a lot of time editing the English-speaking Quebecer page, and found the template very useful. However, the English-speaking community in Quebec is not an ethnic group: it is a linguistic group whose ethnic composition changes rapidly because of large fluxes of immigration and outmigration. I suppose what they have in common is that these groups identities are based more on a shared language rather than the shared ancestry, religion, or history that would usually accompany such a group. Another such linguistic group would be Swedish-speaking Finns.

A bigger umbrella is needed here. --Soulscanner 08:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

All of this falls within the project scope (as do nationalities). I'm neutral on the idea of retitling the project accordingly. - Jmabel | Talk 06:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Point taken, Soulscanner, but I'm not sure it'd be necessary to alter the Project's name. The full scope of the project can clearly be spelled out on the project page and the project banner also, which should be sufficient identification. It would as you say be a bit of work to effect an all-round change. If you really wanted to do it, then I'd be neutral, but it seems easier and clearer to tidy up the scope statement and project description.--cjllw ʘ TALK 00:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

There has been a dispute going on between editors (mainly 2) regarding the content and article naming of

• List of Czech and Slovak Jews
• List of Czech, Bohemian, Moravian and Slovak Jews

If anyone from here feel like having a look at the situation it would be much appreciated. Pax:Vobiscum 09:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It has been years and this ethnic group which has a total population of at least 4 million still has not been rated. Can someone please rate it? Thanks. --Behnam 03:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've rated the article, and explained my rating. Hope that helps the editors. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 02:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The Persians are an ethnic group that number 45-54 million thus that article should be given some attention, at least it should be assessed. Can you someone please assess it at least? Thanks. --Behnam 05:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see if someone can rate the Nuristani people article and also help out with it or atleast clean it up and format it a little. Thanks. --Behnam 20:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it within the scope of this project? KarenAER 02:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I created a userbox for this project. It's here.Æetlr Creejl 17:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It may be of interest to some editors here that someone is again targeting 'List of foo-American' articles for deletion. See List of German Americans; List of Hmong Americans; List of Laotian Americans; List of Taiwanese Americans. Hmains 01:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

and now: Also, List of Russian Americans and List of Ukrainian Americans. People who do not like ethnic group identifications argue that 'List of foo Americans' articles should be deleted because categories are better and then turn around and argue that 'Foo Americans' categories should be deleted because lists are better. Hmains 22:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

and also List of Norwegian Americans, List of Swedish Americans, and List of Finnish Americans. List of English Americans is already gone unless someone asks for a reconsideration--it is is already being used as a precedent to argue for other deletions. Hmains 02:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

and see List of British Asian people for another overactive deletionist who is also doing bad faith edits: getting rid of all the red-linked people in the article so argument cannot be made that the article has useful info not otherwise found in WP. Hmains 02:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 31#List of Norwegian Americans. Badagnani 02:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

And see the deletion of List of Belgian Americans and List of Swiss Americans which were deleted by the same closer with the same fallacious logic used in deleting List of Norwegian Americans et al, as opposed to seeing the obvious lack of consensus. This is simply destroying WP information and wasting editors' time and interest in working here. Hmains 20:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC).

The category Category:"Related ethnic groups" needing confirmation which was created as a result of the earlier discussion (see above on this page) over the 'related ethnic groups' field in the ethnic gps infobox, had been nominated for deletion (here) on the basis that it was inappropriate for temporary maintenance categories such as this to appear on mainspace article pages. I closed the proposal as keep, as it is not actually against the groundrules (as far as I can see) to have cats like this under these circumstances, and also given that the deletion nomination was not notified to this board.

However, it probably should be considered to engineer the wikiproject's banner so that this project-related or initiated maintenance cat appears on talk pages not articles. Although conceived as being temporary in nature, I don't think anyone's planning anytime soon to go thru all of the articles which use the 'related ethnic groups' field and make a call on whether its use is problematic or not.

What say ye all to having this maintenance category moved to talk pages (via the addition of some code in the project banner)? It would involve amending the banner code, then possibly running the current cat's contents thru AWB to add the parm generating this cat to the project banner on talk pg. Or alternatively, the project banner cld be amended to assign articles' talkpgs to this category by default, and use the new parameter to 'take it out of the category' once the article's use of the 'related' field has been inspected and dealt with, one way or the other.

Or, perhaps there is not a sufficient impetus around at the moment to justify having this category (essentially a sort of 'to-be-checked' category/listing) defined, at all?

Any suggestions, thoughts, etc...--cjllw ʘ TALK 02:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you are on the right track: it would be better to have confirmation work on the talk page, because that's where articles are assessed & discussed. I find it distracting in the main category section, which is intended for "Library type" categories. Goldenrowley 01:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Does your project handle diaspora populations? Would appreciate more viewpoints/proposals for better names at Talk:Chinese French#Requested move; basically this relates to the issue of naming conventions for immigrant groups. My opinion is that the "Fooian American" naming scheme shouldn't be extended outside of the US to make up Wikipedia-only names such as "Chinese French" which aren't used in reliable sources; this is disputed by another editor. Thanks, cab 02:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_September_7#List_of_German_Americans. Badagnani 20:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I note that there are two proposed groups on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals page for "Celts" and "Berbers" which seem to have enough interest to at least function as task forces? Would the members of this project be willing to take on such subprojects? It would entail maybe adjusting the project banner a little, but let me know and I should be able to do that. John Carter 15:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hungarian Americans. Badagnani 18:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ethnic groups. 50 articles up for deletion in a single day, all nominated by the same editor. Badagnani 04:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

A discussion concerning the intepretation and application of WP:NOT#DIR subsection 5 (cross categorization) is occurring on Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans. All those interested are invited to join the discussion. Badagnani 22:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

What do people think about the images in Ethnic Groups infoboxes? Most consist of a collection of images of famous people from the group in question. At Talk:English people, we are have a discussion for the umpteenth time about exactly whose picture should go in the box. Some people think Queen Elizabeth I, some people think no, she was partly Welsh. Some people think Tolkien, some people think no, he sucks. Some people think it should be 50% men and 50% women, some think that's political correctness run riot. Should black people be permitted? Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla...

The whole thing is just causes endless, pointless debates that would be better directing toward improving the article. Worse, the very idea of representing an entire ethnic group with a few chosen people violates WP:NPOV, since most ethnic groups are open to varying definitions.

Wouldn't it be better to advocate the deletion of these images? It could be done by simply removing the 'image' line in the infobox template. The task of explaining who is perceived to belong to an ethnic group and who doesn't is complex and should be done in the main article.

What do people think? Cop 663 18:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep photos, using common sense and consensus to dictate which ones (as we do with all other aspects of Wikipedia). Badagnani 18:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

See Template talk:Infobox Ethnic group#Portrait guidelines for my previous suggestions.--Pharos 18:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I second. Keep 'em. I would say though, that on the question of native peoples who are also nation-states (e.g. Ireland, Poland, etc.) that more historical examples would be appropriate, especially when it comes to recently immigrant groups. Perhaps some inclusion in the text as to the addition of "new blood" into the group would be in order. (e.g. Morrissey would be a bad picture for the English. No one would question his cultural "Englishness", but both of his parents were Irish, thus he would be more appropriate in a "Gaelo-English" article, or some such thing, etc. et sic infit ad nauseam)--Leodmacleod 10:21, 24 Sept 2007 (UTC)

Your comments seem to to show exactly why these images are a bad idea. Creating an image of several 'ethnically pure' English people would be one interpretation of what an English person is. If you read the English people article, you'll see that it specifically describes at least two different meanings of the word "English" (one rigidly 'Anglo-Saxon', the other a more pluralistic meaning that incorporates outsiders who are culturally English). Whether you create a purely Anglo-Saxon image that excludes Morrissey, or whether you create a pluralistic one that includes him, you end up pushing one interpretation, which violates WP:NPOV and denies the complexity of the subject. And I imagine the same is true with most ethnic groups. Cop 663 23:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

(Ironically): We ought to then delete all ethnic group articles, and just have one article for "Homo sapiens sapiens," as nobody can agree on the definition of a particular ethnic group. Seriously, though, common sense and consensus really will win out in most cases, as it does in all aspects of what we do at Wikipedia. A photo of an individual in some form of national dress would be good, as well as notable historical (and perhaps also modern) individuals who are associated with the ethnic group. Impoverishing Wikipedia to spite the face is usually not a good idea, and does not help our users. Badagnani 00:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not the point. I'm not saying there shouldn't be images in the main article body, images are great. I'm just talking about images at the top of the infobox, which come across as the "head image" or in other words act as a visual introduction to the article. If this "official main image" is pushing an interpretation (which it invariably will be) that's a problem. And saying "we should delete all ethnic groups articles" also misses the point: words can explain the complexities in detail, but the images currently being used are not as sophisticated as words, they're just simple blunt statements. Images within the article body can be properly captioned with their relevance to the surrounding text explained. Cop 663 00:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with Badagnani. If the English question is really that sticky, why not go with one of those generic Palace guards (Irish Guard, right? Irony!) or some random northern farming couple, or just some solid historical examples. In the end, I would say if there's any severe disagreement about any particular person, replace them. Hell, pull the box from just the English article if no one can reach consensus. But there's just no good reason to pull all the pictures from all the articles just b/c the English can't agree on who belongs or not (and I mean that politically and wikilly)! But I will say one more thing, as an American. Most American users are going to be looking for an article that conforms to our general idea of English, which, like it or not, is largely a pre-WWII view of the English as the "Anglo-Saxon". That's what we think of when we answer "English" on the census. Try to remember you're not writting the article for you, that is to say, we're not interested in your political debate about national identity, just anthropology. Leodmacleod 00:55, 25 Sept. 2007 (UTC) ((7:55 9-25-07 CT))

If the article does indeed cover both identities (ethnic and political), and it were deemed necessary to represent an immigrant to England as a "culturally English person" as one of the primary photos up top, and one used a mosaic of four images, one could use both--a prominent immigrant to England as well as the more typically "English" people described above. Badagnani 07:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but that would be POV-pushing, as I said... as would the alternative of using 4 white English people. I sense we're going round in circles now. Hey ho. Maybe no-one cares except me.

Incidentally, I find Mr MacLeod's comments extremely alarming. Is the purpose of these articles really to uphold American preconceptions about ethnic groups? Hopefully this is just some sophisticated form of irony that went over my head. Cop 663 13:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

No, no, it's not irony or even sarcasm. I'm just tossing out the fact that Americans have a whole different perspective on the subject. Because of our cultural and historic ties to the UK, to most us, no one is English but the "Anglo-Saxons," so the idea that recent immigrants are English is British POV to some of us. But I'm still not being very clear and I do apologize for that. Let me put it this way. Wikipedia does not seem to me to be the place for a national debate on race and identity. The English in England know who they are. They don't need the article. If they're writting their own article (bad idea!) at least write it for outsiders. Americans, Aussies, Chinese, Martians, etc. Ask the question, "what's most useful to a primary-school student in Argentina", b/c that's who's going to be using the article, not anyone in the UK. And like I said, if there's no consensus on pictures, go with something totally generic or pull just the English photo box, but don't eliminate all infobox photos from all articles. (And now irony and sarcasm) Frankly though, I don't think any native English-speakers or European derived people should work on that article. It should made entirely by Inuit and native Africans who have no cultural ties to Great Britain or knowledge of Western culture. Now that would be a neutral article! Anyway, I suppose my comments weren't too helpful in the end, but there you go. I've said my piece.

---Leodmacleod 17:30, 24 Sept 2007 (UTC)

The Chinese people article gives three distinct uses for the term. I would assume "English people" could also similarly have different uses--ethnic, cultural, and political, which are not necessarily mutually exclusive but each deserving of explication. Badagnani 19:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Badagni, yeah, I initially thought that would help for the 'English people' article, but in fact the ethnic, cultural and political identities are so intertwined that it's hard to make it clear if you separate them (read the section covering the 800s to the 1300s and you'll see why). Maybe the English are unusually hard to pin down in that regard, I don't know.
• Leodmacleod, no, you need a mixture of people, English and non-English. And of course you should have Americans or whoever working on the article, but they should know something about the subject - which already makes their perception of the English different from that of a Dutch-American in Iowa who likes watching Masterpiece Theatre. It's not true to say "the English know who they are" - in fact different English people (including historians and geneticists) have competing ideas about who counts even as ethnically English both in the past and in the modern world - watch British TV if you don't believe me, we're obsessed with these questions. And sorry, but I'm not writing Wikipedia for primary school kids whether in Argentina or Watford, I'm writing it for intelligent adults who can cope with the idea that there are different opinions about things. Call me old-fashioned...! Cop 663 21:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Lol, okay. I'm not editing the English article, so you folks go nuts with that one. I did some on the Welsh article and I had no problem with half-Greek, Catherine Zeta-Jones, being pictured, so there you go. All I meant with the Argentine thing was that most people actually reading that article are going to be pretty damn naive on the subject and would probably be severely bored with a prolonged debate about modern English identity. Perhaps, just perhaps, as bored as I am. Good night and good luck. --Leodmacleod 4:15 25-09-2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedias in general don't have articles that cover a specific people or race, perhaps because it's always going to be a controversial subject. I think any articles of this kind should stick to listing known facts and nothing else. Including pictures/photos of a group who are supposed to be representative of a whole nation of people is already erring on the side of POV imo. (84.13.247.199 09:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC))

So...any conclusion to this? (78.149.8.227 19:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC))

I think the conclusion is that nobody gives a toss except me. ;) Cop 663 23:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Greetings to all:

I want to bring to your attention a major proposal that I have made in the course of a CFD discussion. I'm sorry to be announcing this so "late in the game" -- clearly it would have been much better to raise the subject here and, ideally, hammer out a concensus proposal. To say the least, this was not planned out in advance! It came up very suddenly, as I was endeavoring to post a response to the proposed deletion of Category:Jewish football players.

Given the tenor of the discussion, which was almost uniformly against keeping the category, and with worrisome hints at larger objectives, I went ahead and did my best to articulate a proposal which has been quietly simmering in the back of my mind for a month or two. In a nutshell, I advanced the notion of keeping contested categories like this only as occupational sub-categories of ethnicities but not as ethnic sub-categories of occupations. Basically, this is intended as a compromise that allows for ethnic-X-occupation categories, but keeps the opponents happy by not dividing occupations by what are considered "non-defining" ethnic sub-categories. Rather than elaborating any further here, I will simply ask one and all to please read the discussion -- and more importantly, please join the discussion with your own comments, whatever they may be.

Again, apologies for the late notice on this, I never would have planned it this way! If you care to weigh in on this, don't delay, as the CFD opened on September 30. Regards, Cgingold 15:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The discussion underway is actually much broader than this single category, so it would be very useful to have input from other members of WikiProject Ethnic groups. Cgingold 15:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 12#List_of_German_Americans. Badagnani 08:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Now that List of German Americans has been restored, what is WP to do about the List of Belgian Americans, List of Finnish Americans (since restarted with one name), List of Norwegian Americans, List of Swedish Americans, List of Swiss Americans--all deleted by the same closer with the same flawed logic as List of German Americans. And also List of English Americans, which was the trigger that started all the rest of these deletions. Hmains 03:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Get them similarly reviewed and restored, then get to work getting them sourced flawlessly. All of them cover notable ethnic groups and enhance WP for our users, allowing them to easily find notable individuals from these ethnic groups. Badagnani 03:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 22 Thanks Hmains 01:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

to- wikipedia

[[[[hi every one and thanks this information Ineed to tel you that abdale is a four sub sub clan and is mohmed abdalle . saleban abdale .aden abdalle .& idris abdalle

then mohamed abdalle is two sub sub sub clan is husen mohamed & hasan mohamed

thanks

by   abdulahi  abdi  foley 

e-mail carab333@yahoo.co.uk]]]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.72.144.114 (talk) 04:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 24 for List of English Americans Thanks Hmains 03:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American philosophers. Badagnani 03:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There is currently some controversy regarding the scope and title of the above article, and, potentially, other articles which may be related to the same subject. Editors interested in this project may be interested in that article as well. John Carter 13:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need WP:ETHNIC box on talkpages if either the WP:IPNA or WP:IPNA/Nish is there already? The reason I ask is that there is an anonymous user 207.47.240.109 is adding WP:ETHNIC box on talkpages and though most seems very understandable, some (such as with the WP:IPNA or WP:IPNA/Nish cases) seem redundant, especially when considering the WP:IPNA/Nish is a subproject of WP:IPNA and WP:IPNA is a daughter project of WP:ETHNIC. Any thoughts? CJLippert 17:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought there was something on the project page about this, but can't find it. The answer is:No need for ETHNIC if an overlapping project box is there. This could even be mildly objectionable as stepping on someone's toes... though I strongly believe the relevant IP editor is acting in good faith.. --Ling.Nut 14:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This CFD began on October 27, so don't delay if you wish to participate in the discussion. Cgingold 09:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the balance and focus of this article Evolution of human intelligence. It talks a lot about a few speculative theories of how race might be related to intelligence and little else. The sources used are mostly supporters of theories about race and intelligence:

• Mankind Quarterly
• Richard Lynn
• Linda S. Gottfredson
• Philippe Rushton

It seems like a very one sided article about a fascinating topic where the most prominent and well accepted research has little to do with theories of race. Could some one take a look at it and suggest how to revise it, or perhaps where to merge the material in this article? Most of this material was moved out of the article on Race and intelligence, and I agree that it fits better under Evolution of human intelligence... but now that article is unbalanced. futurebird 14:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I know this brief reply may be unsatisfying, but: spend some time finding Reliable sources and then Be bold --Ling.Nut 14:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm WP:WORN-OUT I really have enough articles that I'm watching and working on. I think that what this article needs in an injection of material on sound accepted research on the origins of human intelligence. I really could use some help here. I don't know anything about this subject. I've posted this concern and 3 Wiki-projects and I've not gotten one response until now. I'm sorry if I sound a little pissed off, (it's not you) and I'm not really that angry, I'm just so tired of this... Doesn't anyone care?futurebird 14:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to hear you're worn out! ... many many many people care.. but everyone has their own niche. :-) The trick here is to find someone who fits two criteria:

1. It's their niche.
2. They don't have a soapbox or agenda.

hard to do, sometimes. ----Ling.Nut 14:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Open for consideration: Is the The Genographic Project fall under the scope of this Wiki Project? Also how about Ethnographics? The The Genographic Project seems incredibly relevent to the future of defining race and ethnic groups both current and past evolution. Alatari (talk) 11:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm in the process of updating (admittedly slowly) the Project Directory, and it has been suggested by others that it might be useful for each project to indicate that articles in a specific category are pretty much their "scope". I do know that tagging articles is a lot easier when that approach is given. If the members of this project would be able to determine a category which they believe does reflect their scope, it might help in reducing the endless string of subcats which result in confusion and almost incoherence as well. If you do, let me know. John Carter (talk) 14:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably a "related" but otherwise independent project. In general, ethnicity is only in small measure about genetics. While Icelanders (for example) are rather genetically homogeneous, Han Chinese (for example) are not, and Chinese Americans are only minimally genetically distinct from the latter, but culturally quite different. Similarly, the Xuetes are presumabbly genetically rather like Sephardic Jews, but certainly now constitute a distinct ethnicity. - Jmabel | Talk 09:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that as a general rule, infoboxes about a non-indigenous ethnicity have multiple photos (e.g. Mexican American, Spanish people, Russians), whereas infoboxes about indigenous ethnicities have only a single picture (e.g. Navajo people, Inuits, and every Brazilian one I've come across in my recent digging and improving). I'm sure that often this can be explained by a lack of photos of groups that live in more remote locations or are less numerous, but that's obviously not the case for Navajo people or Inuits, for instance. I would like to see equal emphasis on the diversity within indigenous groups as within non-indigenous groups (and, I suppose, dignity for peoples that may not have tons of celebrities among them). Paying attention to this would be appreciated. Mangostar (talk) 23:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, a move away from photos that are 100 years old could be good where you have cultures that are still thriving. Mangostar (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

On the whole I agree (although in all cases, I think old photos and even paintings, engravings and the like are fine when they are relevant; for example, a particularly venerated historical figure of the given ethnicity). There is a tendency to handle some groups from an anthropological point of view and others from a pride/heritage point of view. That was exactly one of the things this project was intended to counter.

It continues to amaze me how many articles about groups with no "clout" do not mention even one person of the ethnicity in question, while we continually have to fend off others turning into "a list of famous Elbonians and their great contributions to world culture." - Jmabel | Talk 09:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There is now a proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Berbers and Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Celts for groups to deal specifically with Berbers and Celts which has gotten five members, which is generally thought enough for a task force. Would this project be willing to take on such a subproject? John Carter (talk) 18:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

My two cents: I don't think this project is exceeding in forces (many, possibly most, memebers are just nominal) but I guess the few comitted ones would like to help in what is possible. At least I would not mind.

But still I think that five comitted members is more than enough to start a WikiProject. More people will surely join as it goes. Instead 100 nominal members is useless for anything. Numbers don't matter but dedication. --Sugaar (talk) 12:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

My reasoning is basically that task forces/work groups use the existing project banner, and that uses up less talk page space. Also, generally, members of task foces also pay a bit more attention to activity on the main project page as well. I could I think fairly easily set up the existing banner to include separate assessments for task forces if such is desired. John Carter (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes all three exist, carrying different project-banners for WikiProject Ethnic groups, WikiProject Cold War, WikiProject Pakistan and WikiProject Bangladesh. I have proposed a merger of all three, but what would the title be? As soon we can decide on the title, I can volunteer to do the merging. I am posting to all of the WikiProjects for a solution, but it would be better to have a centralized discussion. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Description

I believe this very unique culture, with a one-of-a-kind alphabet Tifinagh and history dating back as far as ancient Egypt, merits its own WikiProject. There is a beautiful portal at Portal:Berbers, and I think Wikipedia would benefit greatly from this.

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. Chris 18:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
2. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
3. Funkynusayri
4. Skatewalk (Mainly Berbers in Iberia)
5. Taprobanus 19:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
6. Spectrum_X

Comments

There seems to be enough support to at least merit a task force. Perhaps someone might want to contact Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups and see if they would be interested in taking it on? John Carter 15:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Description

This culture, which has influenced literature, farming, navigation and so much of European life, for 4,000 years, and covers places as diverse as Portugal and Asia Minor, would be worthy of its own project. Modern areas still Celtic include Brittany, Cornwall, Ireland, the Isle of Man, Scotland and Wales. For a good illustration of what this project could be, see the project "Projet:Celtes" and the related portal "Celtic World" in the Francophone Wikipedia.

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. Chris 04:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
2. Malathos 04:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
3. Gwalarn 11:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC) for modern Celtic countries and related issues
4. Tle585 16:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC) for creation of a serious, academic discussion of the topics avoiding romantacism and nationalist bias, other than that discussed as an issue in the articles.
5. Gabhala 18:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
6. Lurker (talk · contribs)
7. Sigurd Dragon Slayer 05:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments

1. Saw your note advertising this. To be honest I am too busy to devote anything other than cursory attention to it at present, but I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Scottish Islands. I toyed with the idea and the advice was that there were probably too few editors to keep it going. Perhaps in the long run there will prove to be the case, but just creating it it seems to have co-ordinated and galvanised support. There are now umpteen project pages, 500 WPSI banners, over 100 infoboxes etc. etc. - and we only started in July. Check it out at WP:ISLE. If you know of at least two other editors keenly interested in your project my suggestion is - just go for it. If it is interesting and dynamic it will attract attention. Good luck. Ben MacDui (Talk) 08:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
2. IMHO, there are 2 subjects : 1. the historical Celtic area and civilization, 2. the revival in the XIXth century, which is still "in progress" (see the recent attitude of Galicia and Asturias in Spain about their Celtic roots). I am more likely (and more competent) to contribute in articles devoted to the modern meaning of the Celtic World. Gwalarn 11:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
3. I like this idea, but would looking at the confused and frequently innaccurate entry for the Celt page, I will note I am only interested if we can keep this up to a certain level of respectibility --Tle585 16:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

reply If you can delineate what specifically the pitfalls and potholes are, together we can come up with standards to either aim for or adhere to, and make that part of the goals of the new Project. Thanks all for what you'll bring to the proverbial table! Chris 02:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

1. I'm involved in othetr stuff, but will try to contribute. Lurker (said · done) 12:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
2. I think the current activity on the talk page of the Celts article, warrants a project page. The implications of redefining "Celt" have a huge impact on more than just that particular page. For example, the "Celtic Christianity" page would be affected profoundly.Gabhala 00:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks like there is enough interest to at least set up this group as a task force of some other project. Trying to think of which group would be appropriate is rather difficult, though maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups might come closest. Have you thought of contacting them regarding the possibility of setting up as a task force? John Carter 15:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• You mention Brittany, Cornwall, Ireland, the Isle of Man, Scotland and Wales, but you fail to mention the rest of England. Perhaps you could avoid talking specifically of 'Celts', about whom there is much disagreement, and somehow use the word 'Celtic' instead. One thing there can be no doubt about is that many peoples were certainly influenced by Celtic culture and languages. --Mal 19:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC) (forgot to sign in) 19:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

England is not really a 'Celtic' nation in any sense of the word (even genetically as there isn't such a thing as a Celtic gene). The area itself used to belong to Celtic speaking/cultured people but that was before England as a political entity existed...it was founded by Germanic tribes who either 'wiped out' or mixed with the native inhabitants but imposed a Germanic culture and language on the nation none the less. Scotland, Wales...etc...are Celtic because as entities they were founded by the 'Celts' and/or have cultures derived for that old culture. There is (despite what many Wikipedians think) nothing wrong with Germanic culture or England being Germanic and certainly nothing wrong with being Celtic or for that matter with the British (as in the inhabitants of the British Islands) being pretty diverse genetically, culturally and linguistically (even when it comes to the various 'Celtic' peoples). Sigurd Dragon Slayer 05:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. We are having a discussion over Talk:Arab citizens of Israel about how to compose the ethnicity infobox for that page. It's a rather complex discussion, given that most, but not all of the group in question identify ethnically or nationally as "Palestinian", "Arab" or "Palestinian Arab". There are some arguing that "Arab citizens of Israel" or "Israeli Arabs" (as they are sometimes called, though most reject that label) are an ethnic group in their own right and seem to think there is no need to mention their relation to, or their forming a part of the Palestinian and/or Arab peoples. Rest assured these are the same people. They are separated from the others as a result of Israel's creation.

In any case, we could really use some expert attention. Someone well-versed on the differences and sometimes overlaps between citizenship, national identity, ethnic identity, cultural identity etc. Also, someone with some insight into how to represent indigenous populations, since Palestinian Arabs in Israel perceive themselves as an indigenous group. Ideally, we would like to represent the complexity of the issue in the infobox without compromising reader comprehension. So far, we haven't been able to find a solution. Your input is appreciated. Tiamut 22:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I just added my comments, which I hope will help at least clarify the original intent of this project and the template. I won't be watchlisting the article, so if anyone needs followup from me, please be proactive in letting me know. - Jmabel | Talk 09:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The afrocentrism page is the 66th most vandalized page and has ben blantantly reversed in perspective multiple times. I found this on wikirage and I think it is relevant. On the other hand even wikipedia admits that asian related articles receive less vandalism.YVNP (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know where else to bring this up. I considered doing it on the Hmong people talk page, but I see, shall we say very "non-academic" responses from a lot of things posted there. There are dozens of sub-groups of the Hmong people. A very Ameri-centric feature of this particular article is that somebody has taken a lot of time and effort (not to mention article space) to note the difference of the spelling of "Hmong" between just two of the subgroups (the two that have resettled in the U.S.) and now "Hmong" is written Hmong/Mong throughout the article. I have two comments/request for the people working on the Ethnic group project. 1) Can somebody look over the article and evaluate the merits of the current situation. 2) If there is signifacant distinction in the culture/language/history/etc. of the White Hmong and Green Hmong, shouldn't we have White Hmong and Green Hmong articles? Thanks.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 04:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Please, feel free to follow this up and start (or enhance) the relevant articles yourself, if you know enough about the topic to do so. This is certainly not a deliberate decision not to cover these matters: it's simply that no one has taken it on. - Jmabel | Talk 08:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

An editor has taken it upon himself to conduct a campaign of massive removal of all Joshua Project links from hundreds of articles--without discussion, even when it is the only link in the article, or, indeed, available about a particular ethnolinguistic group. Please take a look. Badagnani (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, because those links are going to a very aggressive evangelistic project. Although the data is useful, the data is taken from other sources anyway, so people should take it from those other sources. Linking or even mentioning this project on this kind of scale should be considered as fundamentalist Christian spam. --Jeroenvrp (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. The Joshua Project does not appear to be WP:RS respected by mainstream academics, unlike Ethnologue.--Pharos (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly object to the removals; Ethnologue is very similar in its evangelistic outlook and aims; both websites include information that cannot be found elsewhere and leaving it out robs our users of important information about these ethnolinguistic groups. Leaving an article with no external link is inexcusable, as has been done repeatedly by this editor. Bad faith is shown by the blanking, which was not first discussed, and for which there is no consensus, and the editor has not replaced the links with others containing comparable information from "other sources anyway." This sort of WP:POINT blanking does not help our users in any way. Badagnani (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No there are two differences between Ethnologue and the Joshua Project:

1. Ethnologue is regarded as a academic source, Joshua Project not; as mentioned by Pharos,
2. When our users are presented with a website like the Joshoua Project, where you see directly a systematic and aggressive attempt to evangelize the world, our NPOV is at stake. Ethnologue just sticks with linguistic information.

To conclude this: It's better to have information without source, than with a source like the Joshua Project - the latter one will only mislead our users. --Jeroenvrp (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No it's not. If the information is useful -- as you yourself have admitted, then it should be left alone, in situations when there is no other source. If there is another better source for the same information, as you claim, then it is incumbent upon you to cite to that source, not just delete. 'Especially' without discussing first. Your claim of spam is unfounded. I have no relationship with the Joshua Project, I just referenced their data when looking to improve on the factual substance of an article. Trust me, I have no interest in promoting evangelism of any sort. If the data is reliable then it should be left up until replaced by something better. And wholesale cite-blanking across WP is just no good, esp. without discussing it first. Nizamarain 00:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This information is not useful, because it's not an academic source, and it's written from a very biased point of view. You're spamming thousands of articles with this stuff. We should not link to a website just because it's supposedly the "only other thing on Google"; Wikipedia:External links says nothing about needing to have external links no matter what their quality is. Indeed, we should be getting our information from published books and articles, not random websites with an agenda.

To say the very least, you would need an overwhelming consensus from this WikiProject to spam every single ethnic group article, as you have been engaged in.--Pharos (talk) 02:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hold on a second - Check your facts before you start throwing around accusations. I am not "spamming" anything. In February 2007, I found Joshua Project data that was relevant to one article (Arain) and cited to it. The Joshua Project reference has been a part of that article for almost a year now. The article text says outright that the data is coming from the Joshua Project, and that no other data could be found. It is not presented as the conclusive last word on the matter. Whoever else has been adding Joshua Project cites to "every single" other article, I have nothing to do with it - I don't know who was doing it, when they were doing it, etc. If the Joshua Project data is faulty, then that's all you have to say - it should come down. However, Jeroenvrp clearly stated above that it was useful, and that it was taken from other sources (he/she doesn't say what those sources are, which would be helpful to know). That seems to undercut Pharos' allegation that the data is original and biased in some way. (Plus, why would an evangelical group care to falsify demographic statistics about some tribe in South Asia?) Anyway, you guys should get your story straight, decide which of you is right, and then let us know. This shotgun cite-blanking, out of the blue with no discussion, is not right. Nizamarain 03:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nizamarain (talk • contribs)

User:Badagnani, who started this thread, has taken it upon himself/herself to add these as external links to dozens of articles without even citing them, with the only apparent justification being that (in most cases) it's the "only thing in Google" on this topic. It was even added to an article like Persian people, which is a group covered extremely well in actual academic sources. I'm sorry if I've conflated the way the two of you have been dealing with linking to the Joshua Project.

I don't think Jeroenvrp said that the links were useful, but I'll let that user speak for themselves.

Of course the data the Joshua Project has is indeed copied from other sources; see here. If the Joshua Project is taking data from any WP:RS (it appears to be a mixed bag), we should be taking data from those sources directly. The Joshua Project people, who are not an academic project, are basically doing the same job as us, except we have an WP:NPOV policy (which they most definitely do not), and they don't actually cite where their specific numbers come from (which we do). In my view, their information should only be seen as a few hints as to where to get real sources.--Pharos (talk) 06:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

All links to the Joshua Project should be deleted immediately and without question. The information on the site is often original research and totally incorrect. It is not a reliable source at all. The fact that someone can't find alternative information on Google is no excuse: get out of your chair and head to a library. (Caniago (talk) 08:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC))

Links to original research are fine, as long as the research is credible and subject to pier review. Original research is a standard for the articles themselves, i.e. "Wikipedia does not pulish original research". All articles eventually lead to original research.Kevin Borland, Esq. (talk) 08:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The site is not peer reviewed, is often totally incorrect, and has no credibility. To quote from the external links policy : Links normally to be avoided: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research.". (Caniago (talk) 08:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC))

I'm very much with Caniago (and several others) here. It's simply not a reliable source. That doesn't mean that nothing on the site is true; it doesn't mean that the site can't be suggestive of matters worth following up when researching an article; it just means that the site itself isn't citable. - Jmabel | Talk 08:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I checked a couple of entries about groups I have some knowledge of, and I agree, the information is decidedly of shaky quality. Also, the missionary content is far too prominent for me to feel comfortable with this as a source. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There have been many opinions, but very few (in fact no) specifics, from those commenting above. Badagnani (talk) 08:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You want some, well, here's a start. From [1]:

• Of 327,000 Pomaks in Turkey, 6% are Christians?
• "Pomaks" means "people who have suffered"?
• Of 152,000 Arvanites in Greece, 64.80% are Christians?
• Of 11,000 East Frisians in Germany, 70% are Roman Catholic?
• There is a separate ethnic group of "German (Kolsch)" speakers in Germany?
• The number of Christians among "Kolsch" speakers is 78%, whereas that among German speakers in general is slightly lower, exactly 77.3%?
• German Christians are generally Roman Catholics, whereas the "Kolsch" speakers are just generally Christians without a specific denomination?

If you don't know why these claims are all wildly off, don't ask ... Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is another example which illustrates the sort of disinformation they are spreading. They invented a whole range sub-ethnic groups of the Javanese ethnic group, yet there are no published academic sources (in books or peer reviewed papers) which mention these sub-ethnic groups at all. There are a plethora of other examples of their disinformation if you compare their website against reliable sources. These guys can't even get basic population statistics right: here are a two Indonesian ethnic group population figures I justed plucked randomly from their site compared to the official figures from the last Indonesian census:

• Javanese - Josuha project: 14 million; Indonesian census (2000): 85 million.
• Malay: Josuha project: 3.8 million; Indonesian census (2000): 6.9 million.

(Caniago (talk) 10:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC))

So we have the following reasons why the Joshua Project (and similar sources) should not be used on Wikipedia, except when the topic is totally related to the Joshua Project (like a list of missionaries):

1. The project site is not an academic source.
2. The data on the Joshua Project is not compiled by themselves but from other sources. So the opinion that there are no other sources for this information, is false. This is not always a problem, but those kind of data harvesting sites, should at least met the following criteria (that the Joshua Project does not):
   1. The site/project must not have an political or religious agenda.
   2. They must have a record of to be very exact and reliable.
3. The Joshua Project has an religious agenda. Anyone should agree on that. This is very clear on the site and not even that, it is also very offensive. Not only for people of these ethnic groups, but for anyone who condemn these kind of aggressive evangelisation practices. I even find it very scary how they present the data (e.g. see the column "Progress Scale"). It's like: "evangelism meets the Borg".
4. The data on the Joshua Project is unreliable, like others before me have proved.
5. Presenting sources/references only to have a source/reference is misleading for our users and the readers. Better to have not a source, so our readers can decide to doubt these numbers, because they are not sourced.
6. Information from the English Wikipedia is easily translated to other Wikipedia projects. Although people who translate should double check these kind of sources, unfortunately sources like the Joshua Project are spreading like a virus to those other projects. That's why I am here now, because I noticed the Joshua Project was listed as a source on the Dutch Wikipedia and learned that they came from here. So know your responsibility!

To conclude this: I am not accusing individual Wikipedians for "fundamentalist Christian spamming". No, what I mean that on a larger scale it's "fundamentalist Christian spamming". --Jeroenvrp (talk) 11:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree, the best data should be used no matter what the source. We use The World Bank and CIA Factbook data all the time for economic data, and that is not an academic source. Their use is perceived as promoting American bias, and promoting American economic hegemony by other countries, yet it is still the best data available. The data should not be confused with the agenda of the people who collect it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • But it isn't good data by any stretch of the mind. It's decidedly bad data. Every piece of information they have on that site falls into either of two categories: either it's their own speculation, or it's taken from elsewhere (often Ethnologue, but that's not always explicitly acknowledged) so you can just as well look it up there. With Ethnologue, you have at least a chance of guessing where they in turn have their figures from. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There are no cases where there Josuha project is the best source of data. A bunch of evangelical missionaries are the last people who can be trusted to present non-biased reliable ethnic data; the examples we have given proven the case. Can you show us an example where the CIA Factbook or World Bank data is wildly inaccurate? If you don't have peer reviewed material to insert into a Wikipedia article, the best choice is to leave the data out entirely rather than repeat the intentionally misleading propaganda of the Josuha project. If the data can't be found in other sources its probably because they made it up. (Caniago (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC))

Well, you guys have made your point. As I was only ever concerned with one of the many articles affected, I will try to find more authoritative data for that article. Best of luck with larger project of keeping the Joshua Project off the rest of WP. Nizamarain 16:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nizamarain (talk • contribs)

I have suggested a move to the common English language designation Rhade (people) which is what people using the English Wikipedia will search for as opposed to the Vietnamese language designation which isn't used outside Vietnam. Your feedback is appreciated.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 17:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Almost all articles are listed as high-importance, and it's kind of insulting to say that any ethnic group makes for a lower-priority article than another. So, I propose that we have only two importance-levels the way that WikiProject Biography does. Top-importance will be for articles about ethnicity in general and for broad categories of ethnicities. No-importance will be for the articles on each specific group. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

That seems very sensible. Alatari (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The intent had been top importance for articles about ethnicity in general; high importance for articles about individual ethnicities; mid, low, or no importance for articles that are associated with this article for other reasons (e.g. historic sites that relate to the history of a particular ethnicity, such as sites related to African American heritage). - Jmabel | Talk 09:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

So maybe we should merge the mid and low rankings and clearly state what each level is for. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Greetings, I'm the Chancellor of the newly formed Dixie Party, which is part of the massive Confederate Liberation and Resistance Movement which is picking up a head of steam. I plan on making an article about Confederates and plan on listing us as an Ethnic People. We Confederates have our own dialect, a strict orthodox religion (Evangelical), system of beliefs, cuisine, music, culture, life style and what not that makes up an ethnic people.

I also plan on making an expansion article to the Confederate one for the sub-ethnic cultures of Dixie such as Cajun's, and Appalachian's which also have very distinct cultural differences from Confederates.

I know we are probably listed under "Americans" as Southerners but this label is no longer acceptable for our people. Sure this may please "Turn Coats" and traitors, but does not appease the Confederate people. Any thoughts, suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dixieparty (talk • contribs) 16:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The article, List of autonomous areas by country, is currently up for nomination as a Featured List at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of autonomous areas by country. If you have the time, please vote on the article so that it can be improved if necessarily or promoted if it deserves it. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I have reviewed Population history of American indigenous peoples and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have left this message at this WikiProject's talk page so that any interested members can assist in helping the article keep its GA status. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left messages on the talk pages of the main contributors of the article along with other WikiProjects. Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix if multiple editors assist in the workload. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I changed the quote to: "Moreover, as Franz Boas pointed out at the beginning of the twentieth century, aspects of language, culture, and race vary independently..." since Boas never asserted the the three were not related at all. He merely stated that there was no direct connection, but did not rule out an indirect one. In any case, should there not be a citation for this here who ever posted it ? Epf (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we need a guideline that outlines the basics of what ethnic groups are. I've been having a dispute with Epf for some time (over two years) about what constitutes an ethnic group. He claims that I don't understand anthropology well enough and that I'm confused, he may be right, but I think that I understand what an ethnic group is. For example Epf seems to think that ethnicity is primarily about ancestry or descent, and that a person cannot be a member of an ethnic group if they cannot show any ancestry within that specific group. For example Epf is currently claiming that to be ethncially French a person needs to be "indigenous French", and that this means a long ancestry in France at least pre-dating dating the existence of the French ethnic group itself. But there is no evidence that all French people (or all of any other people) share a greater degree ancestry with each other than to people belonging to another group, surely people on the mediteranian coast of France are likely to share a greater amount of ancestry with people from nearby regions of Spain and Italy than to people from the far north of France (and I do know something about genetics). Therefore he claims that Zinedine Zidane cannot be French. He also claims that Zidane cannot be French because he is a Berber (so Epf seems to be claiming that he can't be both French and Berber). I don't think this is correct, I think it depends on the group in question. A subjective belief in a common ancestry may be important for membership in some ethnic groups but not in others, and it's subjective, surely, how groups perceive descent is culturally determined. My understanding is that it is the group and it's members that define inclusiveness or exclusiveness and that there are no objective criteria imposed from outside, though groups that are different will recognise each other as different. So an outside observer cannot claim, for example, that person A does not belong to group B because they do not meet a set of criteria devised by that outside observer. I think this is what Epf is doing, I think he is claiming that to be ethnically French (or part of any ethnic group) one has to have deep French ancestry (or deep ancestry in the group in wuestion), but this criterion is imposed by Epf and not necessarily by the French ethnic group itself. Likewise Epf is claiming that Franz Boas cannot be ethnically German because he was Jewish. Epf and I have been having this back and forth for some time, for example he claims that there is no "British ethnic group" (because there are only Welsh, Scots, English and Irish ethnic groups in Great Britain), whereas I have told him that there is, and that I identify as belonging to it. Then he told me that I cannot be Welsh (I identify as Welsh) because I have three English grandparents, but I was born and grew up in Wales, and went to a Welsh language school, I have never identified as English, I have no understanding of what it feels like to be English. He has also claimed that there is no American ethnic identity. Now I'm no expert and so I am asking if the people associated with this project could come up with a basic guideline about ethnicity that we could apply when we discuss ethnicity on Wikipedia. My personal thinking is that Epf is trying to introduce a set of criteria imposed by him to define what an ethic group is, then he applies these criteria to every ethnic group article he edits. So according to Epf Zinedine Zidane is not French, Colin Jackson is not Welsh but Pierre Trudeau is French. I may be wrong in my understanding, if I am I'd like to know and I think this is the place to get good answers. So would it be possible to get a guideline written about how anthropologists think about ethnicity? Hopefully we can then put a stop to this argument about what an ethnic group is and get on with writing articles, it's ridiculous that we have the same disagreement over and over on articles as diverse as Franz Boas, French people, Ethnic group etc. I see no merit in having the same disagreement in every article related to ethnicity, so we really do need a guideline so we can have consistency across Wikipedia with regards to how ethnic groups are treated. Thanks for any thoughts and help. Alun (talk) 07:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, maybe ethnic groups need to be more defined here than they currently are, but this is may not be so. Ethnicity can be both very complex and very vague in that how it is defined varies between each group, location or viewpoint. I do not think that ancestry or common descent is the "primary" factor in ethnicity as Alun claims, only that it is a major component for the majority of groups, which most people with a background in ethnology will agree with. I am not claiming that to be ethnically French one must be indigenous to France per se, only that for many, the common French descent which is indigenous to France plays an integral role. The indigenous component to French ancestry (pre-Gallic, Gallo-Roman and Frankish) is what constitutes French culture and the descent amongst the French ethnic group. Some of these aspects "pre-dated" each other, but all played a role in the evolution of what became the French ethnos or people. The fact is that for most ethnic groups (since most have a basis from descent) there is a strong correlation in descent between those within their ethnic or local group. This is not merely the genetic or phenotypic aspects that Alun solely refers to. It also involves the culture, traditions, upbringing and other traits that can be associated with such, directly or indirectly. The common descent, as any anthropologist knows, also plays a role in the cohesiveness of these in the group as well as the group itself. With regards to Zidane, I did not say he can be both French and Berber, only that how he is Berber differs in many respects with how he is French (and also that he differs in many respects from those who are solely ethnic French , "French-French" or indigenous French). The sense of common ancestry or the common ancestry itself is not wholly or even mainly subjective as Alun claims and few would actually claim such. The aspect of descent is common to the vast majority of ethnic groupings, though Alun fails to realize this fact. I already stated how it can be associated with other ethnic traits, influences group cohesiveness, and is based on objective criteria often as much as subjective ones. The inclusiveness is determined by both subjectivity and objectivity within members of the group as well as from without (how it is perceived by outsiders). The criteria and aspects of common descent that I mentioned with the French ethnic group is in line with most others and is not based solely on my own anthropological opinions, but that of others as well as ethnic French themselves. This also means the split in opinion between those who are of ethnic minorities or foreign-descent, but French nationals, and those who are the actual ethnic French, indigenous to France and of French descent and heritage. As for Franz Boas, I do claim that he was of Jewish heritage, but do not claim he wasn't German, only that he wasn't ethnically German in the same manner as other ethnic Germans who see him as distinct from them due to his non-German, Jewish heritage. As for the "British ethnic group", there is plenty of resources and views against the notion of such a thing and I only opposed it in the sense of it being a cohesive, homogenous group, which it is not. I did support the ethnic macro-grouping of British peoples that would encompass the Scots, Welsh, English and Cornish. As for how Alun was Welsh, I only disagreed personally how he identified as being ethnically Welsh since many who are ethnic, indigenous Welsh would see him as distinct since he is of no Welsh descent, but English. How Alun identifies though is not really any of my concern. As for "American" ethnic identity, I only claimed that it did not exist in terms of an actual cohesive, homogenous ethnic group with a common descent and that America is merely a nation of various ethnicities which very very few would deny (hence French-Americans, English Americans, Spanish Americans, Chinese-Americans, Asian-Americans, White Americans, European-Americans, African-Americans, etc.). I believe we already have sufficient guidelines to what an ethnic group entails and the fact is that, like I said previously, it is a variable concept that can be rigidly defined in some cases, less so in others. If Alun wishes to get an idea of this, then he should read the article ethnic group and the actual sources and references in that article. With this in mind, I feel there is no need to further define ethnicity than what is already found there, along with the fact that ethnicity differs with each group, people or category. Ciao, Epf (talk) 10:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe Epf is missing a major point here: ethnic identity is very much a matter of self-identification. If Boas decided that culturally and in other respects, he identified as German rather than Jewish, then he was German. End of story. If Alun identifies as Welsh despite having a preponderance of Engliush ancestry, then he is indeed Welsh. What makes an ethnicity? It is mostly a sense of commonality of (any mix of) tradition, culture, language and yes ancestry in some cases. But none of these factors should prevent us from feeling we belong to a particular ethnic group despite the fact that we don't share tradition AND culture AND language AND ancestry. We've had a similar discussion at the Quebec and ((Quebecois]] talk pages. If say, an anglophone living in Quebec but born outside the province, whose first language is English decides to identify with the Quebecois ethnicity, then he is Quebecois. End of story. Someone's ethnic identity needs to have some fluidity, to be able to change within the lifespan of an individual, or else new ethnic identities would never arise. French-Canadians aren't ethnic French; their ethnicity lies elsewhere altogether. Italian-Canadians are a different ethnicity from Italians, and from Romans. Determining ethnicity with ancestry as a predominant factor robs ethnicities of most any chance of evolving into something else.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Ramdrake, I agree self-identification is definitely a part of how someone belongs to an ethnicity, but by far not the only one. Other factors play a role including how the person is seen objectively by others, both from within the group and from without. Your reasoning does not make much sense since it ignores much of this. Ethnicity is a population who identifies with each other on the basis of diacritics such as common descent, culture, traditions, history, language and also strictly biological factors such as "race". The thing about the Quebecois is that they can constitute an ethnicity but are more often seen as a nation, comprising simply anyone who is a French-speaker in Quebec. Italian-Quebecois, Jewish-Quebecois, Haitian-Quebecois, etc. all differentiatie themselves significantly from the French-Quebecois who do not simply just speak French, they most often only speak French (or English), are of French descent, culture, heritage, etc. The amount of fluidity you claim with regards to how someone identitifes in his/her lifespan also does not make much sense since they will not be able to change how others within their group and without perceive them or change everything that makes the person who they are that constitutes a part of their ethnic identity (why would they want to do such anyway). How they would choose to "change themselves" would only be one factor in how new ethnic identities arise, but one which is insignificant compared to other factors. French-Canadians are ethnic French in many, if not most, aspects. Those ethnic groups you mention are different but also very closely related. Epf (talk) 01:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• I do not think that ancestry or common descent is the "primary" factor in ethnicity
• I am not claiming that to be ethnically French one must be indigenous to France

OK so why do you go on to say:

• This also means the split in opinion between those who are of ethnic minorities or foreign-descent, but French nationals, and those who are the actual ethnic French indigenous to France and of French descent and heritage.
  

This third flatly contradicts the first two sentences. You go out of your way to identify "ethnic French" with being "indigenous to France and of French descent and heritage", while claiming that ethnic minorities are of "foreign descent" and are French "nationals". You cannot have it both ways. So according to your second statement anyone can be ethnically French, including Zidane, even if they are not of French descent. But the third sentence states that people of "foreign descent" are "nationals" and not "ethnically French" because ethnically French people are "indigenous to France and of French descent and heritage." Alun (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Allow me to explain. I am not saying that the common descent of ethnic French who are indigenous to France is the only factor, but one of them in French ethnic identity which is not shared with ethnic minorities or those of foreign descent. I did not say anything like what you further propogate in the rest of this paragraph. Zidane is not ethnically French in the same manner as indigenous French since he does not share all or even many of the diacritics of ethnic identification that they do with each other. Epf (talk) 03:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• I only disagreed personally how he identified as being ethnically Welsh since many who are ethnic, indigenous Welsh would see him as distinct

How do you know this? How do you know what "many" think? Again you make unfounded claims, you have no idea what other people think, and have no evidence to support it, as usual. Why do you constantly claim to have knowledge of what other people think? Nearly everyone in South Wales has English ancestry due to huge levels of English immigration into the valleys in the nineteenth century. Alun (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• It is easy to make a logical conclusion about this since clearly you also have a strong connection with English identity since your mother langauge is English, most, if not all, of your heritage is English and clearly you have many aspects of English culture. Many, if not most, people in the South East of Wales have English heritage or ancestry, but this is not the case in South West Wales. Interestingly, the places of the least foreign or English settlement are also where the Welsh language thrives strongest (the North West and South West). Epf (talk) 03:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• The aspect of descent is common to the vast majority of ethnic groupings, though Alun fails to realize this fact.

Different ethnic groups have different cultural concepts of what descent is. For some descent is patrilineal, for others it is not. Descent is culturally determined, it is not a constant across ethnic groups. Neither is descent always important, sometimes it is and sometimes it is not. The perception of a common identity often has little or no relationship to biological descent. As John Monaghan and Peter Just state

Anthropologists have discovered that while no society ignores the role of biology in procreation, all societies imagine the facts of sex differently and many use those imagined facts as much metaphorically as literally. In Nuyoo for example, people recognise the possibility of partible paternity or maternity, that is, that an individual can have more than one 'biological' father or mother.

Concepts of relatedness are not biologically determined, they are socially and culturally determined. One can be recognised as a member of an ethnic group that does share a common descent and still have actual parentage from outside the group. We are not discussing biology, but social concepts of descent. These are not the same, it is incorrect to assume that all concepts of descent and kinship are based in biological reality, and anthropologists understand this. So for someone to be recognised as part of an ethnic group they do not need literally to have a biological descent from people belonging to that group, only a metaphorical descent. In the case of countries like France and the UK the fact of empire has meant that Frenchness and Britishness has been conferred on people because they are from regions that were French or British. It doesn't have to be logical. Alun (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• I am not in doubt that descent, or how it is defined, is a social construct or culturally determined, but one which (like "Race") is based in part from biological, familial or natural factors (or markers). I do not claim it is a constant across all ethnic groups, but clearly the majority of them. Most often descent is important, epsecially considering the various other ethnic traits which may be associated with it. I again need to stress that although the common descent involves biological traits, they are not the only or even main factor associated with it. Cultural, traditional, behavioural aspects also can be closely associated with it. As is stated in your own quote, concepts of relatedness are not only biologically determined, but they are clearly in part based from such, either literally or metaphorically. "One can be recognised as a member of an ethnic group that does share a common descent and still have actual parentage from outside the group." - This flatly contradicts the importance of the shared descent and the role it plays in group cohesiveness as well as those traits associated with it. One of the main factors in belonging to the group is how you are differentiated from others outside of it. If a group contains a shared descent, which is the case for most groups, then obviously someone with parentage from outside the group would not share the common descent of the group and its often related traits. Social concepts of desent and ethnicity involve some biological factors or in part are based from such, but also other factors that are often associated with descent (I am repeating this point often I know, but I can't stress it enough). Few Anthropologists claim that the common descent is based solely in a biological aspect but practically all acknowledge the role it plays as a basis for defining the common descent. The whole ideology of genealogy and common descent is biological in origin, though how the actual biological aspects (genetics, etc.) continue to play a role varies from group to group, and is only part of what is identified with the common descent. Your familial heritage for example does not simply include genetics alone passed down from your parents, it often includes cultural traits, traditions, history, education, language, and behavioural traits learned from various members of your family. This is most often stronger for some groups (who have a more homogenous ethnic identity and/or descent) than others, especially groups native or indigenous to non-European regions of the world who often have more rigidly defined concepts of Kinship and Descent. In Canada and the US for example, those of British Isles origins on average are not as close-knit or do not retain/pass down such traits as strongly as in groups like Jews, Italians or Koreans, mostly because of the strong similarity between the British peoples and the overall base culture of North America (largely British in origin). Even in Europe though, cleary groups like Greeks, Italians or Poles value the family as very sacred and are on average more homogenous and close-knit compared to northern European groups like the British. For someone to have the common descent shared with other members of the group, no it is not simply wholly biological in origin or how it is defined, but obviously the biological aspects play a part in it along with the other traits associated with it.

Alun mentions how 'Frenchness' and 'Britishness' has been conferred to those who are ethnically distinct or foreign from the indigenous British and French peoples, but again how that has been conferred to them is not the same as how it is shared among the British and French ethnic groups. Epf (talk) 03:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• You keep claiming that what you are saying is the anthropological mainstream, but this is not my experience, you appear to have extremist biologically deterministic view of ethnicity that seems to me to be in direct contradiction to mainstream cultural anthropology. Ethnic groups are not normally defined the way you claim they are. Ethnic groups are socially constructed, they are transient and do not represent biologically determined groups, they are not biological lineages and they do not represent "breeding populations".

  The word "ethnic group" has come to mean something like "a people". But what is a people? Does the population of Britain constitute a people, does it comprise several peoples (as Nairn, 1977, tends to argue), or does it rather form part of a Germanic, or an English-speaking, or a European people? All of these positions may have their defenders, and this very ambiguity in the designation of peoples has been taken on as a challenge by anthropologists. In a study of ethnic relations in Thailand, Michael Moerman (1965) asks himself: "Who are the Lue?" The Lue were the ethnic group his research focused on, but when he tried to describe who they were - in which ways they were distinctive from other ethnic groups - he quickly ran into trouble. His problem, a very common one in contemporary social anthropology, concerned the boundaries of the group. After listing a number of criteria commonly used by anthropologists to demarcate cultural groups, such as language, political organisation and territorial contiguity, he states: "Since language, culture, political organization, etc., do not correlate completely, the units delimited by one criterion do not coincide with the units delimited by another" (Moerman, 1965: 1215). When he asked individual Lue what were their typical characteristics, they would mention cultural traits which they in fact shared with other, neighbouring groups. They lived in close interaction with other groups in the area; they had no exclusive livelihood, no exclusive language, no exclusive customs, no exclusive religion. Why was it appropriate to describe them as an ethnic group? After posing these problems, Moerman was forced to conclude that "[s]omeone is Lue by virtue of believing and calling himself Lue and of acting in ways that validate his Lueness" (Moerman, 1965: 1219). Being unable to argue that this "Lueness" can be defined with reference to objective cultural features or clear-cut boundaries, Moerman defines it as an emic category of ascription. This way of delineating ethnic groups has become very influential in social anthropology (cf. Chapter 3).[2]

  Alun (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

My reply:

• I do not have an "extremist, biologically determined" view of ethnicity and my views are similar for the most part to mainstream anthropology (not that it would matter anyway, why does everything have to be "mainstream"). Yes ethnic groups are socially constructed but they do in part involve biological aspects such as lineages and often do represent fairly endogamous populations, some more homogenous than others. The word "ethnic" is itself derived from the Greek word ethnos, literally meaning "people" [3]. As to your quote concerning the Lue, like I said, the boundaries vary from group to group and clearly some do not have the more rigid concepts of descent, but most do. Your quote even states: "Moerman defines it as an emic category of ascription. This way of delineating ethnic groups has become very influential in social anthropology". The study was solely referring to the societal aspects of the Lue, not the biological, physical or those traits associated with descent. It is also notable that Moerman uses this "emic category" only for certain groups, like the Lue, where boundaries are much less defined (at least according to his perspective; many of the Lue themselves may strongly disagree with his statements or conclusions about them). Clearly the common descent of ethnic groups involves, in part, a basis from biological factors (otherwise there would be no concept of common descent) and is the case for most groups:

• "An ethnic group or ethnicity is a group of human beings whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry." - Anthony Smith, 1987

• "Ethnicity is a fundamental factor in human life: it is a phenomenon inherent in human experience" - The international meeting on the Challenges of Measuring an Ethnic World (Ottawa, 1992)

• Pertaining to race; peculiar to a race or nation; ethnological. Also, pertaining to or having common racial, cultural, religious, or linguistic characteristics, esp. designating a racial or other group within a larger system; hence (U.S. colloq.), foreign, exotic. b. ethnic minority (group), a group of people differentiated from the rest of the community by racial origins or cultural background, and usu. claiming or enjoying official recognition of their group identity. Also attrib.

– OED, "Ethnic"

• "Those human groups that entertain a subjective belief in their common descent because of similarities of physical typeor of customs or both, or because of memories of colonization and migration; this belief must be important for group formation" - Max Weber

• "Ethnicity and race are related concepts in that both are usually defined in terms of shared genealogy. Often, ethnicity also connotes shared cultural, linguistic, behavioural or religious traits." - (Abizadeh, 2001)

Below are excerpts from an article by Ronald Cohen:

"Should ethnic units be isolated on the basis of social-cultural categones and analysis ? Or should they be seen as valid when they reflect only those loyalties and ascriptions made by a people about themselves ? In traditional ethnography, this issue is often noted, then bypassed. By contrast, ethnicity opens up the question of categonzation by nonmembers (the objectivist emphasis) as opposed to a person's own identity or identification with a particular ethnic group (the subjectivist emphasis). Some workers (1) stress the subjectivist perspective, others try to include both categorization and identity in their conceptualization. Categorization is what anthropologists do when they name a "tribe". It is also done by all outsiders. Group X may see itself as A in specific circumstances and be labeled as B by others. A and B are invariably related but not necessanly congruent."

"...But no set of criteria fits all cases. Instead, they vary with societal complexity, regional and continental contexts, the ethnographer, and probably with time as well."

Basic epistemological features of: "Ethnic": nonisolated, contemporary, universally applicable, subjectivist emphasis or both objectivist and subjectivist, a unit only in relation to others, boundaries; shift (as from "tribe"); degree of systemic quality varies

"In sociology where the concept has had its major use up to now, ethnicity is seen as a set of sociocultural features that differentiate ethnic groups from one another. Max Weber defined it as a sense of common descent extending beyond kinship, political solidarity vis-a-vis other groups, and common customs, language, religion, values, morality, and etiquette. In anthropology, Barth summarizes anthropological definitions as usually having four elements: 1 a biologically self-perpetuating population, 2 a sharing of culture values and forms, 3 a field of communication and interaction, 4 a grouping that identifies itself and is identified by others as constituting a category different from other categories of the same type. He criticizes anthropology for having isolated the ethnic unit conceptually so that cultural and social forms are seen as relatively isolated outcomes of local ecological adaptation. This assumes some kind of continuity of the unit as an entity over time and a relation to a particular location. Empirically this may or may not be true with differential effects on cultural and social forms."

"Membership crteria by members and nonmembers may or may not be the same, and the creation and maintenance of the ethnic boundary within which members play according to similar and continuing rules is a major aspect of the phenomenon."

"As writers since Max Weber have noted, the diacritics always have about them an aura of descent. Even when acquired by assimilation, they are quickly incorporated into the microculture of individuals and families as part of their own heritage and identity. Once acquired by whatever process, such identity is then passed down the generations for as long as the grouping has some viable significance to members and nonmembers. Ethnicity, then, is a set of descent-based cultural identifiers used to assign persons to groupings that expand and contract in inverse relation to the scale of inclusiveness and exclusiveness of the membership. The important point is that ethnic boundaries are not, as Barth implies, stable and continuing. They may be in some cases and may not be in others. They are multiple and include overlapping sets of ascnptive loyalties that make for multiple identities."

(I should note that with this latter paragraph, I personally agree more with what Barth and others imply in terms of the stability and continuity of most ethnic groups, but ultimately this varies from group to group as Cohen remarks.)

All of the latter entries were accessed from: Ronald Cohen 1978 "Ethnicity: Problem and Focus in Anthropology" in Annual Review of Anthropology 7: p.381-387 Palo Alto: Stanford University Press

Epf (talk) 03:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not think we need any guideline on what an ethnic group is. I think what we need is simply a rigorous commitment to NOR and NPOV. Wikipedia is not about truth (what ethnic groups really are), it is about providing coverage of notable points of view from reliable sources. Do you want to know what the mainstream view of anthropologists is? Look at the articles on ethnicity in Annual Review of Anthropology. There is also an Annual Review of Sociology. This will provide the most notable views, from a very reliable source. For what it is worth, it is also just piss-poor scientific method to start an article on "the French ethnic group" or "The German ethnic group" or "The Jewish ethnic group." It is piss-poor method because it assumes that which must be proven, that there is an x ethnic identity. The correct method is to start doing research on France and people who self-identify as French, and learn how people self-identify and how scholars identify them. No reputable researcher starts off assuming that which is under question; it results only in circular research. Is there a French ethnic group? That is not the question. The question is, what categories of analysis do researchers use? We find out not by hunting for quotes that have the words "French" and "ethnicity" in them. We find out by looking for the most notable sources on people living in France, or from France, or who speak French, and discover how they analyze their object of study. If we discover that major scholars have written specifically on a French ethnic group, well, then by all means we provide an account of that research and explain what is meant by the term. If we find that scholars use other concepts, well, then we present those views. Isn't this the obvious way to do unbiased research? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

But Epf, nearly all of the quotes you give are qualified.

• "An ethnic group or ethnicity is a group of human beings whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry." - Anthony Smith, 1987

So a "presumed common genealogy" does not necessarily have any basis in biological reality, the belief system will vary from group to group. When we make claims for any specific group they have to be based on ethnigraphic study of that group.

• "Those human groups that entertain a subjective belief in their common descent

Ditto, a subjective belief is not based in biological reality. What are the subjective beliefs of common descent for the French ethnic group? Wha has studied them? How do they exclude the people you claim they exclude?

• I suggest your read all of which I posted together and stop only picking parts out which fit your confused views. Notice: because of similarities of physical type or of customs or both, or because of memories of colonization and migration; this belief must be important for group formation.

This subjectivist point of view is only one point of view in the world of anthropology as is mentioned in my other examples from the Cohen article. Epf (talk) 08:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Should ethnic units be isolated on the basis of social-cultural categones and analysis ? Or should they be seen as valid when they reflect only those loyalties and ascriptions made by a people about themselves ? In traditional ethnography, this issue is often noted, then bypassed. By contrast, ethnicity opens up the question of categonzation by nonmembers (the objectivist emphasis) as opposed to a person's own identity or identification with a particular ethnic group (the subjectivist emphasis). Some workers (1) stress the subjectivist perspective, others try to include both categorization and identity in their conceptualization. Categorization is what anthropologists do when they name a "tribe". It is also done by all outsiders. Group X may see itself as A in specific circumstances and be labeled as B by others. A and B are invariably related but not necessarily congruent.

This flatly contradicts everything you have been claiming. The "categorisation by outsiders" is not done by the casual observer, such as yourself, it is done by anthropologists studying the group. As far as I can see you are making claims for French ethnic identity without having any evidence derived from that group to support these claims. Alun (talk) 06:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• How does that "flatly contradict" what I am saying ? I haven't even prodivded that many sources to support the French ethnic group yet so how can you even make such an assertion ? Even so, I already did provivde a source from the US department of state distinguishing between the Celtic (or Gallic)-Latin with Teutonic majority population in France from the Basque, Berber, Arab, etc. minorities which would include Zidane, a Kabyle Berber. Where does it say its not done by the casual observer ? How can you consider me a casual observer ? What merits this claim ? What part of this did you not understand: It is also done by all outsiders. Group X may see itself as A in specific circumstances and be labeled as B by others. A and B are invariably related but not necessanly congruent. Epf (talk) 08:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• "...But no set of criteria fits all cases. Instead, they vary with societal complexity, regional and continental contexts, the ethnographer,

and probably with time as well."

How does this support any of what you are saying? If no set of criteria fit all cases, why do you keep using the same argument over and over again for different ethnic groups? What are the set criteria that apply to French people? The quote specifically states that these criteria vary from group to group. So you need to investigate what the criteria are for the French group and then explain why these criteria can exclude or include certain individuals from this group, basd on how this group identifies it's own members. Alun (talk) 06:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Again I ask you how does it not support what I am saying ? I never said the same criteria fits all cases, but clearly there are common aspects which can fit most cases (Smith's definition and the Cohen article both mention how descent-based traits are the case for most groups). Read all of which I stated above that even claims some anthropologists do believe there are universal criteria. Again, I agree with what you are saying and have said it time and time again and obviously we need credible sources when talking about ethnic French populations. Epf (talk) 08:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Max Weber defined it as a sense of common descent

Again the word "sense" is a qualifying word, what is the sense of common descent in the French group? Concepts of descent vary from group to group and do not necessarily have any basis in biological reproduction. Give specifics for the French group please. Alun (talk) 06:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Read the rest of the entries which mention that this "sense" is often based on various actual factors, be it biological, historical, cultural, familial, etc. I gave examples above how most often there are basics of the descent based on biological aspects (in part, directly or indirectly). You're right, I need to give specifics with regards to French ethnicity. Epf (talk) 08:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• "As writers since Max Weber have noted, the diacritics always have about them an aura of descent. Even when acquired by assimilation, they are quickly incorporated into the microculture of individuals and families as part of their own heritage and identity. Once acquired by whatever process, such identity is then passed down the generations for as long as the grouping has some viable significance to members and nonmembers.Ethnicity, then, is a set of descent-based cultural identifiers used to assign persons to groupings that expand and contract in inverse relation to the scale of inclusiveness and exclusiveness of the membership.

Again you miss the qualifier. It's an aura of descent. So what are the descent beliefs of the French ethnic group? The aura of descent may be universal to all ethnic groups, but each group will have very different concepts of descent. What are the concepts of descent for the French group? The word "aura" means that there may be no explicit rules for descent, just some vague idea of shared descent. It does not have to have any basis in reality. You need to give specifics for the French group. The quote then goes on to acknowledge that aquisition by assimilation is a valid way to become part of a group, so if a person can become part of a group by assimilation this directly contradicts your claim for French people of non-French ancestry. So people can be assimilated into a group, then they remain in that group Once acquired by whatever process, such identity is then passed down the generations for as long as the grouping has some viable significance, so once assimilation has been achieved the assimilated members remain within the group? How does this support your claims? Ethnicity is descent based, so what are the specific rules of descent that apply to the French group? Where is your evidence for the French group? Provide ethnological studies for this group to support your claims.Alun (talk) 06:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• No, the "aura of descent" was just referring to the fact that in ALL ethnic group cases (hence "always") there is this "aura" of descent. This does not mean that this is the exact same for all groups as we both already mentioned. The aspects of descent vary from group to group (some populations are more endogamous that others for example). Also, this article did not mention anywhere that the descent is only subjectivist, read the entry that says: subjectivist emphasis or both objectivist and subjectivist. This entry also mentions the descent-based cultural identifiers but I will need to retrieve another article in terms of the discussion of the complexities and variances amongst descent in ethnic groups. The concept of descent bay be vague in some groups, not so much in others, but again the aura of the descent (whatever constitutes it) is common to all groups (according to Cohen). The descent does have some basis in reality, but what and how much of this basis exists will again vary. Indeed, it does mention how assimilation can take place and then incorporate descent itself but assimilation is not clearly defined and yes it also includes aspects of descent (including inter-marriage). When the diacritics are incorporated via assimilation, then they also are often passed down to subsequent generations but the entry does not mention anywhere which diacritics or the relationship between the assimilated group or persons and the others (which often refers to the "indigenous" or original population). Epf (talk) 08:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I can find no evidence that any of these quotations provided by you support your contentions. They are general and quantified discussions. You have ignored the qualifications and don't seem to realise that the general and vague traits used to identify ethnic groups are not all universal, descent/kinship/identity etc are all measured differently in different groups, the concepts may be universal, but the specific ways they are applied by groups vary wildly. So you need to make a case on a group by group basis, what you are trying to do is apply a single set of criteria universally to all groups. One of the quotes you give specifically states "But no set of criteria fits all cases", which seems to be what you are trying to do. So what is that specific set of criteria that identifies the French group? Provide reliable sources about it.

I agree with Slr, we don't need a guideline, we need to follow Wikipedia guidelines correctly, Epf needs to find reliable sources that specifically examine research on French identity, rather than making generalised comments about the concept of ethnicity itself. Alun (talk) 06:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• If you don't see how many of the examples that I stated above (not just the entries or parts you picked and chose to discuss) supports much of what I said, then I advise you to re-read most of my discussions in order to properly understand my points. I do not deny that the traits used to identify groups can be vague but this is not the case for all groups. Some of the entries I mention do claim researchers who feel there are some universal criteria for ethnic groups (including Barth, Cohen himself as well as the sociologist Weber). Descent, kinship and identity are indeed measured differently among various groups, but I don't think I ever contended this anywhere. Some criteria such as a few descent-based traits or concepts can (according to some like Cohen, even if he contradicts himself later, as well as Barth) be applied universally to all human groups. I never questioned that on a group to group basis, you need to cite their aspects of descent, such as the region that a group is histroically indigenous to (eg. the Basque Country for Basques or Wales for Welsh) or the elements (cultural and/or biological) invovled in their common descent or descent-based traits. Like I have always agreed with, we need to provide the common aspects invovled for the identity of the indigenous French ethnic group (which may or may not include the langue d'oc peoples and Bretons along with the langue d'oil peoples), but not the French nation which is distinct from the ethnic group. The French nation (as you know) is not based on concepts of ethnic nationalism (like Japan for example), so clearly the two are distinct from each other in France. Epf (talk) 08:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I also agree with Slrubenstein and Alun, for much the same reasons. And just to make sure there are no misunderstandings, that means that nobody agrees with Epf's position.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, in terms of what I just argued above, clearly most my points have the support of much of the anthropological mainstream. In terms of the French ethnicity aspect only you and Alun have flatly disagreed with the notion completely. Everyone else has simply stated the obvious which, I myself already stated repeatedly, is that all we need is credible sources for an article about the French ethnic group. As for Alun's responses above, all I can say is this: that Alun, you have demonstrated your clearly "anti-descent" and subjectivist stance in regards to these issues and compeltely ignore many the sources I have explicitly entered on this article on the importantce of descent in most ethnic groups along with the traits that are often associated with it (also how those like Cohen and Barth recognize the objectivist aspects, not just the subjectivist, nowhere do they ignore the reality of biological or biologically-related aspects in the descent for many groups). I have proven with these statements above that, as I have been stating all along, most of my points ARE supported by many in the anthropological mainstream (despite your consistent, and now erroneous, claims otherwise). In addition, as I mentioned on the talk page for French people, your own quotes provided there mention the distinction between the nation and the ethnic group. I provided solid information above about the importance of descent in most ethnic identification and the various traits associated with it, as well as refuting your strictly "subjectivist only" concept of ethnicity and descent. I no longer have time right now to continue in this war of words with you, but clearly from the quality of your latest response, you have been finally put in your place in terms of your "issue" with the importance of descent in most ethnic groups (as well as how it is not merely a "subjective" belief). Ciao, Epf (talk) 07:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think the big confusion here is between the concept of ethnic group and nation ("nation" used here in the cultural sense). Zinedine Zidane, no matter what his ethnic group may be, is a member of the French nation; this is a cultural fact, and is not about mere citizenship.--Pharos (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Zidane describes himself as a Kabyle from La Castellan (a suburb of Marseilles)[4]. He may be "French" or "Algerian" for others but that's not how he self-identifies primarily.

Anyhow, what's the point of all this discussion? It's clear (at least for me) that ethnicity is not a white and black issue, that it has many shades, layers maybe... that only an open approach can really be useful here. --Sugaar (talk) 07:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree Pharos. The French people are a nation. If we accept that there is a categorical difference between an ethnic group and a nation (but this is not necessarily a clear cut distinction) then the French people are a nation, they display as a group all of the requirements to be considered a nation. They have diverse origins and were forged by conquest and political expediency during the middle ages. If we accept that ethnic groups are generally smaller, more homogeneous and have a greater cultural homogeneity than nations, then French people do not generally meet the criteria to be considered an ethnic group. Epf has claimed that such a thing as a French ethnic group does exist, and that it' members identify as sharing a common descent and are culturally homogeneous. I don't think there is any evidence to support this, and Epf has certainly not provided any. I think Epf is trying to say that there is a French ethnic group that represents a sub-set of the French nation, and that this sub-set self identifies as a French ethnic group that is categorically different from the French nation, he also claims that this group has common beliefs for membership that exclude others who would normally be considered part of the French nation. Such a claim needs to be exceptionally well sourced. I can only think of a single group that would make such a claim, that would be the National Front in France, who's claim is hardly based on anything like an academically rigorous analysis. Alun (talk) 11:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Alun, would you agree with me that we should actually have an article on the French nation? This could be in addition to an article on the "French ethnic group", if sources can be found for such a subject.--Pharos (talk) 05:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well obviously everything is dependent upon finding reliable sources to support any contention. On the whole I don't think there is any reason to have different articles though. I am sceptical that there is any categorical difference between any putative "French ethnic group" and "French nation", so far all we have is speculation, and to include that would be original research. If reliable sources can be found that differentiate between an exclusive "French ethnic group" and an inclusive "French nation" (and I suspect that there are few if any; even sources that discuss a "French ethnic group" may not necessarily exclude people like Zidane and Curie, use of the phrase "ethnic group" does not ipso facto exclude these individuals, it depends on how the source is defining the group) then I still don't see any reason for having different articles, all we need to do is make the distinction in the French people article. Clearly the fact that people like Curie and Zidane are part of the French nation, and are accepted as such by French people, is enough to allow their inclusion in the article. Alun (talk) 06:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

An attempt to add clarity to this discussion There are two separate issues that are getting mixed up here.

One is, what is an ethnic group? This question, the title of this section, is ill-conceieved because we should not care what an ethnic group "is," because Wikipedia is concerned with verifiability, not truth. Let us be careful to comply with WP:V. The real question is, how do social scientists use the term "ethnic group?" Alun and Epf are arguing over the proper way to summarize important (notable) points of view. Alun seems to be suggesting that in many cases Epf is misrepresenting the sources. I would add that there is another policy that is important: WP:NPOV; we should represent all notable points of view. The Ottawa declaration, like statements used by the US census, are not scholarly views, they are political views, but they are notable. And among scholarly views, Weber, Smith, Barth and Cohen are all notable but I am not sure they all agree. It would be folly to try to synthesize all these views into one "definition" of "ethnic group." Instead, the ethnic group article should be organized to explain that there are different notable views, and provide accurate accounts of each notable view, clearly contextualizing them (e.g., this view was developed to deal with political and social movements within Canada in the 20th century; this view came out of the Black-Power movement in the US; this view developed through historical research in Europe; this view developed through anthropological research in Africa, etc.) To try to synthesize a generic definition of ethnicity would be to violate WP:NOR

The second it, What ethnic groups are there? Here WP:NOR is essential. It is a flat out violation of NOR for me to say "This is how Cohen defines ethnic group, and the Jews satisfy his criteria, therefore the Jews are an ethnic group" unless Cohen himself said that the Jews are an example of the kind of ethnic group he is talking about. It is forbidden to Wikipedia editors to take one body of knowledge (theoretical discussions of ethnicy) and apply them on our own to specific case-studies. This is original research and if an editor wants to do this s/he should write an article and submit it to a peer-reviewed journal like identities. Now, we have an article on Jewish people. 'IF historians, sociologists, and anthropologists who have conducted research on Jewish people and who have published articles in peer-reviewed journals or books published by academic presses make explicit arguments about ethnicity - that there is a Jewish ethnicity, or that Ashkenazim are one ethnicity and Sephardim are another, or that there is no ethnicity - then this discussion should go into the article on the Jews (it shouldn't be a separate article). If there is no such notable discussion, then it doesn't belong in that or any article in Wikipedia. Now, I happen to know that Shaye J. D. Cohen is one of the most important historians of Hellenic Jews, and that he happens to have written about Jewish ethnicity, and I hope that the article on Jews cites him. Note: I didn't go out looking for quotes proving that Jews are an ethnic group. I had the key element of any scientific research: an open mind. I found out who the major Jewish historians are today, and read Cohen's book not because of what he says, but because he is a notable historian and I discovered that he writes about Jewish ethnicity. I'd actually want to read books by other notable scholars before writing about any scholarly views (or debates) about Jewish ethnicity. This is the same approach we should apply to any group! Slrubenstein | Talk 11:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What you say makes perfect sense. If I understand correctly, what you are saying is that we should not be using the concept/definition of the "ethnic group" when discussing who or what the French people are, we should be finding specific sources that discuss French identity. I had started to think in these terms already. So what we need to do is to frame the debate around how French people (or any other group) as a group see themselves. So "..people" articles are not articles about what an ethnic group is, sources need to be relevant to how a given people identify. I do think there is a great deal of pov-pushing going on here though. Epf has used this same argument over and over again in numerous articles about very different groups, basically that anyone who does not have "ancestry" in a specific group cannot be a member of that group due to their "descent". I think this is OR because it makes a categorical assumption that is applied to all groups, and does not address how any specific group identifies it's own members. Am I understanding what you are saying correctly? Alun (talk) 12:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I would just add, we shouldn't be asking how French people see themselves, we should be looking for reliable scholarly studies about French people (whether they are in or out of France) and provide accurate accounts of these scholarly sources. If notable scholars identify french people as an ethnic group, we should say - not that French people "are" and ethnic group, but that scholar x views them as an ethnic group. If scholar x further says that they are an ethnic group because French people self-idetify this we, we should say so; if x says that they are an ethnic group because this is how Anglophone Canadians see them, we should say so; if x says that they are an ethnic group because of some other criteria x uses, we should say so.

Personally, I have deeply mixed feelings about these "peoples" articles. As someone else suggested, we should be writing articles on meaningful objects of study. There is a state called Germany with citizens. There are people who speak the German language, some of whom are citizens of Germany, some of whom are citizens of another state (e.g. Austria). Whether these people identify themselves as a people, an ethnic group, or a nation ... or do not identify themselves at all as "Germans" but rather identify as Saxons or Bavarians or Prussians, is a matter of discussion. There are people in other countries who may be identified as "German" immigrants (or not; the Pennsylvania Dutch are a classic example); whether this is because they speak German or because they hold German citizenship is a matter of discussion. How the children of these immigrants identify themselves or are identified by others is also a matter of discussion. In all of these topics that are matters of discussion, we must rigorously comply with NOR and NPOV. And to repeat: we should not go out searching for articles on "ethnic Germans." We should identify the leading scholars of German history, society, and culture, and scholars of German migration/emmigrants, and find out what they have to say; what language they use and why. Let's bracket any assumptions we have, as we do research. What we know is that there is a place with borders that have changed over time, called Germany, and a language that also has boundaries that have changed over time called German. The identity of people associated with this place or language is what we are trying to study, so it is precisely the identity of these people about which we must make no assumptions. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

To me, this is an example of an "Idol of the Marketplace", à la Francis Bacon. We should have articles about different concepts, not words. If people use the term "Germans" with two different meanings, then we should have two different articles: one on the "German nation", the other the Germanophone ethnic group.--Pharos (talk) 05:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Pharos, whether or not there are two articles, the one regarding German ethnicity would have to involve all traits or elements associated with its definition, not just German language or languages ("Germanophones"). Epf (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not ... I am outlining a method for ensuring we comply with NPOV and NOR in articles. Specifically, this is a way to discover notable views from reliable sources. I have said nothing about the number of articles, but it would violate our policy to put distinct views in different articles, that is POV-forking. Content-forking of course is allowable. So we just need to be vefry careful to distinguish the two.. For example, if there is some debate over whether a group of people are an ethnic group or a nation, we cannot have two articles. We need one article that provides both views and the context for the debate. If as I think you are suggestion all notable scholars agree that there is a nation x and an ethnic group x and they are two different things then perhaps we should have two articles as this would be a content fork. We need to be very clear about the notable views first. Now, to apply this to one of the arguments going on in this talk page, I think Alun is concerned that starting with two articles is most likely a POV fork. The way content-forks happen is, people usually work on one article until it reaches a certain, excessive length. At that point it is easy to tell the difference between two distinct objects of study, versus different views of the same object of study, and spin off articles that are content rather than POV forks. I think this is a good, reliable way to handle the matter. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, well let's just choose to ignore ambiguous terms for the moment. For me, the core issue is that both "national identity" articles and "ethnic group" are treated in exactly the same way, as so-called "people" articles, which usually implies an ethnic basis. There are very important differences between the types of groups that the Hmong people and the French people articles represent. As long as the article is called "French people", it will be thought of as an ethnic article (whether or not there could be a separate article on "ethnic French" would be a separate issue). We could solve the problem, and establish separate standards for this type of article, if this type were called French nation or French national identity or French nationalism instead.--Pharos (talk) 23:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)