Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Shortcut:
WT:ETHNIC

Contents

[edit] Assyrian people

We need assistance with this page. User dab is insisting on having up to 8 different names be put on the beginning paragraph and that all the subgroups should be right away explained and broken down in the beginning paragraph.[This is the version] dab is insisting on. I don't think this should be the case and I think we should follow what other ethnic group pages do. I gave an example of Greek people; we don't see that article starting with The Greeks (Also known as Hellenic, Elleniko, Yavan, Yonani, etc). It would make the article very tacy looking. Besides, it would be for the good of the Ethnic Group project to work with the template we are given [[1]]. Chaldean (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


  • I'm totally agree with you Chaldean because in the whole my life and by my knowledge, I've never heard some words as "Elleniko, Yavan, Yonani, blah, blah, blah" (it was so un-needed, superfluous and confusing). Angelo De La Paz (talk) 04:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, I guess Dab is proposing that due to the somewhat controversial use of the term Assyrian to refer to all Syriac groups, I think such problems could be avoided if the article was simply called Syriac people or Syriac/Assyrian people, but I know a lot of people are opposed to that. But in contrast, there is no "Greek naming dispute", for example. Funkynusayri (talk) 06:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
As I have shown in the talk page, Syriac people in the English language is a reference mostly to people of Syriac Orthodox Church only, and not all of Aramaic-speaking Christians of Mesopotamia. So there is a problem there. The Syriac/Assyrian people would be a problem in that, you have to add the other subgroup, Chaldean, so now we have Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac and it will only take time to add Aramean as well. It would just cause to much problems, and that is why we have created West Syriacs and Chaldean Christians for now. Chaldean (talk) 22:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, do Chaldeans object to being called Syriacs? If not, I don't see a problem. Funkynusayri (talk) 05:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Well technically, the word Syriac does not exist in the language of the Aramaic-speaking population. The Syrian Orthodox Church declared to differ the translation of Suroyo from Syrian to Syriac in 1950, to differnatiate itself from the Arab Syrian state. Since the Syriac Orthodox Church took this action, that is why Syriacs in the English language is mostly used to describe members of the Syriac Orthodox Church (just like Chladean to Chaldean Catholic Church.) If you called a Chaldean Catholic Syriac, he would generally correct you by saying he is not Orthodox (because the typical Chaldean understands Syriac as a word describing only members of Syriac Orthodox Church.) Here what it comes down to;
  • No ACOE person calls themselves Syriac or Chaldean
  • No Syriac Orthodox calls themselves Chaldean, but some do call themselves Assyrian (Yusuf Akbulut, Naum Faik for example)
  • No Chaldean Catholic calls themselves Syriac, but some do call themselves Assyrian (Raphael I Bidawid, Agha Petros for example)

So since Assyrian is used universally (either fully or partially) in all Churches, compared to Chaldean only for Chaldean-Catholic, Syriac only for Syriac Orthodox, then generally the term Assyrian is accepted as the name of the entire ethinc group. Chaldean (talk) 01:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Not in terms of refering to the group of people. Syriac language is only a dialect of the greater Aramaic language. We don't call Italians Romans or Romance after their Romance language. And Syriac Christianity is a subgroup of Christianity, that is a reference to Syriac-speaking Churches (which would includes people from India - take a look at the page Syriac Christianity). Think of the title of Syriac Christianity like Greek Christianity = there are many people belonging to the Greek Churches in Lebanon and Syria, but they certianly are not Greeks or Greek people. Now to tie it with in terms of refering to the group in the English language, Assyrian people by far outnumbers Syriac people in English Acedemics - book [[2]] [[3]] scholar [[4]] [[5]]. To go back to your question of Why isn't there Assyrian langauge, the ancient Assyrian langauge was by all means Akkadian. But due to the Assyrian empire's assimilation policy, Aramaic (which would become Syriac when Christianity arived) became the primary language of the Assyrian people by the 8th century BC. Although, sometimes Aramaic langauge is dubbed as Assyrian language. If I didn't explain the langauge issue well enough, this scholar does it perfectly startin with page 19 under linguistics. Chaldean (talk) 08:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I do in fact know these arguments, but in the end, I believe we should check out what other encyclopedias use as common denominator for all these people. Otherwise it would be akin to original research, I believe, with the Google ranks and stuff. Funkynusayri (talk) 09:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I remember there is a Wiki page where it gives you bulletin of what to use in situation like this (book ans scholar search wsa one of them) and it did mentioned some specific encyclopedias to use, but I forget where the page is. Chaldean (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Seems like it comes down to that then? Anyone know where it is? Funkynusayri (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


It looks like there's another revert war going on at Assyrian people. Please help if you can! Helikophis (talk) 16:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Awful mess

Hi. I have been looking at a couple of particularly problematic categories, Category:Afro-Caucasian people and Category:Eurasians. In both cases it is apparent that the categories have been added in the vast majority of cases without any supporting information. In the absence of any good third party references that the ethnic category is significant to the subject's notability, these need to be removed, and I have been doing so. Especially on articles on living people, categories, like everything else here, need to be verifiable. --John (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Same answer for "awful mess" and "help with Britons" threads; see here Ling.Nut (talk) 05:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that removing these categories unless there is clear reliable sourcing that the person is in the category AND that it is somehow significant (mentioned in third party sources as influencing their story/career/achievements/etc not just mentioned as part of a description) that we should be blind to race/ethnicity. I may be a Pollyanna for saying that, but it's my view. The alternative has the potential to be much more divisive I think. ++Lar: t/c 22:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Mmmm. I'm beginning to agree. Will consider nomming for deletion. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox images

I've noticed that many ethnic groups only have a "x in traditional dress" image, while others have "notable x" image. I think all of them should be changed to the latter. Sorry if this has already been brought up. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 04:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. For some reason, people are offended by variety. People always come along and wanna make everything the same. There is no reason to do this. Consistency is not always a virtue. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Saimdusan, have you noticed how it is only the smaller ethnic groups that have the traditional dress infoboxes, while larger ones have notable people ones? This is because, for many of these groups, there are no notable members. But we don't want to give readers the impression that these ethnic groups are any less important because of that, so we show an image of traditional dress, an important aspect of culture.--Yolgnu (talk) 05:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CfD nomination of Category:United States ghettos

The related Category:United States ghettos has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for Discussion page.

[edit] renaming 'Cats:Booian(-)Fooians' to 'Cats:Fooians of Booian descent' and also renaming articles to the same naming convention

Firstly I would like to draw attention to the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 28#Argentines, Czechs, East Timorese, Ecuadorians, and Danes by ancestry / national origin which I understand follows several other nominations of the type rename 'Cats:Booian(-)Fooians' to 'Cats:Fooians of Booian descent'.

If the rationale holds for categories then I think articles should be similarly renamed according to the same convention.

Is a discussion here adequate or should we have a discussion at ... well where? I notice for example that multi moves are being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty#Two Brand New X-Rated Move Surveys! - ie a wikiproject talk page is acceptable. Articles are tagged though to draw attention to the discussion - we would need to tag hundreds of articles I believe if we were to go down that path. Any views on the way forward?--Matilda talk 01:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

My view: "Oh God, not again!" I'll try to draft a respectable response later, but this quest for clarity and consistency (and PC-ness) is frankly harmful to the encyclopedia. Its logical extension is to shoehorn the entire definition of "ethnic group" immediately before the ethnonym, thus creating articles such as: People who self-identify with, or are descended from, or have legal citizenship in or are accorded membership by other publicly acknowledged members of the ethnic group known as Romanians (or Rumanians or Roumanians). Please. Please. Please. Find more productive and useful things ways to contribute to the encyclopedia. I say that with the utmost respect, but with exasperation at the constant cycle of short-sighted, well-meaning efforts to split hairs that remain fundamentally unsplittable. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • We have at Category:Ethnic groups in Australasia a whole range of names. For example:
Afghan (Australia), Australians of Sudanese origin, Maori Australians, Romanian-Australians, Russians in Australia, Thai Australian, Ukrainians of Australia
We can of course sort out at the Australian level but it seems to me to be preferable to have a more global view. If its too hard ... we can drop the discussion :-( However I think I think Fooians of Booian descent is indeed preferable to Booian(-)Fooian(s) or Booians in Fooia or Fooians of Booian origin or Booian (Fooia) all of which are represented in a category of size merely 39 pages. i don't think this is splitting hairs nor do I think it is about PC-ness. For an example of poor ambiguity please have a look at Jamaican Brazilian - the name means either (according to the article Booian Fooian or Fooian Booian. The article asserts it covers both but are both covered by majority of the Jamaican population are located in the Southeastern region of Brazil.? - all that is clear is muddled and unreferenced thinking. A better framed article title would help. --Matilda talk 01:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I have rethought my support for the renaming following the debate at the category renaming discussion because it would allow for the category to become too broad. For example I am of Huguenot descent. I could therefore be categorised as an Australian of Huguenot descent but not as Huguenot Australian - the descent is too far back and the latter would not be an appropriate categorisation. Renaming the categories thus does not increase precision. I would like to see a conventian applied to the format of Cats:Booian(-)Fooians . I prefer no hyphen but I don't mind which it is if it could be consistent please. I do not think consistency is interfering with ethnic groups self-perception until somebody explains why. It does help though when using categories or articles to know how you expect the name to be formulated. --Matilda talk 06:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
These articles should be deleted, unless they can prove some notability... aside from the fact of their existence, what is notable about Jamaican Brazilians, or Huguenot Australians? Ling.Nut (talk) 06:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I am unaware of an article on Huguenot Australians, I was using it by way of an example - actually a rather extreme example to show the difference between Australians of Huguenot descent and the others. Articles such as Chinese Australian on the other hand are of notable population groups. The issue with Jamaican Brazilian it is unreferenced and not clearly presented - it is a mere stub and not very useful. However, it is an ethnic group (according to the stub) of 56,000 - I suggest notability would be difficult to contest. --Matilda talk 06:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
"I suggest notability would be difficult to contest." As per the precedent of Thomas Jefferson High School. Yes. Ling.Nut (talk) 07:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
So if they aren't not notable ... the aim is thus to put some bounds around the articles by using the policies associated with Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:NOR to ensure that at least the articles are factal and limited in bias. This is not political correctness. Matilda talk 07:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war over related ethnic groups

At Native Americans in the United States there's an active edit war over what to list as related ethnic groups in the infobox. I've started a thread on this at Talk:Native Americans in the United States#Related ethnic groups. If some folks here could comment I'd appreciate it. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)