Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Looking for feedback on a tool on Visual Editor to add open license text from other sources

Hi all

I'm designing a tool for Visual Editor to make it easy for people to add open license text from other sources, there are a huge number of open license sources compatible with Wikipedia including around 9000 journals. I can see a very large opportunity to easily create a high volume of good quality articles quickly. I have done a small project with open license text from UNESCO as a proof of concept, any thoughts, feedback or endorsements (on the Meta page) would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 14:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Unintended consequence of removal of image galleries from infoboxes

Hi! I didn't participate in this discussion, but if I had I would have been generally sympathetic to the "remove the galleries" party. However, I just noticed that on at least one article this created a somewhat problematic side-effect where virtually all the images of people in an article on people were photos of uniformed military personnel. The Israeli Defense Forces are only mentioned once in the whole article, so this puts the images somewhat at odds with the text of the article. This was not the case before the removal of the image gallery, and while I am not in favour of reopening that can of worms, I do wonder what the appropriate way to deal with situations like this is. With the large number of articles affected, I have to imagine this has happened elsewhere... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Images of military personnel don't account for the majority of images in that article, but I agree that the number should be reduced. The solution is to remove or replace some of them, discussing on the article's talk page if required. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

They aren't the majority of images in the article, but most of the other images are either not of people (the hut and synagogue images), or are specifically illustrating passages in the text of the article (the Sigd celebration Faitlovitch) and so can't be moved around, with the result that the only two images specifically portraying Beta Israel people as people are also portraying them as military personnel. There is one passage in the article that kind of implies Beta Israel might be overrepresented in the IDF, but this is not clear. Anyway, you're probably right. I haven't read through the whole long discussion that ked to the removal of the galleries -- would taking one or two of the images of "famous Beta Israel people" and replacing one or two of the current ones (not in the infobox, but in the body) be likely to cause controversy in light of some of the arguments made at the original RFC, do you think? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure that would be OK, as long as there is a source confirming their ethnicity. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Native American nation

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America#Major missing article: Native American nation.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC) 

Are German Americans and Hispanics comparable?

Input is sought into a discussion at Talk:German Americans#Second to Hispanics. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Two new articles need attention

An editor has created Old Stock Americans and Old Stock Canadians, with the articles describing these as ethnic groups - something that does not appear to be supported by the sources cited. Your expertise is sought. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Turkish people

Hi there, would anyone be of assistance on the Turkish people article? I have worked really hard to find as many sources as possible for the populations in the infobox (everything was even quoted - I used censuses and mostly academic sources). But I have continuously been reverted and nobody is having a discussion with me to solve the dispute. What should I do? One of the users has threatened to block me. But I just wanted to correct the figures because they are all distorted. This is what they keep reverting it to [1] and this is my edits [2]. O.celebi (talk) 08:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

RfD

The redirect ethnic subgroups (which targets to ethnogenesis), is being discussed at WP:RFD. --Prisencolin (talk) 01:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Brown University opening access to library resources for Wikipedian interested in ethnic studies

Of possible interest to those reading this page:

The John Nicholas Brown Center for Public Humanities and Cultural Heritage at Brown University wants to help an experienced Wikipedian improve the quality of articles related to ethnic studies. Examples of possible topics include, but are not limited to, diaspora, migration, social movements, and/or political economies of social inequality and racial formation.

Brown will provide full access to its library's resources (databases, ebooks, etc.) in exchange for a commitment to bring some of the articles you work on to B-class or better. This is a remote Wikipedia Visiting Scholars position open to editors anywhere. For more information see the Brown University Visiting Scholars page. If you have questions, you can ask on my talk page (or email if you prefer). If you know you're interested, head to the application form. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

African Americans and sexuality

There is currently a discussion at Talk:African Americans which may be of interest to this project. TimothyJosephWood 12:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC (Total population number in infoboxes)

My suggestion is to exclude all the total population figures from the infoboxes. The countries listed are enough informative for the particular significant ares and the rest is often only a matter of edit-wars and inflation. The total population figures are rarely accurate as some include total population of countries, while others not. Such differences are not based on any common criteria, they are not specified in the infobox, so they may mislead the reader.Judist (talk) 23:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Support. The whole idea of total populations is unnecessary as the lengthy infoboxes provide the significant information. I'd rather prefer another region in the infoboxes to be called "Rest of the world" from summarization of the diaspora articles, so that the summarization to be as accurately as possible. Judist (talk) 23:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• Could you provide examples? It's not entirely clear what you're alluding to. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 12:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The infobox of the article Uyghurs is one example lacking total population figure. My suggestion is to stop using this at all and to use only figures for the countries in the infoboxes. Best.Judist (talk) 01:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

If I understand your concerns correctly, this is a variant of the RfC above, is it not? You don't think that it's appropriate information for the Template:Infobox ethnic group to carry information about diasporic numbers? If that is the issue, I do understand it to be problematic as there often isn't much information about diasporic figures in many parts of the world. Simultaneously, the articles are about specific ethnic groups, not the entire population of any given nation-state. To a great extent, ethnicity was often tied up with a particular territory, but only generically: recent history has brought about rapid global movement of ethnic groups, but does not equal assimilation. For example, Jews are an ethnic group, not simply a religious group (as are Copts, etc.). Excluding sourced information about those who identify with an ethnic group wherever they physically live on the planet, and simply calling it "Rest of the world" is misleading and unhelpful for the reader. "Rest of the world" could break down to a large portion of the population in any one given sovereign state, or multiple small populations in many sovereign states. Obviously, a large population is going to have a significant impact on another nation-state. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

RfC (Total number of Serbs and Slavs)

This discussion is closed.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
After unsuccessfully trying to resolve this through noticeboards or to drive the attention of anyone to discuss the contentious removal at Talk:Slavs, I am requesting for comments. The question is whether to include the 9[3] and 10 million [4] figure for total population of Serbs which unlike the rest of the estimates of 12 million in the article[5][6](page 5) are not from Serbian sources and count 6 million Serbs in Serbia, not over 7 million, i.e. the total population of Serbia. Do you think that the total number of Serbs should include the 9 and 10 million figure?Judist (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC) Support. All the editors removing the lower estimates rejected to explain or justify their edit-war even after a week of full-protection of the articles. I am able to change my mind provided that any explanation can convince. Moreover, I think that these lower estimates are at least closer to the real number. Judist (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC) Comment: Why are you using the project's page to 'host' the RfC? The appropriate venue would be the talk page of the article in question. I would also ask that you please read WP:FORUMSHOPPING. I am concerned that there is no evidence of your having made a reasonable attempt to discuss this properly on the article's talk page, but rapidly posted to the NPOVN, plus have brought it here for an RfC. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC) Because this concerns more than an article. The rest edit-warred violating the 3RR, while only I attempted to invite others to discuss, but I was completely ignored everywhere.Judist (talk) 00:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC) In which case, you don't seem to have properly thought out what the RfC is about. If it doesn't only concern the article you're focussing on, you need to work out what your RfC proposal is about and present a convincing case for editors !voting to understand, as well as which policies and guidelines you believe are being contravened. In its current form, the RfC can only be understood to be malformed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC) I misplaced this here, withdrawn.Judist (talk) 03:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Zomi nationalism

A pretty incomprehensible article with badly or unsourced material, most of which seemed irrelevant. I've removed quite a bit (eg "The Zo and the mi are two words but their relation is combination in physical and chemically in nature" although that might have been removed from another edit by the creator of this article). It's still a bit of a trainwreck. Doug Weller talk 10:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Meitei language → Manipuri language

There is a move discussion going on at Talk:Meitei language. If you're interested in commenting. The issue is about a language name but the same arguments apply equally to ethnic group names as well. Thanks. – ishwar – ishwar  (speak) 00:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Subgroups and images

Is it permissible to, if an ethnic group article has a poor or nonexistent image, to replace it with an image that is explicitly of a subgroup?--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 04:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Missing topics list

My list of missing topics about ethnic (and social) groups is updated - Skysmith (talk) 13:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Help with this article

Help with this article: Ethnic issues in Japan. Фквжьись (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Please post any replies and keep all discussion at the article talk page so we can be sure to be aware of the specific concerns. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Coca and Cora?

Are the Coca people and Cora people people the same group? At a quick glance they look pretty similar and if it is true maybe the articles should be merged. Thanks Inter&anthro (talk) 03:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Coca has zero references. Merging is certainly not an option, at least not yet. There's a hard way and an easy way handle this. Easy way: WP:AFD. Hard way: if you are motivated to research this question, then devote some time to trying to verify the info on the page. If you can't verify it, then you go to WP:AFD.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your response Lingzhi, I think I will spend at around a week on the latter option or trying to verify, and if nothing is found a deletion or redirect might be necessary. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Move request - American ethnicity

Please see Talk:American ethnicity #Requested move 16 April 2017--Moxy (talk) 08:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC - Genocide

Please see Talk:Genocide #RfC addressing the scope of the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Bengali people

Hi, please develop Bengalis article, this particular article is highly under developed and requires major editing. Please do something. Religion, Culture, Bengali cuisine, Festivals these sections are all under developed. Unsourced, non-RS/blogs/poor quality sources have been provided. I don't know whether such article shall get GA or FA nomination or not. I've also mentioned in WT:INB. Thanks--Anandmoorti (talk) 04:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

More opinions needed

Interested editors are invited to comment at Talk:Hungarians#Kniezsa.27s_ethnic_map. 123Steller (talk) 10:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Yellow people listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Yellow people. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Prisencolin (talk) 06:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Classifying ethnic minority politicians

There is a discussion talk place at Talk:List of ethnic minority politicians in the United Kingdom#Chris Kelly regarding inclusion criteria when it comes to ethnicity. Input would be welcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Jewish content at the Definitions of whiteness in the United States article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Definitions of whiteness in the United States#Jewish material. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Just reiterating that Jewish content is required, as is content on Italian and Irish ethnic groups, neither of which are even mentioned in the article. Coretheapple (talk) 12:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

British Sri Lankan Tamils

Input is requested at Talk:British Sri Lankans#Proposed merge with British Sri Lankan Tamil regarding the proposed merge of the British Sri Lankan Tamil article into British Sri Lankans or British Tamil. Thanks. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Feedback needed on project proposal: Investigating the Impact of Implicit Bias on Wikipedia

Hi Friends! Here is the current draft of my project proposal: Investigating the Impact of Implicit Bias on Wikipedia. I value your input and would greatly appreciate your feedback. Thank you in advance! Best, Jackiekoerner (talk) 04:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:American criminals by ethnic or national origin has been nominated for discussion

Category:American criminals by ethnic or national origin, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion along with most subcategories. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Ethnic_groups

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 15:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Please come and help...

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Jingpo people#Requested move 27 December 2017, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Your opinion and rationale are needed so a decision can be made. Thank you and Happy New Year to All!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  18:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Hyksos, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Ethnic issue on another Wikiproject

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#"Saw action", concerning forming a guideline for how the expression "saw action" is used, accross all articles. -Inowen (talk) 02:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox_folk_song

You are welcome to discuss the newly created {{Infobox folk song}} and its future here. --Tamtam90 (talk) 06:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States#Inquiry about Joaquín Miguel Elizalde

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States#Inquiry about Joaquín Miguel Elizalde. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Seeking feedback on a guide for students who edit articles in anthropology

Hello! Wiki Education is developing a guide to help students write about all topics related to cultural anthropology. The handout is meant to supplement other resources that they consult, such as an interactive training and basic editing brochures (as well as a Linguistics-specific guide we have already developed). We’d love to get some community feedback on the draft here: User:Cassidy_(Wiki_Ed)/Cultural_anthropology. We're looking to gather feedback by April 18th. Feel free to respond here or on the draft's talk page if you're interested. Thanks so much! Cassidy (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

There is a discussion here which may be of interest to members of this project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Capitalisation of races in South Africa

Races are capitalised or left uncapitalised with irritating inconsistency on Wikipedia. There is currently an ongoing discussion here as to whether capitalised "Black" should be used in reference to Bantu peoples of South Africa, while lowercase "black" should be used in reference to all non-white ethnic groups, including Asians and those of mixed races, on articles written in South African English. I'd encourage contributors with a focus on ethnic demonyms to give their input.

Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested category

We have a request at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects#Category request: Category:Chhetris that I'm not sure how to best action. Could somebody here provide input on whether it is normal to have categories for ethnic groups that include people who are members of that ethnic group? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   10:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Americans#MENA section

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Americans#MENA section . RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Lebanese people articles

I've noticed that articles about ethnic-religious groups in Lebanon have non-standard titles such as Lebanese people (Shia Muslims), Lebanese people (Sunni Muslims) and Lebanese people (Greek Orthodox Christians). That's not right, is it? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion for 7 affected articles HERE. Pincrete (talk) 22

15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Dubious racial/ethnic classisifcations

The English people article has a history of periodically having the term "Germanic" applied to that people in the lede and a talk page history of discussions disputing this application with a general consensus against the use of the term. The last instance was on the 2nd of July and I reverted it. This evening I noticed the similar questionable application of the term "Celtic" to the Scottish people and that this had been done by the same user, @Krakkos:. It would appear that a significant proportion of their prodigious edits consist of similar no-doubt well-intentioned but, as I would see it, questionable, outdated, simplistic or anachronistic pigeonholing of peoples into suchlike categories. Am I right to find this kind of labelling questionable? Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Certainly. We've had a similar issue on Afrikaners in the past, which was ultimately resolved by consensus as well. However, repeated additions of "Germanic ethnic group" in the lead continued to recur until an editing notice was added explicitly requesting that editors review the preexisting consensus and discuss on the talk page before trying this again. --Katangais (talk) 23:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:Genetics_references Jytdog (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Australo-Melanesian

I've just come across Australo-Melanesian which has been moved from Australoid race unilaterally and has seen a significant rewrite. I don't pretend to have strong views on the subject, but it feels wrong to be moving such a major article without consensus, and I can imagine that there's probably an article to be had on the historical aspects of "Australoid" regardless of modern terminology. Le Deluge (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Origin of the Romanians

All comments are welcome here: Talk:Origin of the Romanians#RfC: two maps. Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 07:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Splitting proposal: Origin of the Romanians

All comments are appreciated here. Borsoka (talk) 05:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Mongoloid, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Help finding policies?

Someone went through an article I was watching and switched all references to "Black people" to "blacks". I'm struggling to locate a policy that applies. Is there a wiki guideline somewhere about a preferred term between "Black people", "black people", "blacks", or other terms? If not, I could've sworn there was something about not arbitrarily switching from one accepted style system to another, but I can't find that either. Can someone point me in the right direction? Allthegoodnamesaretaken2 (talk) 09:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Origin of the Romanians

There is currently a Request-for-Comment open about restructuring the Origin of the Romanians article. Any comments or suggestions for improving the article would be greatly appreciated. Borsoka (talk) 11:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Sámi vs. Sami vs. Saami

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Talk:Kildin Sami orthography#Requested move 21 December 2018 – multi-page RM primarily about diacritics in an endonym.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Category:Origin hypotheses of ethnic groups

Should not be categorized as it is. See Category talk:Origin hypotheses of ethnic groups. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Mru

Hello. The disambiguation page Mru has several incoming links, mostly via redirects Mro people and Mro People. If anyone can work out whether each article refers to the Awa Khami or the Mrucha, and fix the links, that would be appreciated. Thanks, Certes (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Asian Americans#Not-Asian Americans but from Asia

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Asian Americans#Not-Asian Americans but from Asia . RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Merge Proposal needs input

Need additional insight and comments to the ongoing debate re: merging North Caucasian Huns into Huns. Proposer's rationale: North Caucasian Huns is a stub and only has one source I'd really consider reliable. I propose merging it to Huns. The vast majority of scholars believe that the North Caucasian Huns were descended from or closely related to Attila's Huns, including Denis Sinor, Peter Golden, Otto Maenchen-Helfen, and Jin Hyun Kim. There's no real reason to give them their own article. Additionally, the article currently falsely gives the impression that the North Caucasian Huns are the "Khunni" mentioned in Ptolemy. Proposer: Ermenrich (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC) >>>The Discussion is Here<<<

Nomination of Portal:Yugoslavs for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Yugoslavs is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Yugoslavs until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

American Jews

Can we get a few more eyes on the newest talk at Talk:American Jews#American Jews and race. Basically a debate over if there is a debate about Jewish whiteness. The question......is there a debate within the community about Jewish whiteness label. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talk • contribs) 18:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Newar for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Newar is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Newar until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for the restoration of all the galleries of personalities to the infoboxes of articles about ethnic groups

There is a clear consensus that montages of notable people should not be restored to ethnic group article infoboxes.

Cunard (talk) 04:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should montages of notable people be restored from ethnic group article infoboxes? Johansweden27 (talk) 08:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC) because in my view it should never been removed the ethnic group articles was much better then Johansweden27 (talk) 08:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
The proposing editor had made changes to the introductory question section in parallell with their new comment and !vote below. I have restored it to the version as it was when the first answer (mine) was added. Johansweden27: Please do not make any more edits to the introductory section. --T*U (talk) 10:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: This was discussed by a large number of editors in two RfC's back in 2015/2016, see RfC 1 and RfC 2. No new arguments have been raised. --T*U (talk) 08:37, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose because beyond the assertion that "the ethnic group articles was much better then", no argument for a change in approach has been made. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:56, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

• If anyone is confused by that quote, the text of the RfC has since been changed. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support (adding argument) while there may be some articles that have drama because of the galleries, there are numerous articles that don't have any drama connected to this. The galleries benefit the readers, especially younger/non-native English speakers who require something visual. also The images have encyclopedic value in and of themselves. They give a good visual representation of the groups in question. If you had no idea of what Tustis or Ryukyuans looked like, wouldn't it be nice to have this visual representation I've always found these galleries informative, especially those in ethnic groups I am not familiar with. Oftentimes I have clicked on one of the personalities depicted out of curiosity and learned about them, something I could not and would not have done without the galleries. I thus think these galleries are useful to our readers. While it's true that portraits of notable personalities can simply be added to the body text, there usually isn't room for more than a handful of portraits at best. I also do not find the main argument in favor of removal, namely, that they create edit-wars, convincing. That's what talkpages, consensus and dispute resolution are for. Lastly, even if there is some sort of consensus here that these galleries should not be included, the enforcement of a consensus achieved here to be applied all across wikipedia is on dubious grounds policy-wise and will be highly problematic, causing even more strife Johansweden27 (talk) 09:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

• The original RfC didn't mandate the removal of these galleries only because of conflicts, but because, "lacking objective criteria, it is original research to determine who should be featured in the gallery". Cordless Larry (talk) 09:44, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
• Johansweden27, you write that "the enforcement of a consensus achieved here to be applied all across wikipedia is on dubious grounds policy-wise and will be highly problematic, causing even more strife". The first RfC was three years ago. Do you have any evidence of strife resulting from application of the RfC outcome in that time? Cordless Larry (talk) 11:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Two very large RFCs decided this three years ago. I'm not seeing anything here to overturn those. The argument that ""While it's true that portraits of notable personalities can simply be added to the body text, there usually isn't room for more than a handful of portraits at best" is actually funny. There is far less room for a gallery of images in an infobox than in the body. Meters (talk) 09:55, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: Rehash of a terrible idea the community has rejected multiple times for numerous reasons none of which are addressed here by the proponent. I have to observe a basic logic point here, regarding "while there may be some articles that have drama because of the galleries, there are numerous articles that don't have any drama connected to this." This is the same fallacious reasoning as "Smoking can't cause cancer, because my Uncle Jimbob smokes a pack a day and is still alive at 87." It's fallacious for other reasons, too, like directly inverting the cause/effect relationship. In reality, we don't have image-related drama at various articles because we changed our approach to images at such articles. It's like arguing that it shouldn't be legally required to stop buses at railroad crossings and check for oncoming trains just in case, "because" there are so few incidents of trains running into busloads of people.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose (Invited by the bot) For the reasons above, including summary of the reasons of previous RFC's. Expanding on that, infoboxes, by their format and brevity involve more judgement calls than would normally be allowed in the body of the article under wp:ver and wp:synth. IMO, because of that, they should be limited to being on the "safe side", i.e. uncontroversial information and selection. The selection of "who should be on the very short list of the most prominent personalities of a particular ethnicity or nationality?" is the exact opposite of this.....immense amount of subjective judgment calls on who to include/exclude. That is compounded with the lack of wikipedia (especially wp:weight/ wp:npov) providing any usable way to resolve such questions.North8000 (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, getting rid of those galleries was one of the best decisions the community ever made. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - per everything said in the previous discussions. --Khajidha (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - there is no logical reason to add those galleries. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Summoned by a bot. Doesn't seem like much has changed since the last RFC's. Comatmebro (talk) 03:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose we should go further and say galleries are not suitable at all for group pages.--Moxy 🍁 12:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nomination of Portal:Igbo people for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Igbo people is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Igbo people until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Arab world for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Arab world is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Arab world until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

What to do for articles since the implementation of MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES?

Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#What to do for articles since the implementation of MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES?. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Develop Bengali people article

Please read thoroughly about Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups guidelines for improvement in Bengali people article. Read articles like British people or Greeks these are all FA or Good articles. Please ensure that Bengali people article do get a FA or Good article status. Thanks--2405:201:8803:5F9D:D87:7F8F:1B1C:A4D0 (talk) 05:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Genealogy

If anyone here is interested, we are looking for volunteers at WikiProject Genealogy. Our current collaboration article is Genealogy, which needs more international perspective. Thanks! Tea and crumpets (talk) 01:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Proper term for native americans?

Is there an official WP policy on the proper generic name for the native peoples of America? Besides "Indian", I have seen native, native american, amerindian and others. I ask because I reverted a change today where someone substituted "Native" for "Indian" because it broke a link, but it started me wondering. I asked at the Tea House, and was referred here. ubiquity (talk) 15:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Splitting of the article "White Croats"

There is currently a Request-for-Comment open about restructuring the White Croats article. Any comments or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Expulsion of Jews from Spain

An article of interest to this project—Expulsion of Jews from Spain—has been proposed for merging from Alhambra decree. Your feedback would be welcome at the merge discussion. Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 00:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of interest at Reliable Sources Noticeboard

The following discussion is of interest to members at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Using of primary genetics sources at Uyghur (and many other Eurasian pages).--Ermenrich (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Minority Languages ​​in Country Article Infobox (Serbia)

Hello, I guess that some of you may be interested to express your opinion on RfC if the country infobox (Serbia in this case) should contain "Recognised regional or minority languages" or should they be removed. The RfC can be seen on THIS LINK. Best regards and thank you for your contribution.--MirkoS18 (talk) 21:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Categories_for_"Jews",_"people_of_Jewish_descent",_and_the_Middle_East_-_can_someone_please_summarize?

For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

National anthems and no end of original research: Roman Urdu

Please see Talk:Qaumi Taranah#What is 'Roman Urdu', and where are the reliable sources to verify some form of recognised international variant?. We have no end of national anthems that have not been vetted and are rife with WP:OR. I've just been reminded of this via a change to content on Qaumi Taranah where the 'Urdu original' of 'Roman Urdu' was substituted in good faith as I can't find 'transliteration' system in place for 'Roman Urdu' anywhere. If this parameter is going to going to be used, there need to be reliable sources in order to verify its existence. Wikipedia simply doesn't support original research. This Urdu example is only the tip of the iceberg. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Iryna Harpy (talk) 11:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposed page move Visayans → Bisaya

FYI - There is an ongoing page move discussion Talk:Visayans#Requested move 27 December 2019. The article is rated "High" in the importance scale for this project. –Austronesier (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

More eyes needed at Talk:Race and intelligence

Editors who watchlist the article Scientific racism might be interested in looking at the related article Race and intelligence, which has been an area of contentious debate and edit-warring. (It is currently locked down for 3 days.) While Scientific racism is, I think, a good example of how Wikipedia handles fringe, the article Race and intelligence has a very different tone and content, as is clear from the first paragraph of the lede. See also Race and intelligence#The Jensenism debates. I'm putting this notice on all the WikiProjects that list Scientific racism as of high importance, in the hope that more editors will participate in discussions at Talk:Race and intelligence and help make the article compliant with WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. The problems at Race and intelligence were discussed off-wiki here: [7]. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 13:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

AfD discussion of Race and intelligence

A discussion is taking place of whether to delete the article Race and intelligence, see [8]. NightHeron (talk) 12:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about article "Race and intelligence"

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Race and intelligence#Requested move 4 March 2020, which is about an article that is within the scope of this WikiProject. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Kisii people

Kisii people is almost exclusively made up of original research and could do with attention from someone with knowledge of the subject. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#How to describe subset of Asians that have faced the brunt of discrimination?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#How to describe subset of Asians that have faced the brunt of discrimination?. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Move/merge discussion at Talk:Miscegenation

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Miscegenation regarding moving content from that article to several new articles, and merging out some of the rest. The current article has >150 kB prose. - LaTeeDa (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion relisted

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Yakuts#Requested move 19 April 2020, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Review page

Can someone review this page? It's a quite imporant article about an existing ethnic group, who don't have a page about their ethnicity yet. Draft:Syriacs-Arameans

MixedButHumann (talk) 01:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Interracial marriage and Miscegenation‎‎

Would someone please check the spate of edits to these two articles by newish editor Buzinezz‎? I'm not sure what to make of them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Could be another sock of User:WorldCreaterFighter. Seems to have been mostly restoring things that match the editing profile of various socks active on the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Mro/Awa Khami people and language

Please can anyone help at Talk:Mro people (Awa Khami)#Requested move 17 May 2020 and Talk:Awa Khami language#Requested move 24 May 2020? Following repeated page moves, neutral editors have raised RMs which we neither support nor oppose. Thanks, Certes (talk) 15:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Tiele people

Hi. A confirmed sock [9] [10] made this edit on the Tiele people article [11]. I'm noticing the changes to the infobox are still in the article in case anybody who works on this page wants to change it back. And, as can be seen, material in the body of the article has been altered. I don't know if the material in the body of the article should be restored so I need to leave that to an editor with the expertise on this topic or who edits this article. So, I am posting here so someone can check up on it. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Historical race concepts

I've recently been working on some articles on Historical race concepts, i.e. Hamites, Mongoloid and Negroid. These articles are about concepts developed by Western scholars about 1800. Since they are no longer used in mainstream science, I don't think they are within the scope of this project, and just removed the project banner from the respective talk pages. What do you think ? --Rsk6400 (talk) 05:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Rsk6400: While I highly appreciate your efforts to bring these pages into a modern perspective, with their topics relegated to the dark past of anthropology, I think we should keep them within the project, because this will help to ensure mainstream editor attention for them. A quite active group of editors (IPs and registered) is persistently trying to push their obsolete fringe views into these articles, especially by reformulating modern genetic studies into obsolete racial concepts, and one way of countering this is to keep activities around these pages in our focus. –Austronesier (talk) 06:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, @Austronesier: Just during the last few days, I had enough problems with that "group" you mentioned, so I absolutely agree with you. I just restored the banners. --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Merge discussion

This merge discussion may be of interest to the members of this project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

How to record nationality on Wikidata?

I invite your feedback on a property proposal for nationality as a cultural identity over on Wikidata. The proposed property is meant to offer an alternative to "ethnic group" and to nationality as defined by citizenship. Your comments, particularly on how best to clarify between nationality and ethnic group, are welcome and needed. Thank you. Qono (talk) 05:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC invitation

Hello, everybody. There's an ongoing RfC at Talk:Molossians#RfC about inclusion in the lead of mention about the historical origins of this group in which members of this wikiproject could contribute and provide new perspectives.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Kosovo move discussions

Hello, everybody. There are ongoing, relisted move discussions of several Kosovo-related articles(Vucitrn, Pec, Malisevo). Unfortunately, almost no editors have participated in those discussions since they were relisted. Maybe members of this wikiproject could contribute and provide new perspectives.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:18, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Gafat People

This draft is mostly incomprehensible, but may be on a notable subject and has a number of good references. Can anyone assist? Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments requested

Please come and make your voice heard at Talk:Eskimo#Racial slur?. Trying to discuss what, if anything, direction the article should take. I have notified all projects listed at the top of Talk:Eskimo. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

"Germans", "French people" etc - ethnicity vs nationality

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This topic has been broached a couple of times before, but not recently as far as I can tell and I'd like to see what people think. Many pages, such as Germans, French people, Dutch people etc, describe solely the ethnicity those terms refer to, and thereby omit huge portions of these countries' populations. I'm not, of course, against covering these ethnic groups in principle - but I think most people would agree "French people" commonly refers to French citizens, or more inclusively "people living in France", not just people who have some specific DNA profile. For example, the page Germans currently says that there are 62 million Germans living in Germany (out of a population of 82 million). It is patently absurd, and downright problematic, to suggest that the other 20 million people are not German. The pages of "traditional" multiethnic societies, like British people, Americans and Brazilians, are much more inclusive (and, I would argue, more correct):

• "Americans are nationals and citizens of the United States of America."
• "Brazilians are citizens of Brazil."
• "The British people, or Britons, are the citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the British Overseas Territories, and the Crown dependencies."

I realize there's an ambiguity here, since Germans refers to both an ethnic group and a nationality, and there's no need to expunge any mention of the ethnic dimension. But many of these countries are now multiethnic societies in their own right much like the US and Brazil (and even that's only if you omit indigenous peoples!), even if they weren't founded as such. There are two obvious ways of dealing with this ambiguity: (1) make the articles Germans, French people, etc. more inclusive (maybe modeled after the examples above) and treat ethnicity within those articles or, more invasively, (2) split ethnicity and nationality into two separate articles. I think the structures of the articles would be able to absorb option 1 with only minor tweaking.
I do hope I'm not stepping on any toes, or retracing up a well-worn debate (I searched through the archives and only found a few scattered remarks on this topic). --Tserton (talk) 04:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that serious problem. I am German both by nationality and ethnicity. I guess that nearly every German with some awareness to the problem would call the lede of Germans "outright racist". The corresponding German article, de:Deutsche, starts with the statement that the word has multiple meanings, which I think would be a much better solution than two separate articles. In daily and media use, expressions like "the Germans in America" exist, but in contexts related to Germany, a "German" is a "German citizen", which is also the legal definition. The census does not ask for ethnicity. If you want to express ethnicity you have to say something like "German without a migration background". --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Rsk6400, the current lede of Germans is far from ideal. It solely focusses on the ethnic definition of "Germans", and conflates ethnicity with descent ("who share a common German ancestry"). In common parlance, "Germans" may either refer to the citizens of Germany, or to ethnic Germans in a cultural sense. In Germany itself, these terms always have been fluid. Members of minority communities can self-identify as "German" not just in the sense of being German citizens, but also as culturally German. This option is available for traditional regional minorities (Sorbs, Danes; pre-WWII also Poles and Lithuanians), traditional supraregional minorities (Jews, Roma), and post-WWII immigrant minorities.

Btw, the lede of Austrians betrays a concept quite similar to the one in Germans. –Austronesier (talk) 10:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

My solution of choice for this problem would be to delete all the X people articles, except in those cases where there is no alternative page to accommodate the contents. Of course I know that's not possible in practice. Another solution would be to have some sort of WP guideline list specifically for this kind of pages; for example, all of them should clearly explain the potential ambiguity of who is part of X people and who isn't. --Jotamar (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm also not a huge fan of those articles: most of them are just reworded outtakes of their respective country pages with sections on history, demographics, language and a list of notable people. But they do have some interesting content, like the emergence of a common German identity out of the collection of principalities the country was formed from. I think there's room in the scope of those pages to broaden them to resemble the style used for Americans, Australians etc. Given the passions that these topics often arouse in people, it would be good to tread carefully and with a broad base of consensus, though. In the long-term, setting up a WP guideline seems like a good idea, but also a pretty big undertaking - does anyone here have experience doing that? --Tserton (talk) 09:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• Canadian and Germans once has almost identical first opening paragraph. But nationalism took over.--Moxy 🍁 04:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

It's a false analogy to compare the articles about Americans, Canadians and Brits with the Germans, Poles, Ukrainians or similar articles. The former categories do not refer to ethnic groups but as nationalities, the latter categories refer to ethnic groups. Germans, Poles, Ukrainians existed way before the modern-day countries Germany, Poland and Ukraine. The articles mentioning the ethnic groups quite clearly mention previous migrations and also recent immigration. It's also worth mentioning that even the term "ethnic group" is contested by many scientists (especially anthropologists) with regards to its validity and what actually qualifies as an ethnic group. But, one should not confuse someone having citizenship of a particular country as belonging to that country's ethnic group. Are we now going to want the articles about the Kamba people, Kikuyu people and Luo people to not be regarded as ethnic groups and only as Kenyans?--LeftiePete (talk) 13:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Moxy: What makes you think it was motivated by nationalism? Most people who belong to a ethnic group can take a wild guess if another person belongs to the same ethnic group based on the other person's physical appearance, the language he/she speaks, the way he/she behaves in the sense of traditions, etc. Most Indians know what other Indians look like, most Chinese people know what other Chinese people look like, etc. They aren't being nationalists or racists, it is because the generally accepted term of an ethnic group includes ancestry and more specifically physical appearance. An English person who learns Greek doesn't suddenly become Greek, an Indian who learns French doesn't suddenly become French and so forth. Surely these things are no-brainers.--LeftiePete (talk) 13:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Rsk6400: Except the Germans article is explicitly referring to "Germans" as an ethnic group, it is not about German citizens. Germany only became a nation-state in 1871, are you trying to imply that Germans never existed before that date? The concept of Germans existing an ethnic group was established hundreds of years ago. Even after Germany was unified as a nation-state, there were many Germans who were living outside of the borders e.g. Austrian Germans and Sudeten Germans who still considered themselves to be Germans even though they weren't German citizens. The most notorious example of course is Adolf Hitler who was born an Austrian citizen and later became a German citizen, but he was a German born in Austria and the vast majority of other Austrians felt the same as he did during the late 19th century and early 20th century. Nationality is just the legal identification of someone being a subject of a country which should never be confused with someone's ethnicity which refers for all intents and purposes to his/her ancestry. Now, that is not to say that someone who was born in Germany and is mixed race or has Polish, English or any other European ethnic ancestry cannot or should not be regarded as a German, but please let's stick to the facts and acknowledge that the article is specifically about Germans as an ethnic group.

@Austronesier: The only thing historically that was questioned about the term "Germans" was more to do with who was considered a German after 1871 e.g. most Austrians considered themselves to be Germans in the late 19th century and early 20th century even though they were not German citizens. Many other ethnic groups e.g. Jews have lived in Germany for a very long time and identify as Germans, but they still consider themselves to be Jews because that is part of self-identification and a national identity.--LeftiePete (talk) 14:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Tserton: It's a false analogy to compare Americans and Brazilians to Germans, the French people and Dutch people. The former refer specifically only to nationalities because America and Brazil are multi-racial countries and have never been referred to specifically ethnic groups but rather nationalities. The latter refer to specific ethnic groups which existed way before nationalities. The articles are not "omitting huge proportions" of people because historical and recent migrations are mentioned throughout the articles. No one has ever stated that people of non-German ancestry are not German, but the article is referring specifically to Germans as an ethnic group. Oh, and just for what it is worth, "British" refers to the citizens of the UK, but there are the English people, Welsh people, Scottish people and Northern Irish people articles which refer specifically to those ethnic groups. Don't confuse nationality and ethnicity. Trying to mix nationality and ethnicity under the banner of being more inclusive is a slippery slope.--LeftiePete (talk) 14:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

This issue is overreacted. Of course it may refer primarily the ethnic group, but also as a nationality/citizens. Could not be otherwise, since just like that German ethnics and citizens may be summarized around the world, including German subjects residing outside Germany and people with German ancestry without citizenship. There is not any vs. here as the nominator of this discussion suggests. The two concept cannot be separated at the Germans article. By the Canada, Brazil or akin pages of course we summarize a bit differently as newly created countries which does not follow an exact state formation of one ethnics have different background, but the concept remains the same, as well ethnicity and citizens are inlcuded. There is no problem here.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC))

@LeftiePete: What I'm saying is precisely that Germany, France, the Netherlands etc. are now multi-racial countries as well (and becoming more so by the day). Whether one thinks that's good or bad, it's still a fact, and should be reflected in the definition of those people. I'm definitely not advocating conflating nationality and ethnicity! I've noticed that's a common misperception throughout this thread. Quite the opposite: I want to acknowledge the fact that there are two ways the words "Germans," "French people" etc. are used. As to the articles on the people of the nationals of the UK, I think those should also be defined more broadly - all of them are, admittedly to very different degrees, multiethnic societies and the word "Scottish people" now firmly also refers to figures like Katie Leung and Ncuti Gatwa.

And the fact that members of the Jewish diaspora often identify as such, even as members of a Jewish nation, shouldn't obscure the fact that they (usually) identify first and foremost as citizens of the country they live in.--Tserton (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I've read this, and l think that the underlying problem is that people are looking at the article title, and trying to guess, based on their political philosophy, what the subject of the article is. (I say "political philosophy" in only the most positive sense – not about political organizations and elections, but about how you think large groups of people are best organized.) The actual subject does not match their prediction, so they conclude that the article content is wrong.

But it works the other way around. The subject of Germans is "a Germanic ethnic group native to Central Europe, who share a common German ancestry, culture, and history." We could, if there were significant confusion, re-title it to something like "Ethnic German people", but the subject of the article should not change.

To help you better understand the concepts, imagine that Bob is a German citizen, born in Germany, whose parents and grandparents and great-grandparents, since at least the Napoleonic era, have always been born and raised in the same town. He's "German", right?

• If Bob moves to France, he's still going to be German.
• If Bob begins to think of himself as being French, he'll have a French personal National identity, but he'll still be an ethnic German.
• If Bob changes his citizenship to French, he'll be legally a French citizen, but he's still going to be ethnically German.

The converse is also true: If an ethnic Finn moves to Germany, he does not stop being an ethnic Finn. He doesn't stop thinking that it's grand for babies to be outside when it's snowing. He doesn't stop thinking that Salty liquorice is food. No matter how his citizenship changes or how he views himself, he doesn't get magically removed from the group of people that is at higher risk of the Finnish heritage diseases.

And perhaps more pointedly, if a Turkish Gastarbeiter moved to Germany in 1955, and his children married other Turkish immigrants in Germany, and his grandchildren were born in Germany, those grandchildren may be German citizens, they may self-identify more with Germany than with any other country, and they may, in fact, be absolutely true and real Germans, but they are not the particular subset of absolutely-true-and-real Germans that this specific article happens to be about. This particular article is about my friends whose families have always lived in Germany, including those friends who have immigrated from Germany to other countries, but not my friends who have immigrated from other countries to Germany. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

To stick with your analogy about Bob: there's no question about his ethnicity not changing if he moved to another country. No one is saying that. But no one would dream of identifying him first and foremost as "German" if his family had been in the US for generations - he would be American, even if he identified as German in some social, familial or cultural aspects (which many German Americans, like Mexican Americans and Indian Americans, do). In fact, the movement to identify Barack Obama as "Kenyan" rather than simply "American" was widely seen as racist. The point I'm making is that most Western European countries have become multiethnic societies like the US, and the word "Germans" now commonly refers all German citizenships, rather than only ethnic Germans, just like "Americans" refers to everyone with American citizenship, not just Native Americans. The page Germans (And French people, Austrians, Belgians etc.) should simply reflect that. As I said above, Americans, Australians, and Brazilians are identified as citizens living in those countries - even though all of these countries have their own "ethnic" peoples that were there long before immigration.

That doesn't mean remove the ethnic dimension - we should just acknowledge the ambiguity. Your suggestion of renaming the article "ethnic Germans" or something similar is one way of doing so. The article could also be slightly rephrased at some points, especially the beginning. "Germans are citizens of Germany. In a wider sense, Germans can also refer to anyone of full or partial German descent, regardless of their citizenship." Or maybe "Germans are citizens of Germany blah blah blah.... In addition, the word German is also used to refer to a Germanic ethnic group native to central Europe blah blah blah." Both options would be okay with me. --Tserton (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

This is all getting a tad bit silly now. The term "ethnic group" (just like "race") is a social construct. However, Wikipedia has hundreds of articles about different ethnic groups and the Germans should be no different. Germans existed as an ethnic group a long time before Germany became a nation-state. There is no need for "(ethnic group)" to be added to the title of the article. Perhaps one or two sentences could be added in the lede that mention "Germans" can also refer to the citizens of Germany, but the fact remains that "Germans" refers primarily to the ethnic group.--LeftiePete (talk) 23:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we're all that far apart on this issue, to be honest - I think we agree on the basics and only really differ on the formalities, and I understand your position. But I do disagree that "German" refers primarily to the ethnicty; I'd say it's the opposite. In the media, in legal situations and in everyday usage, it refers primarily to the nationality, while the ethnic meaning of the word is only intended for very specific contexts (e.g. an American of German descent speaking about his identification with the German culture).

And with respect, it's not silly at all - it's an extremely relevant topic. Non-white citizens of every Western European country long had problems being accepted as part of those countries' identities because they were rigidly defined along ethnic lines. Only a small minority of people still think this way, but latent racism persists in all of these countries ("but where are you really from?"). I would argue that a Wikipedia article describing French people narrowly as an ethnic group native to France is a form of othering.

Of course I realize ethnicity is a construct, and of course "German" was an ethnic group long before it was a nationality (a factoid that never ceases to amaze me: Germany didn't even have its own citizenship when it was created, but rather each constituent principality issued its own passports; German citizenship wasn't a thing until 1913). But the US and Australia and Brazil also have their own indigenous ethnicities, and there's a reason those pages don't narrowly refer only to Native Americans and Aboriginals: these words are commonly used to describe a much larger group of people. This has become the case for Western European countries as well, meaning the demonyms have taken on a dual meaning. The only difference is that there are no commonly used terms to distinguish the ethnicity from the nationality (aside from some tongue-in-cheek words like Biodeutsche). I would argue that Wikipedia should treat those terms like it treats any other entry with multiple meanings.

And again, it's not just an academic debate. This is a highly topical issue. In fact, the substance of the debate we're having here, which also occurred in some for or another in almost every Western European country in the 70s-00s (and in some places, especially where immigration is a more recent phenomenon, remains ongoing), is probably relevant itself for these Wikipedia articles.--Tserton (talk) 02:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Tserton: As User:WhatamIdoing has already mentioned, that has more to do with some people's political beliefs on here. However, that is not how Wikipedia works. Maybe one or two sentences in the lede of the article could be added to mention that "Germans" may also refer to the citizens of Germany would be sufficient.--LeftiePete (talk) 02:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

There has been a sizeable amount of Africans living in China since the 1990s. Create a new section on the Chinese people talk article and ask for "Chinese people" to include the citizens of China because at the moment the article only refers to people of Chinese ancestry in the lede. Confusing nationality and ethnicity is a slippery slope.--LeftiePete (talk) 02:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

China is actually a multiethnic country and the article Chinese people reflects that: "Chinese people are the various individuals or ethnic groups associated with China, usually through ancestry, ethnicity, nationality, citizenship, or other affiliation." But I understand the point you're trying to make - the African migrants who live in China are not generally considered "Chinese." But it's not a slippery slope at all - the vast majority of these people are not Chinese citizens (by design, since China makes it difficult for immigrants to integrate, much less acquire citizenship). If China ever became a major destination of immigrants and allowed them to become Chinese citizens, the meaning of "Chinese" would eventually evolve in the similar way "German" and "French" have.

As for the politics, that's a bit of an unfalsifiable hypothesis. One could just as easily turn the argument around and say that only politically conservative people insist of using "German" to refer mainly to the ethnicity. But as I see it, this use of the term is not politically incorrect, but rather factually incomplete.

Anyway, it seems like this is a solution everyone can live with: slightly modify the leads of the articles on the people of multiethnic societies to make clear they refer to both citizens of those countries as well as the ethnicities. I'll put a post on the respective talk pages to give people a chance to weigh in. --Tserton (talk) 08:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Tserton, your sentence about 'using "German" to refer mainly to the ethnicity' takes us right back to where I started. Your problem seems to be with the article title, rather than its contents. There are multiple groups of people who really, truly, legitimately *are* German. There are, for example:

• people currently holding German citizenship
• people residing in Germany long-term/permanently, regardless of citizenship status
• people raised in Germany/German culture
• people descended from Germans

We should definitely have an article about all the multi-ethnic people who are living in Germany, and we do. We named that article Demographics of Germany, because that's our naming convention for articles about who lives in a given place, but it would be equally accurate to call that article "Germans".

We should also have a separate article about the single ethnic group whose families are historically from the people who controlled what is now Germany (including, in some cases, places that aren't Germany now, but have been at other times, and including people whose families lived in Germany for generations but who have themselves moved to another country, and excluding people from ethnic groups that were always considered to be separate groups in previous centuries, e.g., Romani people). We have such an article. We named that article Germans, because that's our naming convention for ethnic groups, but it would be equally accurate to call that article "Ethnic Germans".

Again: Don't get hung up on the title. If you want to be reading or writing about a different group of people who are entitled to describe themselves as "German", then go to German and find the article that you want to be reading about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but an encyclopedia. It groups articles into concepts rather than terms. German ethnicity and German citizenship are covered by the same term, but are different concepts. For example: Volga Germans and Baltic Germans are referred to as "Germans" in an ethnic sense but not in a legal sense, while Sorbs are referred to as "Germans" in a legal sense but not in an ethnic sense. All countries in the world are multi-ethnic societies, including Germany. Wikipedia should have distinct articles on every notable ethnicity in that country, including Germans and Sorbs. If the topic of Germans, French people and Dutch people is to be made ambiguous by adding multiple distinct definitions, then the topic of Albanians, Armenians, Greeks, Russians, Vietnamese people etc. should be changed as well. Such proposed mixing of ethnic and legal concepts into one article would generate confusion, and would be contrary to WP:NOT#DICT/WP:NAD. Krakkos (talk) 13:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Tserton: The point I was trying to make is that the Han Chinese is for the most part the predominant ethnic group belonging to the Chinese people, but there are loads of different Chinese ethnic groups. As User:Krakkos pointed out, Wikipedia includes different German ethnic groups when they are ethnic minorities in different countries, but the Germans article is predominantly about Germans as an ethnic group living in Germany. My point about politics is by no means an "unfalsifiable hypothesis" - conservatives and socialists (right-wing vs left-wing) view nationality, citizenship, immigration, ethnicity, etc, very, very differently. Whether recent migrants living in Germany consider themselves to be Germans is up to them, but whether "ethnic Germans" consider them to be "Germans" is a different ball game altogether. The German Wikipedia article about Germans covers that point clearly. I added "Citizens of Germany" to the German article.--LeftiePete (talk) 14:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@LeftiePete: (and everyone involved in the discussion): As has been repeatedly noted, we now find ourselves going in circles and I doubt we will ever agree. This is a clash of worldviews and our arguments have devolved into the semantic. But the fact remains that most uninitiated people would find it utterly confusing to read that only 60 million of the 80 million people living in Germany are German.

What is wrong, when a word has two distinct meanings, with covering those two meanings and making the ambiguity clear? While Wikipedia is not a dictionary (@Krakkos:), here's an excerpt from WP:Article titles:

A good Wikipedia article title has the five following characteristics:

• Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
• Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.
• Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. (See § Precision and disambiguation, below.)
• Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. (See § Conciseness, below.)
• Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above.

Currently, the titles of Germans, French people and similar multiethnic societies fail on the naturalness and precision criteria. So what's wrong with renaming "Germans" to "Germans (ethnic group)"? Or making clear within the lead of the existing article that Germans widely refers to two concepts? (And indeed, the nationality concept is by far the more widely used in real life, while the ethnic one has a more niche use). I'm aware that any title will make tradeoffs between these criteria, but at the moment it's concise at the expense of precision and naturalness.

Should we seek arbitration? Though I understand and respect the opposing position, there is clearly a genuine philosophical, rather than factual, disagreement here. --Tserton (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I know several people who are living in Germany right now. At least four of them might actually be offended if you informed them that they were Germans despite having no German ancestry and no German citizenship. With the EU's open borders, it should not surprise anyone that a significant number of non-Germans live in Germany. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

For your question what's wrong with renaming "Germans" to "Germans (ethnic group)"?, the answer is "nothing, except that's not how we usually name such articles". Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes) says that "Germans" is the standard practice. We use a parenthetical disambiguation when there are multiple subjects with the same names, e.g., the Zambian city of Ndola and the Zambian Ndola (ethnic group).

I want to be clear: what you propose is not "wrong". It's just not the English Wikipedia's usual practice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

"might actually be offended if you informed them that they were Germans despite having no German ancestry and no German citizenship." I don't want to expand German to include "anyone who happens to be in Germany at the moment" - I'm only advocating for Wikipedia's usage of the word Germans to also include German citizens (and thereby resemble Canadians and Americans). For what it's worth, I too know people living in Germany, with and without German citizenship, who do not wish to be considered German and identify primarily with another culture or nationality. However, I know many, many more people who are tired of being reminded of their "otherness" on a daily basis and wish to simply be seen as German. And in any case, anecdotes are not relevant for Wikipedia. Individuals should be able to identify as whatever they want irrespective of their passport - as German, not German, both, or none of the above.

"Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes) says that "Germans" is the standard practice." If, for the sake of argument, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes) clearly reserved words like Germans for the ethnicity to the exclusion of the nationality (which I don't agree is the case), then that naming convention clashes with that of WP:Article titles.

"We use a parenthetical disambiguation when there are multiple subjects with the same names, e.g., the Zambian city of Ndola and the Zambian Ndola (ethnic group)." I am arguing that precisely this ambiguity exists with many Western European demonyms. --Tserton (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Oxford Dictionary of English defines the noun "German" as "a native or inhabitant of Germany, or a person of German descent". So the first definition is "native or inhabitant". In our article the only definition corresponds to "descent". So, either we have to change the definition in the lede of our article or we have to rename the article to Germans (ethnic group). @Tserton: I totally agree with your understanding of WPs naming conventions. --Rsk6400 (talk) 09:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Of the two solutions, I prefer changing the lede, since the article is about both concepts. Two examples: There is a section on literature, but at least one well known living German author, Navid Kermani, has no German ancestors. The last section has two pictures of German chancellors - German government is not based on ethnicity. --Rsk6400 (talk) 09:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Rsk6400 here. And once we're at it, we should drop the Blut-und-Boden-ish definition of ethnicity that includes ancestry. Significant portions of "ethnic Germans" became Germans by language-shift and self-indentifying as Germans over centuries starting with the Ostkolonisation. As late as 1938, German villages in East Prussia had to change their "foreign-sounding" names, even though their inhabitants (with just as "foreign-sounding" surnames ending in -at or eit) had identified as Germans for generations. The same holds for "assimilated" Jews, who by choice (sometimes by pressure) ceased to identify with the enthnicty of their parents. Denial of this choice was an essential Nazi policy based of their ancenstry-based definition of "German-ness". –Austronesier (talk) 10:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I just changed the first paragraph of the lede of Germans, not claiming to have found the perfect solution. --Rsk6400 (talk) 14:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Rsk6400: I like your improvement. I've slightly tweaked it to clarify which Germanic ethnic group (ethnic Germans).--LeftiePete (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I also think that wording is a major improvement that hopefully everyone can live with. Thanks to everyone for staying calm and reasonable throughout this long discussion - clearly no minds have been changed but we still seem to have found a solution everyone's okay with. --Tserton (talk) 05:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The changes will be reviewed.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: I don't understand why you insist that "Germans" primarily denotes an ethnic group. The only reason you gave in the discussion - as far as I see now - is that we cannot sum up the different numbers of Germans in several countries. The sources in the lede are irrelevant, because they only confirm that one use of the word "Germans" is the ethnic group. They don't confirm that that's the only or primary use. The use in current English can only be referenced to a dictionary. That's why I mentioned the definition in ODE (see above). The expression "identified with Germany" is not unprecedented as you claim at Talk:Germans, but copied from Canadians. Your new version of the lede has at least two problems: The first sentence is wrong because it excludes part of the meaning. The ethnic definition is given in both the first and second sentences. --Rsk6400 (talk) 14:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@Rsk6400:,

It is fact that especially in Europe that denotes at ethnic group, it has a history, and for everything I explained my reasons, which also others shared and I did not say that's the only primary use, but definetly a main usage. Just because by the Canadians article it is like so, it does not mean here it should be or would be adequate, since such like historical Canadian ethnic group did not even exist, etc. such issues have also been discussed. No, the version I rewritten does no exclude any meaning, and there is no repetition of the ethnic meaning, since being of German ancestry does not necessarily mean being fully German, but the article also sums up German descendants. If you don't accept this version, the page will be rollbacked to the status quo ante version, because no new consensus has been achieved.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: You might want to read WP:DRNC, since you reverted without explaining your reasons. I totally agree with what you say about the ethnical usage being "a main usage". But your version of the lede implies that the ethnical usage is the main usage. And that's something different. Neither ODE, nor Merriam-Webster, nor the German constitution, Article 116 (English translation) see it as the main usage. --Rsk6400 (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Rsk6400:,

no, I explained all of my reasons in every talk pages. It is only your perception, however this article is not a law, so citing existing laws are not helpful. Also, Marriam-Webster about German is not identical with Germans, etc. In the lead the three main interpretations are fairly listed with the needed weight, taking into account all wherabouts.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC))

@Tserton, Austronesier, Jotamar, Moxy, LeftiePete, Krakkos, Mathglot, and WhatamIdoing: (hoping that I didn't forget anybody who took part) I'm really at a loss as to how to deal with this. Any thoughts ? --Rsk6400 (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

How we phrase the definition in the lead, should follow what reliable, independent, secondary sources say. When there are multiple meanings (citizens or not, ethnic group or not, residents or not) then we must include the definitions given in a majority, or significant minority of reliable sources, and ignore the rest; and discuss them in proportion to their appearance in reliable sources, with the majority view first, and having a larger proportion of lead sentence or paragraph. The task then becomes: how to determine these proportions, when there are too many sources to examine them all? In this case, a good technique is to examine reliable tertiary sources, such as published encyclopedias. If you look at a dozen reliable encyclopedias, and the majority say the same thing about this question, then one can assume that that reliably reflects the state of the many secondary sources, and we should go with the definition given by the majority of encyclopedias. If there is no clear majority, then we should list both (or all) views, probably starting off the WP:LEADSENTENCE with something like, "The term Germans has several meanings: first: <most common meaning>, and also <next most common>." We need to stick with the reliable sources, and consulting tertiary sources is a way of getting confirmation of what the secondary sources say, when there are too many of them to read them all. Mathglot (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@KIENGIR: I'm not trying to be confrontational, but Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and unilaterally rolling back an edit that had the broad support of editors of different stances runs counter to the spirit of collaboration - let alone without making any new points. The objections you raised on Talk:Germans have been thoroughly discussed on this page. And respectfully, threatening to simply revert everything if others don't agree with your edit is a mild form of hostage-taking.

@Mathglot: This kind of cool, scientific approach is appealing. The issue I see is that it will probably be highly divergent: legal, political and sociological textbooks would likely primarily use the citizenship meaning of national demonyms, while historical and ethnological texts might be more focused on the ethnic meaning. So if we consulted a wide range of such texts we should be sure to include a good cross-section of fields. Many may also not give a clear definition one way or another (e.g. Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't have any entry for Germans), putting us back in our current position of arguing how the word is being used. In addition, there are a great many secondary sources (news articles, government documents, memoirs, etc.) that use demonyms as the nationality and others that use it as the ethnicity. If a clear majority of encyclopedias used it in a certain way, would that invalidate the contradicting secondary sources? (I'm open to being wrong about this - I have little experience using tertiary sources for editing Wikipedia.)

@Rsk6400: To my view, your edit had the consensus of a diverse group of participants in this discussion. The points being raised now simply rehash old ones made throughout this discussion. I see several options: (1) re-revert the edits with the justification that they were made with talk page consensus (undesirable and will likely lead to an edit war), (2) ask for third opinions or arbitration, or (3) as suggested by Mathglot below, substantially rewrite the article. I'm for options 2 or 3, although even 3 may end up being contentious and require third opinions.--Tserton (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Tserton:,

what are you talking about? I collaboratively modified more times the new trial with a discussion with the fellow editor, thus I could not unilaterally roll back an edit, which was performed by the user in fact allegedly as bold edit, an on the other hand pushed that unilaterally despite having no consensus (unfortunately the opposite is true from your accusations, neither gained the trial broad support, or consensus here, neither on the article's talk, just a few editors supported it). You last sentence is again a nonsense, excuse me, it seems you are not aware of our guidelines, in case no consensus is achieved, than neither my or the other user's version stays, but the page will be reset to the previous version as it was before, per policy.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC))

@Tserton: replied to you at Tertiary sources subsection, below. Mathglot (talk) 23:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I followed your suggestion, thinking that dictionaries also are tertiary sources, since their editors scan a lot of literature.

@KIENGIR: Collaboration demands that you earnestly engage in a discussion. A threat like I answered you there, in case you won't accept this improved version, then because of no consensus the page will be reset to status quo ante (your edit summary here) is difficult to reconcile with the spirit of collaboration. Above you wrote, I explained all of my reasons in every talk pages. That behaviour is mentioned as an example for disruptive behaviour in WP:Stonewalling: Or they claim the question has already been answered, without indicating where (with a link or quote) it was answered. As we all know, consensus is not unanimity. WP:Stonewalling says that Consensus regarding a proposal is determined by evaluating the arguments made by all those participating. So, I agree with Tserton (talk · contribs): There is a consensus here that the first sentence (see WP:LEADSENTENCE) should not define Germans only as an ethnic group. I don't think you should revert again. --Rsk6400 (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Rsk6400:,

no, I earnestly engaged in the discussions, and I never made threats, our community has it's policies and guidelines you wish to ignore, meanwhile it is not the first time to identify happenings as they are. I if you claim spirit of collaboration, why you are pushing something without consensus and consistently disregard our rules? You tried several claims, none of them were valid - as well your new invention of "stonewalling" - just beucase you could not reach a new consensus (more worse, that you try to suggest there are no links to asnwers, although they are as well here and on the page evidently referred, seen by everyone). "is determined by evaluating the arguments made by all those participating", sure and your arguments have been taken into account (my solutions as well contained those principles laid down here, following the triple approach, so your claim about "define Germans only as an ethnic group" is fake), on the other hand you obviously failed to build a new consensus of especially the wordage you have been pushing. Since you did such move again, accordingly the page will be rolled back to status quo ante, per policy, and you should avoid any further modifications to the page without reaching a new consensus, presented here or either in the article's talk, where all participants give their open consent and agreement to update the lead, regarding it's exact wordage.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC))

Germans as ethnic group is a notable subject, so trying to change the scope of existing article seems fairly counterproductive. If people think the topic Germans as citizens of Germany deserves a standalone article, then it would make sense for them to create such article from scratch. While there would be some overlap, logically it would have a whole lot less information about medieval history of Germans, and a whole lot more information about different groups(Turks, Poles, Jews etc.) that form modern body of German citizens, sort of like you can see in Australians or Americans articles.--Staberinde (talk) 11:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

BCA

Sorry I'm late to this discussion. I probably would have contributed in detail had I noticed it sooner. At this point I think it's worth noting that a lot of good points have been made from different points of view, and that one point of agreement, such as it is, was that it was starting to go around in circles. The bottom line that I guess most would agree on: there are various ways of looking at the concept of "German" (and other such terms). I also understand both the temptation to go with WP:PARENDIS with "(ethnic group)" as well as the counterpoint, "we don't *usually* do it that way".

So, I was a bit surprised that in all the different proposals of how to deal with it, no one has mentioned the possibility of structuring the article as a Broad concept article. The BCA concept provides a framework for thinking about a topic that "may be difficult to write about because it is abstract, or because it covers the sometimes-amorphous relationship between a wide range of related concepts." For those who haven't come across this editing guideline before, or just haven't thought about a BCA in connection with this topic, I think it might offer a solution that everyone could get on board with. Or am I being hopelessly optimistic? Have another look at WP:BCA and see what you think. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 02:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Just mention and link German diaspora in the definition...the average reader will have a progressive view of ethnic groups.--Moxy 🍁 21:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Moxy: I would instinctively agree with you, but the extent of the discussion on here demonstrates this is not the case. --Tserton (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Writing a Broad Concept Article sounds like an elegant way of addressing most of the concerns raised during this discussion. It sounds like exactly what we have here: two meanings of the same word that are related but distinct. But it would entail a revision of a number of articles on a scale both broad and deep and require a lot of coordination and collaboration. What do people think? --Tserton (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Article is already broad in nature.... covers citizenship, ethnicity, dispora... Etc.....just need the first paragraph of the lead fixed to match the rest. Read me....Guido Bolaffi; Raffaele Bracalenti; Peter Braham; Sandro Gindro (2003). Dictionary of Race, Ethnicity and Culture. SAGE Publications. pp. 1968–. ISBN 978-0-7619-6900-6..--Moxy 🍁 00:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

If it's all right with everyone, since the discussion has largely moved to the subsection Tertiary sources as proxy, I'll move this subsection above it to keep the most recent comments at the bottom and make it easier for potential newcomers to get to them. --Tserton (talk) 04:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit: done --Tserton (talk) 11:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Tertiary sources as proxy

Above, I laid out an idea about using tertiary sources like encyclopedias as a way to (hopefully) help point the way to a solution of the problem. Note that two features of tertiary sources (like encyclopedias) are crucial to this approach:

1. Reliable tertiary sources are in the business of providing a balanced and accurate view of what secondary sources say. That is the very definition of what a tertiary source is and does. If most tertiary sources agree about a given point, it is overwhelmingly likely that most secondary sources agree about that point. Put another way: the consensus of tertiary sources is an excellent proxy for what the consensus of what secondary sources say about an issue.
2. Tertiary sources are far fewer in number than secondary sources; it's much faster, and easier, for Wikipedia editors to get a sense of what most encyclopedias say.

By combining these two points, we can look at tertiary sources, to determine WP:DUE WEIGHT about a topic in secondary sources, without having to read all the secondary sources, to a very high degree of probability.

Some point-by-point responses to @Tserton:'s comments:

The issue I see is that it will probably be highly divergent

• That's fine; that's the exact issue that consulting tertiary sources is designed to resolve, in a more efficient manner than consulting (far more numerous) secondary sources is likely to do.

Many may also not give a clear definition one way or another (e.g. Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't have any entry for Germans)

• That's a great segue for a point I might have made separately above, but never got around to; namely, if there's that much argument about what a term even means, then we might have an article title issue; in that case, we could look at the possibility of a broad concept article, or a disambig page. If EB decided not to have an article there, maybe that means there was some conference room meeting with a bunch of EB editors, and they had the exact same discussion/argument that we are having (only with a lot more Ph.D.'s among them ). If they resolved an intractable argument by finessing the problem into not having an article by that name, then that's certainly something we should consider as a possibility here as well.

If a clear majority of encyclopedias used it in a certain way, would that invalidate the [great many] contradicting secondary sources?

• I would respond to that like this: First, it depends if we believe bullet #1 above, about tertiary sources being a good proxy for the universe of secondary sources; I take that as axiomatic. Given that, then: No, it wouldn't *invalidate* it, it would just place those contradicting secondary sources in a bucket of a certain size, to be judged as a "significant minority view", which is perfectly fine, and would mean that by WP:DUE we would have to cover that view. (Also, I don't like the word "contradicting" without knowing specifically what we are talking about; let's just say, "different" view.)

...using tertiary sources for editing Wikipedia

• The point would be, not to use the tertiary sources directly in the article itself—i.e., we needn't cite them in footnotes—but rather, we use them here, in discussion on the talk page, to ascertain and gain consensus about what the proper proportion of differing views is among the many, many secondary sources that are far too numerous for us to actually examine. Once we decide here, say, that "view A" is the majority view, by 2–1, over "view B" among tertiary sources, then we write the lead, mentioning "A" first, and with a bit more verbiage than "B", and we pick two highly qualified secondary sources from among the ones that support "A", and one highly qualified source from the ones that support "B", and add those three citations to the lead. Make sense?

I've used this approach before, and I believe it has been helpful. If you'd like to see a real-world example of how an appeal to tertiary sources has helped lend some data to a seemingly deadlocked situation in the context of a long, complicated, contentious Talk page discussion about a topic, have a look at this section about tertiary sources at Talk:French Revolution. I believe it was of value there in pointing out how tertiary sources provided a proper perspective about the range of views on one aspect of a historical event that may have the vastest literature of any event in history. I think that it could have a similar benefit, here. Mathglot (talk) 23:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot:Thanks for your explanation - it's helpful and makes sense. We clearly need to find a new way of dealing with our impasse without simply retreading our arguments. To start, I'm broadly in favor of your suggestion, but with mixed feelings:

I think maybe the reason people are reluctant to jump on board with this is for fear of the result of such a survey of tertiary literature. First, because "who is German/French/Dutch?" (and while I know these articles aren't trying to answer that, many uninitiated readers will read them as such) is a more fraught and loaded question than "what was the extent of American involvement in the French revolution?" And second, because the meaning of "German" only began to evolve about 50 years ago and its modern non-race-specific usage really only became widespread in the last 20 years. (This is my personal assessment based on secondary literature.) Encyclopedias don't publish new editions every year (or even every decade), so my fear is that we'll find an anachronistic view of the topic that doesn't reflect realities on the ground. Imagine a point in time, not all that long ago, in the US when the now (more or less) unquestioned identity of people of Asian or African descent as "American" was still a recent development. Making their Americaness dependent on the survey of contemporary encyclopedias would be quite fraught, and who knows what it would have yielded. So maybe people are afraid of that being a Pandora's box.

Imagine reading something like this: "Germans are an ethnic group native to central Europe....a minority view also considers Germans to refer to all German citizens regardless of ethnicity." Or imagine being a non-white German reading that!

However, it may be the only way to break the impasse at which we find ourselves. Without trying to pre-determine the outcome of an encyclopedic survey - if a rather recent change in the description of the word over time becomes evident, that can still be reflected in our text ("Germans once referred predominantly to the ethnic group natice to central Europe and is still used this way in some contexts...") Whatever we end up deciding to do will definitely command a stronger consensus if it's the result of a systematic, objective process. --Tserton (talk) 23:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Tserton:, thanks for your comment. I would only say, that if an editor fears the result of a survey of tertiary literature, then that's a red flag, and they should reexamine their reason for being here. The role of an editor here, is to distill and summarize the reliable secondary literature on a topic in a neutral fashion, and in proportion to the weight of different views on the topic; that's pretty much it. If they "fear" what the literature says, that says to me that they may be an advocate and not a neutral observer, and maybe they could find a better fit at Medium, or Stackexchange, or a blog, but not at Wikipedia. I can't see any reason at all why a neutral, unbiased observer would have a fear of what a survey of reliable sources would turn up. It doesn't matter if it's fraught; it doesn't matter if it steps on our toes or preconceptions as editors, or if it makes people in one group or another feel bad. It only matters what the reliable sources actually say about the topic. Our only role here, is to faithfully render that onto the page in summary form, and add footnotes. Mathglot (talk) 00:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I'm sorry. Fear was too strong a word, and I shouldn't have tried to guess at what other Wikipedians are thinking. Of course I believe in the hard-nosed search for truth over pathos and personal beliefs that is the founding philosophy of Wikipedia. While my impression of the question "how is the adjective German used" is colored by my own experiences with the word, I'm fully aware that that amounts to original research. I'm genuinely not trying to be difficult or advocate an authoritarian view of the world as I see it. While I do believe printed encyclopedias, almost by definition, lag behind secondary sources, and that can create problems with fast-evolving topics, I'm perfectly willing to submit to whatever a survey of them turns up. --Tserton (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Tserton:, no worries; I didn't assume you were talking about yourself, but probably were just worried in general about getting concern-trolled by possibly newish editors who don't yet realize what our charter is here. It's all good. Mathglot (talk) 02:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Tserton: I agree even with your fears: Just looked into an old edition (about 1960) of "Brockhaus" (one of Germany's most famous encyclopedias): "Deutsche" is defined there in a way that can only be called outlandish today. --Rsk6400 (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot:, thank you for this sensible suggestion. The following tertiary sources may be helpful in solving the problem:

• Haarmann, Harald (2015). "Germans". In Danver, Steven (ed.). Native Peoples of the World: An Encyclopedia of Groups, Cultures and Contemporary Issues. Routledge. pp. 313–316. ISBN 1317464001.
• Moser, Johannes (2011). "Germans". In Cole, Jeffrey (ed.). Ethnic Groups of Europe: An Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. pp. 171–177. ISBN 1598843028.
• Minahan, James (2000). "Germans". One Europe, Many Nations: A Historical Dictionary of European National Groups. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 287–294. ISBN 0313309841.|

Krakkos (talk) 09:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Krakkos: All the sources you mentioned share a common problem: The titles make it clear that they concentrate on ethnic groups. So it's no wonder that they define Germans as an ethnic group. A definition which everybody here agrees with. Our question is, whether "ethnic group" is the only (or at least the main) definition. And regarding that question, those sources can't help us. --Rsk6400 (talk) 10:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Rsk6400:I fully understand where you're coming from: Wikipedia should describe the world as it is, and anyone who's lived in Germany in the past 20 years, or even paid attention to the artists, politicians and businesspeople Germany has produced, knows that word has long been used to describe citizens of all national origins (relevant meme: https://twitter.com/MalcolmOhanwe/status/1312691936470466560). I understand the concern about not simply "making some group of people feel bad", but indeed of producing something racist by implying an even more exclusively ethnic description of German than how the article currently phrases it. I also share your discomfort for using a "scientific" process to determine how to apply the word German, since this has uncomfortable echoes in Germany's past. But I've read through some of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies on tertiary sources (WP:Identifying and using tertiary sources) and they strike me as quite sensible in how they limit their use.

• Comparative use of tertiary sources can be fraught with problems relating to undue weight, non-neutral point of view, novel synthesis, and lack of basic accuracy if the things being compared are subject to real-world contention, or are complex in nature.

• While a good tertiary source can usually be used without incident to source non-controversial facts, such citations can and should be superseded by ones to reliable secondary sources....It is extremely rare for a tertiary source to be the best such source, for anything, in any context.

• An obsolete source cannot be used to "trump" newer reliable sources that present updated information, most especially when the older source states or implies a negative that cannot be proven but can be disproven easily by new data.

In short, this means that while tertiary sources can be used to establish due weight (but not facts), in doing so we should exercise a clear bias in favor of more recent sources. It also means that no matter what a survey of tertiary sources reveals, the text will still have to be cited with secondary sources - of which there is an abundance demonstrating or even defining the post-ethnic usage of "Germans," "French," etc. In this sense, it's highly unlikely that using tertiary sources within the confines quoted above would lead us to describe a world drastically different from what it is - which is, of course, the basic principle of not relying on original research.

I suspect we'd find that many modern general encyclopedias simply avoid defining national groups explicitly. (Having said that, I don't readily have access to any general encyclopedias or textbooks.)

It's worth noting that most of the sources Krakkos cited above all studiously avoid defining German along ethnic lines and instead emphasize linguistic ties. The only work that does use an ethnic division first, One Europe Many Nations by Minahan, is on the older side (2000), and even he states there are "83,885,000 Germans in Europe," a number that clearly includes recent immigrants.

• One Europe, Many Nations (Minahan, 2000): "The Germans are an ancient ethnic group, the basic stock in the composition of the peoples of Germany, Scandinavia....approximately 83,885,000 Germans [live] in Europe"

• Ethnic Groups of Europe (Jeffrey Cole, 2011): "German identity developed through a long historical process that led to the definition of the German nation as both a community of descent (Volksgemeinschaft) and shared culture and experience. Today, the German language is the primary though not exclusive criterion of German identity."

• Native Peoples of the World (Steven Danver, 2015): "Germans are a Germanic (or Teutonic) people that are indigenous to Central Europe. Of the 100 million German speakers worldwide, about three-quarters (76 million) live in Germany....after centuries of political fragmentation, a sense of national unity as Germans began to evolve in the eighteenth century, and the German language became a key marker of national identity."

At the least, this would put the whole discussion on a more solid footing. The only alternative I can see is asking for intervention by admins, or an arbitration process of some sort. It's possible that certain users will never be constructive in their editing, but if we do as much legwork as possible it'll be less and less tenable for them to troll the consensus as is currently happening.--Tserton (talk) 01:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring at Germans

I took the problem at Germans to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:KIENGIR_reported_by_User:Rsk6400_(Result:_). --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

A problem indeed you initiated, so this was not a solution, you made things just worse.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC))

Survey of tertiary literature

@Mathglot: @Krakkos: @Rsk6400: @Mathglot: @Austronesier: @Moxy: @WhatamIdoing: @LeftiePete: and anyone else who participated or would like to: I'm not sure if there's an appetite for Mathglot's suggestion, but I think it would be worthwhile - even alone, although it would be nice to have broad participation to give whatever consensus emerges the maximum legitimacy possible. I would like to inject some evidence-based arguments into the eventual decision. I would stick with Germans for now, but it would be logical to eventually give other demonyms with ambiguous meanings the same treatment. Below I'll start a list of encyclopedia entries for "Germans" with relevant quotes on how the word is described/used. I will include those that Krakkos has already found. I think we can also safely include ethnological and political encyclopedias, as long as we put them in the proper context. If anyone would like to join in, please do! Just please be indiscriminate with the encyclopedias you cite (i.e. don't cherry pick) and include all relevant information from the source - even if it contradicts your preferred interpretation. I would especially appreciate Mathglot's input as someone who's done this before, if they have the time to give it. I'm keeping this on the Ethnicity project talk page because that's where the bulk of the discussion occurred, but I'm happy to move it to the talk page of the article of discussion (i.e. Germans).

Tertiary sources

1. Encyclopedia Britannica: no entry for "Germans." Edit (02:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)): Encyclopedia Britannica does discuss Germans under the entry "Germany" and describes the term extremely broadly: "The German-speaking peoples—which include the inhabitants of Germany as well as those of Austria, Liechtenstein, and the major parts of Switzerland and Luxembourg; small portions of France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Italy; and the remnants of German communities in eastern Europe—are extremely heterogeneous in their ethnic origins, dialectal divisions, and political and cultural heritage....The Germans, in their various changes of territory, inevitably intermingled with other peoples."
2. Native Peoples of the World: An Encyclopedia of Groups, Cultures and Contemporary Issues (2015): Doesn't explicitly define Germans, but uses the word to denote both ethnic Germans and German citizens. Emphasizes linguistic ties for identity. "Germans are a Germanic (or Teutonic) people that are indigenous to Central Europe. Of the 100 million German speakers worldwide, about three-quarters (76 million) live in Germany....after centuries of political fragmentation, a sense of national unity as Germans began to evolve in the eighteenth century, and the German language became a key marker of national identity." Thanks to Krakkos for finding.
3. Ethnic Groups of Europe: An Encyclopedia (2011): Doesn't explicitly define Germans, but uses the word to denote both ethnic Germans and German citizens. Emphasizes linguistic ties for identity. "The Germans live in Central Europe, mostly in Germany (82.2 million inhabitants, of whom 75 million speak German), and in many countries around the world, both as German expatriates and as citizens of other countries who identify culturally as German and speak the language....German identity developed through a long historical process that led to the definition of the German nation as both a community of descent (Volksgemeinschaft) and shared culture and experience. Today, the German language is the primary though not exclusive criterion of German identity." Thanks to Krakkos for finding.
4. One Europe, Many Nations: A Historical Dictionary of European National Groups (2000): Describes Germans mostly as an ethnic group, but also evidently includes recent immigrants in the population figure: "The Germans are an ancient ethnic group, the basic stock in the composition of the peoples of Germany, Scandinavia....approximately 83,885,000 Germans [live] in Europe, the majority in Germany, but with substantial German populations in Belgium, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia and Romania." Thanks to Krakkos for finding. --Tserton (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
5. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia: no entry for "Germans." (would be on p.648 if there were one) Mathglot (talk) 05:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
6. Encyclopedia of European Peoples: has an entry for Germans, but makes no mention of ethnicity, instead focusing on history and culture. --Tserton (talk) 02:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
7. Columbia Encyclopedia – Describes Germans as a "large ethnic complex of ancient Europe" and listing the modern countries of Sweden, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, the Low Countries, and England, and putting it in historical context back to pre-Christian Rome. (One-volume 'pedia, 950pp; Germans article is about two column-inches.) Mathglot (talk) 05:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
8. Encyclopédie Larousse – Nothing for Allemands (Germans), peuple allemand (German people), and so on; though it has entries for Hongrois (Hungarians), Finnois (Finns), and Basques. Mathglot (talk) 07:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
9. Gran enciclopèdia catalana – Nothing for alemanys (Germans) [search link; no article], poble alemany (German people), and so on; though it has entries for magiar (Hungarians), finès (Finns), and basc (Basques). Mathglot (talk) 07:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
10. Europa-Lexikon: Länder, Politik, Institutionen: Does not describe Germans as a people, but does list the German population of Germany as the number of people with German citizenship. --Tserton (talk) 11:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
11. Oxford World Encyclopedia: No entry for Germans; entry for "Germany" does not describe people of Germany.--Tserton (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
12. Europe: A Concise Encyclopedia: No entry for Germans; entry for "Germany" does not describe people of Germany.--Tserton (talk) 00:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Click [show] to view references for tertiary sources
References

Request for comment

Given the low level of participation in the survey of tertiary literature, and the consequent likelihood of further edit wars, I've opened an Rfc on the Germans talk page.--Tserton (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Posting here purely to inform this WikiProject that Krakkos (talk · contribs) has started no less than twenty-one additional RfCs on this matter, which may be found at the talk pages for: Albanians, Armenians, Azerbaijanis, Bulgarians, Estonians, Georgians, Greeks, Hungarians, Kazakhs, Kyrgyz people, Latvians, Romanians, Russians, Somalis, Tajiks, Thai people, Turkish people, Turkmens, Ukrainians, Uzbeks, Vietnamese people. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Krakkos: I don't think this is a good idea. Rfc's are supposed to be preceded by at least some discussion on the topic, and that wasn't the case for any of these as far as I can tell. We should make either one single Rfc here in WikiProject Ethnic Groups on a unified approach for how to treat ethnicity and nationality (given the vigorous discussion that has already taken place), or start discussions on the individual respective talk pages. --Tserton (talk) 00:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Update to peer review page

Hi all, I've boldly updated your project's peer review page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Peer review) by updating the instructions and archiving old reviews.

The new instructions use Wikipedia's general peer review process (WP:PR) to list peer reviews. Your project's reviews are still able to be listed on your local page too.

The benefits of this change is that review requests will get seen by a wider audience and are likely to be attended to in a more timely way (many WikiProject peer reviews remain unanswered after years). The Wikipedia peer review process is also more maintained than most WikiProjects, and this may help save time for your active members.

I've done this boldly as it seems your peer review page is pretty inactive and I am working through around 90 such similar peer review pages. Please feel free to discuss below - please ping me ({{u|Tom (LT)}}) in your response.

Cheers and hope you are well, Tom (LT) (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Article Assessment

Australian_Jews_in_Israel Hi! I have recently added a substantial amount of information to this article page and would really appreciate an article reassessment as I believe I have progressed the article beyond a stub. Thank you in advance! B0x3rg1r1 (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

New film article - Women of the White Buffalo

I created a new article about the documentary film, Women of the White Buffalo. Let me know if you want to help with further research, Right cite (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

a project edited only by the elders of each specific tribe

Hi, Let me start by saying that I have profound respect for Wikipedia and your work here. I also saw a few projects dedicated to improve the knowledge on native peoples.

However, I wonder if it would be possible and if you would agree there is a need (unless I missed a project that do so) for a project about each native tribe edited only by the elders of this nation? No need for much references but more like the way the tribe would like it to be told.

Although not a native myself, I have a few contacts and talking with them it seems they would agree that a Wikipedia project would be the best place.

Also, there should be the option for them to keep it private at least until they agree to make it public. Is that an option? Thanks

Yannick Neveux Founder and partner of Antinanco & TropicForest 501(c)3 Non-profits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yannickneveux (talk • contribs) 20:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Yannickneveux: Wikipedia as an encyclopedia that reflects knowledge based on WP:reliable sources will not be the apt place for it. Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not provide webspace for projects that essentially are collections of primary sources. And all content in Wikipedia is openly available, without options for restricted access. What you have in mind might fit in one of the other Wikimedia projects, but again, all of these are open-access (even at the incubator stage). –Austronesier (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your question, Yannickneveux. While I'm in agreement with Austronesier that your idea isn't likely to work as a Wikimedia project, do note that MediaWiki, the software that Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects operate on, is available for free for you to use on your own website should you wish to establish the project yourself. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Austronesier and Cordless Larry. Just to confirm the project managers in any wikiprojects can't decide who can edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yannickneveux (talk • contribs)

Projects such as Wikipedia don't have managers, Yannickneveux - rules and policies are instead decided by consensus amongst volunteer editors. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Once again thanks for your response, makes a lot more sense now Austronesier and Cordless Larry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yannickneveux (talk • contribs) 16:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Historical race concepts

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Historical race concepts#New image. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Uyghur genocide has an RFC

Uyghur genocide has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Mikehawk10 Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

CFD which may be of interest to users participating in this WikiProject

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_5#Category:Hong_Kong_people_of_Lower_Yangtze_descent--Prisencolin (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

An RfC on the Uyghurs

There is an RfC about the genetic origin of the Uyghurs, Talk:Uyghurs#RfC on the genetic history of the Uyghur people, comments are welcome. Hzh (talk) 12:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Sicilians

User:LambdofGod and User:Girgenti580 have been clashing at Sicilians over whether there were any Muslims in Sicily after the 13th century and whether there are close genetic relationships of Sicilians and Tunisians. I'm not an expert on either of these issues. On both LambdofGod's position is "no" and they have been deleting <ref> tags that, they claim, are unnecessary or do not prove the point the article claims they do. This might be right (the article is not currently super-high quality), but prima facie it looks concerning. Furius (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Ethnic discrimination in Ethiopia: requested move

There's a proposal Talk:Ethnic discrimination in Ethiopia#Requested move 19 March 2021 to change the name of the article from Ethnic discrimination ... to Racism .... Please add Support or Oppose (in bold) or a comment, with arguments. Boud (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Chin v. Zomi

Please can someone with a clue about Myanmar take a look at Chin people? Several IP editors have indiscriminately replaced Chin by Zomi and vice versa, resulting in such nonsense as More recently the word Chin has been rejected by some in favor of Chin (wikilinked to the body part where beards grow). Something is obviously wrong, but I'm not sure which words to change. Thanks, Certes (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Roma/Romani People

Hey fellow editors, I'm currently editing and trying to build the stub "Romani people in Poland", I'd really appreciate your help and expertise! RimaB99 (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Developing a stub!

Hi everyone, my name is Amy and I'm writing my first ever Wikipedia article. It is classed as a stub in this WikiProject, and I believe I've expanded it well beyond that level. I would really appreciate some help with copy-editing but would love as well if you could just take a minute to read it as I've put a lot of effort in! I'm trying to bring the article beyond the stub category to a A, B, or C grade page. The page is about an extremist political group, the National Association for the Advancement of White People . Thanks for your help guys! Tofta22 (talk) 11:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Links between English and Frisian peoples and languages

Editors here may wish to join the discussion at Talk:English people about the links (or not) between the English and Frisian peoples and languages which has arisen in the wake of multiple deletions and, in some cases, reversions and re-reversions of links between these topics, so a consensus would be helpful. Other articles affected include: Frisians, Saterland Frisians and Faroe Islanders. There may be more. Cheers. Bermicourt (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (New Zealand) has an RFC

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (New Zealand) has an RFC for possible consensus that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 09:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

RfC

See this Request for comment re: entries about ethnic groups in the United States. Page watchers are invited to participate in the ongoing discussion. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Origin of the Albanians

A dispute has erupted over a controversial new map at that article. I've opened a discussion thread here [12]. In general, the article is plagued by POV-pushing (in my opinion, all "Origin of the X" articles are very bad idea and should be deleted) and could really use some community attention. Khirurg (talk) 02:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Category:Citizens of X through descent

When should this category be used (e.g. Category:Citizens of Lebanon through descent)? Only in case someone became a citizen (through descent) later on in their life, or even if they were born citizens of that country, but abroad? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Kristen Stewart § Jewish ancestry, again

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Kristen Stewart § Jewish ancestry, again. Discussion of identifying someone as having an ethnic or national ancestry. Sundayclose (talk) 19:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed redirect: Race and crime→Race and crime in the United States

A redirect proposal that may interest members of this project is taking place at Talk:Race and crime § Propose redirect to Race and crime in the United States. ––FormalDude ^talk 11:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

RfC that concerns this topic

There is an RfC there that concerns this topic. Every opinion or other input is welcome. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Vlachs#Requested move 6 January 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Vlachs#Requested move 6 January 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 14:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Category talk:Plays about race and ethnicity

Looking for input about subcategories. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Further discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 January 11#Category:Works_about_race_and_ethnicity. –Austronesier (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Torajan people

I have nominated Torajan people for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 09:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Ketuanan Melayu

I have nominated Ketuanan Melayu for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 16:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Daunians

Hello,

A discussion relating to the genetics of the Daunians is taking place here [13], for anyone who is interested. Khirurg (talk) 03:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Images of Australian Aboriginal Flag at FFD

I listed local copies of the Australian Aboriginal Flag images at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. --George Ho (talk) 10:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Mokshas

Hi. I'm going to expand the article adding more sources to Middle Ages period----Numulunj pilgae (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Sadgop

Hello, can people chime in on what looks like a content dispute and claims over reliability of sources on Sadgop. I have no knowledge of the subject to make a valid call on this. Many thanks. Keith D (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The "art and science" sections of some articles

Most articles about ethnic groups and nations cover a very similar range of topics: history, identity, culture, (folk) arts, language, diasporas... However, there are a few articles that depart from this well-trodden path and bolt into the dense woods with lengthy sections on "science" and "education" whose only point appears to be to parade the scientific and artistic accomplishments of notable members of the ethnic groups. Among the couple of dozen random articles I checked, this occurs at Bulgarians#Art and science (permalink [14]), Serbs#Education and science ([15]), Arabs#Science ([16]), Italians#Science and technology ([17]), and Greeks#Science ([18]).

Am I the only one who sees such content as odd? – Uanfala (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• I've just unarchived this post. I had made a proposal for the removal of these sections at Talk:Serbs#The "Education and science" section, and after it attracted no participation at all for a whole month, I went ahead and made a light trim. Of course, I was instantaneously reverted and told to restrain myself from removing sourced material. Why did I think otherwise? Of course there'll be people who'll object if content is removed that showed how fabulously great the scientists and opera singers were of their ethic group. – Uanfala (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Especially in science, these are mostly individual contributions by researchers who happen to belong to a specific nationality or ethnic group. This is something best covered in "Notable people" lists. A section called "Science" implies a kind of collective contribution of the ethnic group or nation. Nations of course do have institution dedicated to scientific research, but that is best covered in articles about the entities (countries) themselves, not their peoples.

It may be a bit different with "Art", since there are art forms that are specific to a country or region, or highly favored and developed in certain countries. But again, such things are better covered in country/nation/region articles. –Austronesier (talk) 13:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Use of the term 'Mixed race'

I looked to see what Wikipedia had to say about the term 'mixed race' and was directed to the 'Multiracial people' article. I think that the terms 'mixed race' and 'multiracial' are entirely misleading. There are two main reasons for this, in my mind: 1. Everybody is mixed race - racial purity is a myth 2. 'Mixed race' is a term that really means 'not entirely white European'. Someone might be part Finnish, part Georgian, part Basque and part Irish and not be described as mixed race. Anyone who is part Chinese, part African, part Indian or anything other that white European will be described as mixed race. What is real is culture and different societies do have different cultural mixes. Sometimes physical characteristics such as skin colour align with cultural identity but this is not necessarily the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mydaemonthirst (talk • contribs) 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Yup. 'Mixed race' is a term that Wikipedia should never be using in it's own voice, and should be very wary of using in quotes etc, for these very reasons. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

New stub Everything's Gonna Be All White created

I've created a new stub called Everything's Gonna Be All White. I've added 9 references to the article and have added the infobox as well as the overview, cast, episodes and reception sections, but the article still needs some work like expanding and the episode list reformatted to the correct format. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Cleanup in aisle Dom

I recently discovered a cut-and-paste move from Doma people to Vadoma from 2013, where an IP user asserted that this ethnic group of Zimbabwe is not known as the Doma according to the available sources in the article. For some reason, the IP user redirected the old title to Dom people, a completely different group that is part of the Romani people, and I had to fix all the redirects that got retargeted because of it. Vadoma and its talk page are currently flagged for a history merge. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Then, I discovered that Dom people is insufficiently disambiguated from thee Doms, a Bengali Indian caste,and an RM has been opened at the former's talk page. Dom people used to have an infobox image for the wrong Dom people. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Balkan Latinity WikiProject

Hello, I've been thinking for a while of an idea for a new and certainly needed WikiProject. The Aromanians/Vlachs, Megleno-Romanians/Meglenites and Istro-Romanians/Ćiribirci are poorly known peoples in the Balkans, the only ones that are Romance-speaking apart of the Romanians. Tagging pages related to these with WikiProject templates can turn problematic, see this talk page for example [19], saturated with 7 different templates. I was thus thinking that giving them their own WikiProject could increase organization on Wikipedia about info on these peoples and increase their representation in the project, perhaps even attracting members of these groups into working at Wikipedia. The project could be split into three task forces for each of the three.

If you're interested, please ping me here or message me on my talk page. Expressing your interest in the existence of such a project is enough, you will not be compromised or pressured into working in a topic area you might lose interest to soon. After (if) I recruit enough support, I will start a formal proposal and ping you there. Regards, Super Ψ Dro 20:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Inuit or the Inuit

Looking for opinions and comments at Talk:Inuit#Inuit or the Inuit. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Jews of Color

Please contribute to this new article draft on Jews of Color.--Coin945 (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Feedback requested at Template:Infobox language

Your feedback regarding parameter |ethnicity= in Template:Infobox language would be appreciated. Please see this discussion. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Anazzah#Requested move 28 August 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Anazzah#Requested move 28 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Hunky culture#Requested move 19 November 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Hunky culture#Requested move 19 November 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples - Terminology

Hi guys I made a template to put on talk pages Template:First Nations Australians. If any of you could please take a look and see if any improvements need to be made. Thanks. AverageFraud (talk) 10:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Hey All,

I have created a temple Template:First Nations Australians which is based on Australian Government Style Manual[11] and a couple of other sources, According to the style guide 'First Nations Australians' is now the preferred term over 'Indigenous', I feel like Wikipedia should also reflect this change. I have already made this change on Racism in Australia and Institutional racism § Australia. If anyone else would like to help with either the template, or changing articles with the term 'Indigenous' to the terms 'First Nations', 'First Australians', 'First people', etc. that would be great.

Thanks,

AverageFraud (talk) 07:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

RFC Metis Ontario

Pls see Talk:Métis#RFC Ontario Moxy- 15:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Songhai people has multiple issues

Hello,

I noticed that the article about the Songhai people has more issues than I could possibly explain. I think it may benefit from a full rewrite, but I am by no means an expert in any of the relevant areas of study so I thought it'd be better to leave a message at WikiProject Ethnic groups and WikiProject Africa to bring it to the attention of people more qualified to help.

Thank you,

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 03:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Listing Americans by ethnicity and occupation

Several more intersection categories of American people are probably going to be deleted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_December_19#American_people_of_European_descent_by_occupation. Please feel free to make lists where useful, or request a list from a particular category at the end of that CFD discussion if you would like me to do so. – Fayenatic London 13:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)