Template talk:UKethnicgroups

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quite a big error in this template, Iranians are classed as Arabs. As the Persian language is more closely related to English than to Arabic, the error is rather huge. Hope it will be fixed soon. JdeJ (talk) 22:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Burmese 2 Central Asian 3 Map 4 WP:OR 5 Problems with this Template 6 Gypsey 7 Ethnoreligious groups

[edit] Burmese

I'm deleting the Burmese link, as it's incorrect. It leads to the Anglo-Burmese page. The Anglo-Burmese are not the Burmese community in England. They are a seperate Eurasian ethnic group found the world over. Indisciplined (talk) 14:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

....and someone put it up again. People, we're dealing with basic factual inaccuracy here! I have to completely reject the argument put forward by Stevvvv4444 on the history page. Thats like saying you could discuss the Jewish community in Britain by linking to an article about Israel. (Now, if someone wanted to write an article about the Burmese community in Britain, and link it here, than that's fine, but you're talking about a different set of people.) Indisciplined (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Central Asian

A 'Central Asian' catagory has been added. Does Britian doesn't really have a Central Asian community? Indisciplined (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This template is getting ridiculous. All the ethnic groups without actual articles should be removed. If there is no article on 'British St Kitts and Nevisians' or 'British Turkmenistanis' it's probably because they're not notable. Cop 663 (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Map

Somebody turned the straightforward list into a huge, complicated map covered in overlapping words. It clear took a lot of work, but I removed it because it's not easy to use, as well as being enormous and ugly. Please discuss before making drastic changes like that. Cop 663 (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:OR

The term "British Islander" is pure WP:OR and must be removed. --Mais oui! (talk) 08:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you suggest an alternative? It seems like fair editorial practice to me and wouldn't go as far as to say it is "pure OR". -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

'British and Irish' might be better. I imagine not all Irish people want to be called "British Islanders", it's a rather loaded term. Cop 663 (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not a matter of what people may or may not want to be called. It is a matter of what they are called in serious, respected external sources. The term "British Islander" is pure Wikipedia invention, and breaks WP:VERIFY and WP:OR. --Mais oui! (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I changed it to 'British and Irish' but if there's a better term by all means change it again. Cop 663 (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There's about 5,000 webpages found by google using the term "British Islander" - clearly not a "pure Wikipedia invention". -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

--And in Ethnicity, Gender, and the Theory of Planned Behavior (2006), an academic paper. Though "British and Irish" is fine by me. -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I moved Irish to the European section - doesn't belong in a "British Islander" section. Also, there's many more ethnic groups according to the Category of Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom, so I think it's odd that someone decided to add "Irish Traveller" and left out, say, "British Serbs". More than slightly racist motives perhaps.... Bardcom (talk) 19:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

And I moved it back. I believe it's quite valid and the term seems accepted here by consensus. It is all valid to be grouped together considering Ireland as part of the British Isles and the fact that British ethnic groups are in Ireland and vice versa. Canterbury Tail talk 22:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ben, I won't revert just now, but I don't agree with your (lack of?) reasoning. There are two problems with this template. This template says "United Kingdom", and not "British Isles" - yet the first grouping links to the British Isles article, and the Irish are classed in the same grouping. This is blatent mixing of Policitics and geography. It's not valid to put the Irish among the British ethnic groups. The Irish should then logically belong in the European grouping. (It might be more appropriate to include crown subjects such as Canadians or Australians if you want to expand the British entry). The second problem is the inclusion of Irish sub-groups, which no other "ethnic" group have been subjected to, and especially identifying a particular sub-group as "Irish Traveller". Why no mention of "English Romany Gypsy", or "Scottish Traveller", why single out Irish sub-groups? And why use the term "Irish Traveller" when the official UK (England and Wales) government term is "Gypsy Traveller"? Britain's Bangladeshi community is similar in size, yet no mention of them. --Bardcom (talk) 10:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Presumably it's linking to pages that actually exist. If there is a page on Irish travellers in the UK, why not link to it? If there's no page on Scottish Travellers, you can't link to it. The English gypsies are there, BTW, under the name 'Romnichal'. Cop 663 (talk) 13:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That's just avoiding answering the first question, and incompletely answering the second. Why are the Irish mixed in with British groups and not part of the European group? And why are the Irish the only ones with sub-groups - why don't the sub-groups exist independently if they are "proper" ethnic groups in their own right? Bardcom (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that I can't answer. And it does indeed seem silly. You should change it. Cop 663 (talk) 14:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah. But I had. Canterbury Tail reverted my edits. I'll wait for his response. --Bardcom (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I reverted as per the consensus above to include it as it was. No reason it cannot be included as Northern Ireland is part of the UK and consists of a great deal of the Irish ethnic group. I see no argument not to have them included in the section which can also quite legitimately be linked to the British Isles since Northern Ireland and indeed the United Kingdom are in the British Isles. Canterbury Tail talk 22:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

What are you referring to when you say a "consensus above to include it". It was in the article from the beginning - that does not mean there was a consensus. The only consensus forming (Cop_663) appears to indicate it needs changing. But it doesn't change the fact that the template is for ethnic groups within the United Kingdom, and that the first row is set aside to describe British ethnic groups of which the Irish most certainly do not belong. Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom are indeed part of the British Isles, but people from the Republic of Ireland are not British like the template indicates (and I believe people from Northern Ireland can choose) - are you claiming all people as British, regardless? Because that's what the template is indicating. This is a prime example of an incorrect usage of the term "British Isles" where the ambiguous template gives a strong implication that people from ROI belong to the United Kingdom. Perhaps it is appropriate that this should be discussed on the "British Isles" talk page to allow a wider consensus to develop? Bardcom (talk) 00:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

But the first line says "British and Irish", not "British Isles". So how does it imply that Irish and British are the same thing? Cop 663 (talk)

Ah - wiki-sleight-of-hand! Two reasons. First, if you click on "British and Irish", you get taken to "British Isles" which includes "Republic of Ireland" - while a fully equivalent British-legal term exists called British Islands which is everything *except* the ROI. Second, people who live in Northern Ireland choose to be British or Irish. If they choose to be Irish, they should be treated as Yet Another European Ethnic Group, same as French, German, etc. (And nobody has responded yet to why the Irish are the only ones with sub-groups.) --Bardcom (talk) 00:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that 1/3rd of Irish people who live in Ireland live not in the Republic of Ireland (dare I used this inaccurate term ;) ) but the United Kingdom. This template is about the United Kingdom. Wasted time such is this is the reason all peoples articles and their templates should be deleted. Oh, how I wish for the day! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

So that's a fair reason to claim the nation that doesn't? I don't think so ... in fact I really don't think so.... And yes, I think these templates are pretty contentious at the best of times. This one should certainly be deleted. Bardcom (talk) 00:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the 'British Isles' wikilink and changed it to 'UK and Ireland'. And yes, this template is stupid and should be deleted (like, most of these 'ethnic groups' are actually nationalities, a very different thing), but I suspect that will never happen. Would be fun to try though. Cop 663 (talk) 01:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) That's good. and thank you. But there are a small number of other changes too. In the "UK and Ireland" section, the term "Irish" should be changed to "Northern Irish" and link to the Northern Ireland article. The Irish subgroups should either be upgraded to full ethnic status or removed. The "Irish" should be moved to the European section and link to Irish migration to Britain. Why are Romnichal classed as other - they should be moved to the top section since they are a British ethnic group. Actually, the more I look at this template, the more problems I see. It's in very bad taste, and smacks of white anglo-saxon racism - ugh! Bardcom (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hold on, are the Irish in Northern Ireland now a completely different ethnic group from the Irish south of the border? Nationality wise maybe, but not ethnically. 209.29.23.218 (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Some are - I would have thought that was obvious... --Bardcom (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Really? If there is a distinct group known as 'Northern Irish' or 'Northern Irish people', how come nobody, in the history of Wikipedia, has ever attempted to create a page on that subject? [1] [2] Cop 663 (talk) 11:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

From the Belfast agreement

The two governments recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland.

So logically, those that choose to be British and not choosing to be Irish are choosing to not be Irish. I would say that therefore, some of the Irish in N.I. are a different ethnic group from the Irish south of the border. Wouldn't you? Bardcom (talk) 13:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This template is using Nationality as the basis for defining an ethnic group (e.g. English, Scottish, Welsh). So, for that reason, my suggestions above are still valid for linking to Northern Ireland. Whatever way you look at it, the Irish belongs in the European section, separate from the British ethnic groups. Bardcom (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't heard anything back on this suggestion. Can I take it that the point is accepted? I don't want to start editing only to find myself in an edit war. --Bardcom (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I personally think that adding 'Northern Irish' would be original research given the lack of any page of that name. Presumably people in NI who identify as Irish identify themselves as belonging to the same ethnic group as the southern Irish even though they live in the UK. That seems to be a good reason for having a 'Britain and Ireland' section in the template instead of locating the Irish in the Europe section. Cop 663 (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a Northern Ireland page, and has been for ages. I would have thought that "Presuming" as you are doing is more likely to be Original Research, or suggesting that the Irish are an ethnic group of the UK, which is what this article is purporting to do in the first place. An extension of your logic would suggest that British French people, or British Jamaican people, or British Indian people, who identify with France, Jamaica and India, should also be in this section if they "identify" as belonging to the same ethnic group of a *completely different country*. I have yet to see a convincing reason for the current structure of this article over the past week - I will wait another while and then make the changes. --Bardcom (talk) 11:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

As an Irishman in Britain (and hence a member of that community being argued over) I'd love to know how Bardcom imagines the Irish have been 'downgraded in ethnic status' by the prior arrangement? You seem to be imagining a slight that wasn't there. When you click on the 'Irish' link it goes to an article discussing the Irish community in Britain, not Irish people in general, or Ireland itself. You talk of the fact that the British and Irish have been mixed up on this table, well we are. We are two separate and sovereign nations with significant population of each citizens in resident in the other, and with a long history of cross migration meaning that we often have ancestors in both countries. You may feel that putting the two groups together offends some particular ideas about ethnic catagorization that you personally hold, but I'm afraid that history has arranged us that way. Acknowledging that is not to question the Republic's sovereignty or right to exist, just acknowledging that we had a messy and unhappy common history before that, which has a ethnic legacy today. Your amazing idea that people in Northern Ireland can somehow 'chose their nationality' would have had been rolling on the floor in fits of giggles if you hadn't just trivialised such a sad and complex history. If only it were that simple. There are two clear communties in the north which view themselves as separate ethnic groups - the Protestant Community emphasies differences from the rest of Ireland and affinity with Britain, the Catholic community sees itself as a part of the Irish nation that lives under British political jurisdiction. Families sometimes have ancestory on both sides, and have to grapple with what that means. Some people view 'Ulsterman' as being a separate ethnic catagorisation and indeed a separate nation within the UK, others view that as completely artificial. The Good Friday Agreement does not mean that somehow everyone gets to tick a box that determines what ethnicity they are, and that's the whole issue sorted. Is this seriously how people in the Republic now view people in the North? I'm truely horrified if it is. As for your question about why the Irish Travelling Community is included separately, the Traveller community is a distinct community with their own culture and history which separates them from either mainstream Irish society or other Romani, and they are a relativley large community in the UK - hence counting them separately. I'm part Traveller myself, and appreciate the real differences from my other Irish ancestors. I hope that answer your question. Bardcom, you clearly are very enthusiastic, which I'm not criticising. Maybe your feelings come from a sense of patriotism. I'm also proud to be Irish, although my nationality is British, and I was born to Irish parents in England. My family is from the North, and were mainly but not exclusively British citizens too, and my ancestors have criss-crossed between the two countries over the centuries when they were under the same political jurisdiction. I am part of that community that you want to re-classify. The Irish in Britain are a large body of people with multiple levels of identity that cannot be simply be put into one box marked 'British' or one box marked 'Irish, and therefore not British'. I hope you do continue to participate in the debate, but you need to start understanding the sheer complexity of whats involved in this issue. And that means listening openly to the other views being expressed. Indisciplined (talk) 23:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with this Template

There are a lot of problems with this template - so much so, that I believe this template should be deleted and an article written instead. This template's main flaw is an attempt to associate "ethnic groups" with both a geographical area, and a political area at the same time. So it ends up being distateful, with racist undertones. For example, you end up with "British Jews" being classed as "other". Which is in effect a religious ethnic group - Why highlight Jewish? What aren't catholics and moslems represented like this too? Then there is the "colour" classification at the bottom - Asian, Black, White, mixed, etc.... Ugh. I've tried to fix the more obvious flaws, and I've moved the Irish into the European section, but I don't believe that anything can rescue this template...

Is there any point in nominating this for deletion? I'd prefer if someone British nominated it, as I'm more likely to be accused of having anti-British sentiment, or some such rubbish... --Bardcom (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you statement about the Jewish community, however I see absolutely no reason why this template should be deleted. There are templates across Wikipedia showing each countries ethnic groups, and this is no different from any one of them. If this article was to be deleted, it would be a huge mistake, it links all the ethnic groups of one of the planet's most diverse nations. There are many different articles of different ethnic communities in the UK, and it is extremely useful having a template like this containing them all. I do not believe that say listing Pakistanis and Indians under South Asians is racist, I am sure everyone would be quite happy to have the ethnic groups in order or their geographical origin, it is extremely easy to understand, and is evident in many, many more ethnic group templates across Wikipedia. Also adding origin to every group name is not vital, and adding such groups as Turks and Caicos Islanders are not ment for this template, it is reserved for ethnic groups in the UK, and not people considered 'British' across the world. I am not sure whether or not you understand this template, but I see no reason whatsoever why it should be removed. Thanks Stevvvv4444 (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The template is more flawed than helpful I'm afraid. I added the groups such as Turks and Caicos Islanders because the only groups that currently exist are those that have existing Wikipedia articles - which seems a very strange method of inclusion - and I felt that it was safe to add other British ethnic groups. By removing them, are you asserting that there no Turks living in the UK? Similarly are there no other Religious groups like Catholic or Protestant? Thanks for making your point, but you have only emphasised the flawed aspect of this template as it currently stands. --Bardcom (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, I see your point with the religious groups, there should either be all or none of them, and also, I agree that there likely to be some Turk and Caicos Islanders in the UK, but the template is just for ethnic groups with articles specificaly for those communities in the UK (i.e. it doesn't have a German link that leads to the Article German people, however 'Germans in the UK') if their was an article titled Turk and Caicos people in the UK, then fine. Thankyou Stevvvv4444 (talk) 18:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, well then the template should be renamed to "Ethnic Groups and Religious groups within the UK that have Articles in Wikipedia". It's a ridiculous template. Why not add in Political groups? Why not add in Vegetarians? Or Pagans? It's not even trying to be accurate.... And I've reverted your addition of Anglo-Irish cos they're actually living in Ireland! And they're not an ethnic group! This template is so bad, it makes me laugh - I nearly wanted to leave Anglo-Irish in place... --Bardcom (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

There are people of Anglo-Irish descent living in both countries, Bardcom, and around the world. They are not simply 'living in Ireland'. Whether they should be classified as an ethnic group is another question however. In any event, Anglo Irish identity has diminished over time, and is more usually referred to in the past tense now. Indisciplined (talk) 00:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this template should be deleted, because it causes many issues. Bornfury (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you not understand the meaning of an ethnic group, it identifies a persons ethnic origin, and is extremely important in a country like the UK, I am removing the 'Jews' as it seems to be causing the most controversy. I don't know if it would make you feel better, if this template were split in to others (for an idea see: Template:Asian Americans, Template:European Americans), but either way a template showing the UK's ethnic groups should be present. Thanks again Stevvvv4444 (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Erm, guys, Jews are an ethnic group by some definitions. Read Who is a Jew? from top to bottom before wading further into that particular morass. Cop 663 (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion to replace this box with an article. Ethnicities in the UK are far too nuanced to be boiled down satisfactorily within the structure of this box. My specific issue is that the "Northern Irish" are not an ethnic group, rather the "people of Northern Ireland" is a grouping of 2 major ethnic groups (and several minor groups) that is based on political, rather than cultural (ethnic) structures.

Example: Peter Robinson and Martin McGuinness are not members of the same ethnic group, even though both are from Northern Ireland, while Mary McAleese and Brian Cowen are members of the same ethnic group, even though only one of them is from Northern Ireland. Windyjarhead (talk) 03:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gypsey

Please note this word can be considered offensive. It's also an innaccurate term lumping together differnet groups. In the UK the 2 big groups are the Rominchal and the Irish Travellers (also called Pavee). Together with Roma, this are the naming conventions used by Wikipedia. Let's keep it civil and stick to those terms, everyone. Indisciplined (talk) 00:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnoreligious groups

Is the only sub group Jews, or do all ethnic minority religions come under here (muslims, sikhs, buddhists etc), or in fact does it include every religion - inc. christianity?!?!?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.145.240 (talk) 09:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)