Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Basque people needs neutral viewpoints

Greetings. I'm getting in a dispute in the Basque people article on what the related groups of the infobox should contain. It looks like it could degenerate in an edit war and political discussion, so I'm asking for attention from other interested people in order to de-polarize the still incipient conflict.

Basically the points are two:

1. Related peoples are: Gascons (Riojans maybe) and, in general, Western Europeans.
2. Related peoples are: Gascons, Spanish, French and, in general, Western Europeans.

The arguments for the second are, in my understanding clearly political (we discussed genetics for a while but it seems that LSLM realized that such approach gave no fruits).

I have posted several examples of other stateless ethnicities infoboxes but it seems to be of no help. He's falling in accusing me of "fundamentalism" and stuff like that. Whatever your viewpoint of the issue it's clear that less heated viewpoints are urgently needed. Thanks.

(Note: I've posted the same request at the Basque Wikiproject). --Sugaar 14:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I've made it an official RfC, you can comment in it if you wish: Talk:Basque_people#RfC:_Related_ethnic_groups_at_infobox --Sugaar 14:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete category Germanic peoples

Several modern ethnic groups are categorised as Germanic peoples. I nominated the category for deletion - see its entry here - because it includes these modern groups under a historical term (Roman period to mediaeval). The category is being used for a political agenda, to promote the idea that ethnic groups and nations in north-west Europe are "Germanic", a claim typically associated with neo-nazi groups. Germanic is a linguistic term only, in modern academic usage. Paul111 11:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

As explained to you many times before, "Germanic" is a cultural and linguistic marker. I don't care if NeoNazis use it for some other goal, it is a much used scientific term and this category should not be deleted. Rex 13:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be deleted. The english dont see themsevles as germanic and genetically there is no such thing as being germanic or racially. have germenic cultural and linguistic groups fine but to claim germanic ethnicity is ridiculous. And to call people germanic because they speak a germanic language is ludicrous. Most people living in the caribbean islands speak english (a germanic language) but afro carribeans make no claims to being germanic and dont see themselves as germanic. So there is no scientific basis for categorizing people as germanic, theyre languages and culture may be germanic but they are not biologically germanic (no one is, its impossible to be biological to a language or culture). --Globe01 18:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It's surely a complex issue but linguistic affinity is a primary element in ethnological categorization. In these sense, Jamaicans are as Germanic (Afro-Germanic if you wish) as Norwegians. Genetics is quite irrelevant except for "archaeological" reasons, other cultural factors may be considered too.

I was recently commenting in an RfC in a related dispute in the Dutch people article and to my understanding they are a Germanic people, because they speak a Germanic language, exactly as Jamaicans do. In my opinion the problem is in assuming too much from that ethno-linguistic tag: a supposed genetics-language identity that is obviously false (at least in most cases).

The approach should be different: linguistic groupings are valid but they only imply that. Race (if such thing exists at all) is a totally different matter. The complexity of origins, explaining genetics, paleo-history and of course written history and linguistic classification(s) is what really matters.

A people can well be Germanic and Semitic (like Askhenazim) or Germanic and Afroamerican (like Jamaicans). You may also want to create a new category (if that's sufficiently justified) for Brithonic peoples or something of the like. You can also propose the Germanic peoples category for deletion but guess it will be rejected, though it may help to raise awareness on the issue. --Sugaar 06:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

There are many, many articles that could use expansion and improvement. And who knows how many more articles that have yet to be written. Either of these pursuits would be an admirable and productive use of time, and would be a vastly beneficial contribution to the encyclopedia. --Ling.Nut 18:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

European People

There is currently Demographics of Europe but no European People article in the sense like African people or Asian_people. The difference between Demographics of Europe and European People should be like Demographics of Germany and Germans or Demographics_of_Norway and Norwegian people...Lukas19 18:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I second Lukas19's idea. It is against the interest of equal treatment to not have an article on European people. Europeans are an ethnic group like Asians or Africans. As it stands, an article on the demographics of Europe is woefully insufficient since the European ethnic group like the Irish ethnic group is a different concept from the demographics of the land of Ireland or Europe.--^DarkTea 19:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

They should be all deleted, in my opinion. There's no such Asian people (Asia is extremely diverse, and Europe is actually a part of it, a subcontinent). Much of the same can be said of Africa. Anyhow I have my serious doubts they belong to this WikiProject, as they are not ethnic groups but creations of some users, with an obvious US-centric concept of the Universe.

Actually Europe is more homogeneous than any of those. But I don't think there's still anything that can be called "European people".

Whatever the case they surely don't belong to this WikiProject. --Sugaar 20:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

There is already a debate in Europe over the question of whether there is a European people. It is a very contentious issue, because if there is a European people, then surely there ougght to be a European state? And that is a horror to millions of people in Europe, see Euroscepticism. Editors planning an article on "European people" should read that article, and some of its external links.Paul111 19:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm also a Eurosceptic. Sweden and Italy are too different to be ruled by a central authority in Brussels. It's better if they retain national sovereignity and preserve their cultures rather than uniforming it.

However the differences between Sweden and Italy are dwarfed by the differences between Sweden and China. So maybe European people is not correct, but we can call the article European peoples...Lukas19 14:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

European peoples...nice --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 12:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Asian (people)

Ling has placed a project template in this article (created in June 2006) and instead I really think it should be nominated for deletion (or benevolently to merge with Asia) because it breaches WP:NOT, WP:NPOV and probably also WP:NOR. The very idea of a single Asian people is just weird and clearly POV, specially as they are treated as a single Ethnic group, what they are obviously not.

Whatever the destiny of the article itself it does not merit to be adopted by this WikiProject. That's plainly clear (at least to me).

Aditionally it also seems to breach the spirit of our sister project: WP:BIAS by projecting an Anglo-Saxon viewpoint (with possibly some Asian ideological POV too) instead of a neutral point of view: it treats the concept of "Asian people" like if it was the most common ethnic-like term in the streets of Delhi, Singapore and Seoul and also in their universities. When it's obviously not - at most it can be a geographical denominator.

Aditionally it excludes Siberia and West Asia from its scope (what I believe is just because of its US-centered POV) --Sugaar 22:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that there are two separate articles possible here. One basically list major ethnic groups in Asia, hopefully with cited indications of which are considered by anthropolgists to be interrelated and how. The other would be an article precisely on the U.S. Census designation, which could include any citable critique of its naming. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

There could be other possibilities. But basically the category is already mentioned in US Census article (and probably doesn't merit an article of its own, unless it's Asian Americans, that already exists). It's surely not a plain delete but rather a multi-merge and delete ro a total revamp in the line you mention: a continental list of ethnicities, what is definitively not now (neither by title nor by intent).

Aditionally, as mentioned, it excludes large protions of Asia (West Asia and Siberia) to fit the US and UK census category of "Asians".

Note as DarkTichondrias mentioned in the talk the bias is not just US-centric but generally Anglo-centric, as it seems that other Anglo-Saxon countries also follow the same scheme of catgorization of residents in their respective countries. But it is definitively not an Asia POV in any case. --Sugaar 20:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Plus African people too

This article is even younger (created Dec 6 2006 and edited almost single-handedly by a unique user). At least we haven't adopted it. But it's very parallel to that of Asian people. To worsen all, it has no sources. On the good side it seems more neutral. --Sugaar 22:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, what I'd hope to find at this name is a list of major ethnic groups in Africa with cited indications of which are considered by anthropolgists to be interrelated and how. - Jmabel | Talk 19:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not the case: it's a moderate but clear political statement that claims that there is some sort of ethnicity called "African people" and that it's equal to the sum of the peoples that inhabit Africa. --Sugaar 20:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

In Asia, Burma/Myanmar, the issue of rejecting Burmese/Myanmar Muslims as a seperate new Ethnic Minority Group is used by successive Military rulers to deny Muslims to get Birth Certificates, National Registration Cards etc which lead to denying The Rights of Muslims in Burma/Myanmar. Individual freedom was also denied based on this. It is amounting to modern Apartheid or Ethnic Cleansing. I hereby argue my point with the following points or issues to consider_

In Every Democracy, there must be rules to protect the minority from the tyranny of majority. You can merge but if you delete the headings of Burmese Muslims and Burmese Indian Muslims from the ethnic group, I have to declare that MOBOCRACY ruled Wikipedia.

EVOLUTION OF MYANMAR MUSLIMS.

Race. Ethnic Groups.

Successive Myanmar Military leaders repeatedly claim that Muslims in Myanmar (Burma) could not be called, registered or enlisted as a separate race. They are giving various reasons or lame excuses for that attempts of Ethnic Cleansing.(I hope Wikipedia could stay neutral and resist on this issue of the attemps by some of its own Burmese Chauvinist editors to erase my Burmese Muslims/Myanmar Muslims and Burmese Indian Muslims/Myanmar Indian Muslims --

1.Muslims in Myanmar (Burma) are mix-blooded people, not pure race as Burmese Buddhists.
2.Muslims are migrants only and not the original people of the land.
3.Muslims are scattered all over the country without owning a separate state as other races of Burma.
4.No race can be formed base on the religion.
5.By calling Kala, meaning Indian, the authorities equate all the Muslims with the recent migrants of Indians under the British or even trying to accuse as fresh illegal immigrant.
6.The hidden agenda is their deep-seated fear of propagation of Islam. They are scared of future Muslim dominance although it is not possible.

We hereby intend to consider some undeniable facts about the three crucial words of –
Now let us look at the “ROOTS OF MYANMAR MUSLIMS.”

Forefathers of Myanmar Muslims had landed in Myanmar (Burma’s Rakhine, Ayeyarwady delta and Tanintharyi coast) as early as ninth century, roughly about 200 years before King Anawrahta of Pagan established the first Myanmar (Burmese) empire in 1055 AD.

He later concurred the King Manuha and Buddhist Mons of Thaton. He then invited Shin Arahan to propagate Buddhist teaching among people of Pagan. So the Buddhist religion reached Burma much later than the arrival of Islam. But we had to admit that the Hindus and Buddhists arrived the lower Burma (not owned by the Burmese or Myanmar yet) earlier than the Islam.

Because of that uniting force of Buddhist Religion, the original three Ethnic Minority Groups of Pagan: Pyu, Kan Yan and Thet assimilated homogeneously into present Myanmars. So, we hereby want to challenge present Myanmar Generals, especially BSPP/SLORC/SPDC and cohorts Burmese Chauvinists to deny that the Buddhist Religion forms the backbone of the formation of Burmans or Myanmars.

Even the Chinese, Indian Hindus, Indian Muslims, Japanese and some Anglo Burmans if they convert (or pretend to convert to) Buddhism they would be homogeneously assimilated into Burmese Buddhists. Burmese Chinese like General Ne Win, General Khin Nyunt, President San Yu etc are accepted as “PURE BURMESE” and given hightest positions. When SHIA MUSLIM U Sein Win and Sunni Dr Maung Di renounced Islam, they were accepted into the mainstream administration, Sein Win was even given PM post. Mg Di deputy Ed. Minister. There are many mixed –blooded people in Myanmar disguised as PURE Bamas. During the SPDC’s present registration on issuing National Identity Cards, if any said he or she is Buddhist no more questions, easily accepted as pure Bama. But one the relagion is Islam, even if he or se is recently converted into Islam, they refused to accept as a pure race.

It is not a simple, minor issue but the very important thing of denying a citizen’s right to posess a National Identity Card. Without it could not travel inside or outside MYANMAR/Burma.

1.Race.
2.Ethnic Minority Group and,
3.Citizen.

We should analyze which groups of people are deserved to be called or who have the sole right to be called a separate Race, separate distinct Ethnic Minority Group or a real Citizen.

1.Are only so called “pure race” should be called a race and not so pure or mixed blooded people could not stay together to form a RACE?
2.Or are those “pure blooded” races are really pure enough?
3.Are those “Original Owners of the Land” really true or just mere early Migrants, reserving and monopolizing the place?
4.Are migrants always regarded as migrants without entitlement to any Human Rights or Citizens’ Rights, even after few generations?
5.Well-established migrants, after already accepted as a citizen are still foreigners?
6.Are descendents of migrants and local mixed marriages still alien after few generations?
7.Could a conqueror of the war just annexes the new territory and regarded the locals staying in that land as Foreigners and started the ethnic cleansing?
8.Could that conqueror brought back the prisoners of war back, for various reasons e.g. slavery, to serve in various positions, civil or army, and allowed to settle in the heart of the country as permanent aliens for few generations?
9.Could the kings, after accepting the helping friendly allied forces, allow them to settle in his country, gave land, property and even brides as rewards after the victory, but a few generations later kicked them out as lousy migrants?
10.After staying few dozens of years or few centuries under a foreign powers as a colony, once got the independence, could the new local government start to kick out the migrants entered during the period of colony?
11.Could they erase the real historical fact of gaining their independence after all was obtained with the help of so-called migrants?
12.Should they neglect the promises of fair and equal treatment they had given to those Migrants and the colonial masters before gaining the independence?
13.Is a religion could never form the backbone of a race?
14.Is descendents of migrants could never form a separate or distinct race?
15.Is a religion could never form the backbone of an ethnic minority group?
16.Is descendents of migrants could never form an ethnic minority group?
17.To be regarded as a race, ethnic minority group or a citizen, is there any rule to be the original settler or owner of a land? Country? Or a State?
18.Have the Migrants no chance to be accepted as citizens?

Although all of the above questions lead to undeniable truth, we like to highlight the above axioms with the following facts. They are taken from the world’s historical theatre and our Myanmar (Burmese) geography and local history.

Race.

A group of people with a certain sense of itself and cohesiveness is called a race. There is usually a commonality or shared values such as: social, culture, attitudes and ideals.The most important bond and determining all these is a religion. There is usually a common language, literature and a territory.

It may be a ‘pure’ race (homogeneous) e.g. Arian, Mongoloid or African. Or a ‘mixed’ race (heterogeneous) that is a mixture of few tribes, clans or minority groups. They mixed, stayed and struggled together with the sense of unity.

Let us look at how Islam deals with this sensitive racial issue as Arabs were and are so proud of their race.

Islam not only recognises absolute equality between men irrespective of any distinction of colour, race or nationality, but also makes it an important and significant principle, a reality.

All Human are descendants of one father and one mother. The division of the human race is neither meant for one nation to take pride in its superiority over others nor is it meant for one nation to treat another with contempt or disgrace, or regard them as a mean and degrade other races and usurp their rights.

South Africa Zulu is the combination of many tribes and clans by a powerful worrier in nineteenth century. So it is obvious that they are not homogeneous. African Americans & Asian Americans are regarded as recognized Ethnic Minority Groups but there are many subgroups under them. Among Asian Americans, some of the bigger groups such as Indian Americans and Chinese Americans could be subdivided according to the clan, dialect, religion and their home state or district. So it is very obvious that non-homogeneous or more correctly, heterogeneous factor could not rule out the legality of a race.

Owning a territory, land, state or country is not very important to become a race. Israelis and Palestinians have no homeland at all earlier in the long world history. Actually they were not the original owners of that sacred land. Just because they had no land, we could not deny the fact that, the Israelis and Palestinians distinct and famous races. They were even mentioned in three holy books and their racial conflict was and is the world’s most important and dangerous problems.

Most of the American Ethnic Groups also have no separate states.

Or some Ethnic Groups’ historical territories may be occupied by different nations or countries at present.

We like to give some examples.

Mons of Myanmar, Thailand and Cambodia, now occupied by three separate countries. Like some of the Myanmar Ethnic Groups, the Malays, Indonesians and Polynesians had descended from the Yunan But few historians are thinking about the possibility of reverse migration from Australia side. But some Polynesians have got some mixture of Africa.

But even recently some genetic experts found out that there is some evidence that the Chinese originally descended and migrated from Africa. Actually the “Bush People” featured in ‘ God is crazy 2’ are a little bit yellow and their features are some what like Myanmar or Mongoloid. (One of the Myanmar Doctor, Anaesthetic in Namabia wrote in the Myanmar Magazine in 1998).

Karens of Myanmar and Thailand. Shans, Siam and Southern Chinese (Nankhan) divided into the races of Myanmar, Thailand, Laos and some Chinese ethnic minorities.Nagas of Myanmar and India are exactly same races in different countries. And many Ethnic Minority Groups commonly found in China and India are also found and recognised as prided or precious nationals of Myanmar especially in Kachin and Shan States. So the relation of the citizenship for the same race staying in different country is totally different. Relation between the race and history of land ownership is also irrelevant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darz kkg (talk • contribs) 02:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC). And the population of the Myanmar Muslims increased during the British rule of Burma because of new waves of Indian Muslim Immigration. This sharply reduced since 1941 because of Indo-Burman Immigration agreement, and totally stopped after Burma (Myanmar) gained independence in Jan.1948. So Myanmar Muslims are at least staying in Myanmar from 50 years and some of them are staying for more than 1000 years already.

Myanmar Muslims are descendants of Arabs, Persians, Turks, Moores, Indian-Muslims, Pakistanis, Pathans, Bengalis, Chinese Muslims and Malays intermarried with local Burmese and many ethnic Myanmar groups such as: Rakhine, Shan, Karen, Mon etc.

Muslims arrived Burma as travellers, adventurers, pioneers, sailors, Military Personals (voluntary and mercenary), and some of them as prisoners of wars. Some take refuge (from wars, Monsoon storms and weather, shipwreck and some for other various unforeseen circumstances). And some of them are victims of forced slavery. Some of them are professionals and skilled personals such as advisors to the kings and at various ranks of administration. Some are port-authorities and mayors and traditional medicine men. Some of them are good at various vocational skills, culture arts etc. Mixed marriages, intermarriages and assimilation process of throwing away of almost all their foreign languages, foreign dresses and foreign culture slowly shaped them in to Ethnic Myanmar Muslim group of today.

But they had drawn a line in the ongoing process of assimilation. That line of limit is their religion, Islam. As practising Muslims they could not go beyond the limit of tolerance of Islamic principles.So Myanmar Muslims threw away Urdu, Bengali, Chinese, Hindi and all other foreign languages. Even Arabic is learned just to read Holy Koran and for prayers. Myanmar Muslims speaks Myanmar as their mother tongue, wear Myanmar dress and even have an official Myanmar name as well as Islamic Arabic name. Because they could not compromise their faith in Islam in matters such as: only eating halal foods and drinks, marriage, divorce, inheritance, and other customs which heavily depend on Islam e.g. circumcision, funeral and burial rituals etc. So Myanmar Muslims could not assimilate homogeneously as Chinese, Hindus and others, except for those who convert or renounced Islam. Complete Assimilation of a minority group always need a compromise of their tradition, their culture and some of their rights. ETHNIC MINORITY BASED ON RELIGION.

In Myanmar (Burma), General Ne Win ordered not to allow the registration of the Muslims as Burmese Muslims (Myanmar Muslims) and present Military Junta not only simply follow his tradition and laws but tightening their grips on Burmese Muslims. Although the whole world accepts that the persons who worships Islam are called Muslims. Ne Win and present Junta refused registration based on religion. They refused to allow the Muslims of Burma to be registered as Myanmar Muslims (Burmese Muslims). They are forced to register as Indian hybrid, Pakistan hybrid, and Bengali hybrid, worshipping Islam. So in order to avoid been labelled or registered or discriminated as a foreigner or a lower graded citizens, a few of the Myanmar Muslims even enlisted or registered themselves as Burmese-Buddhists. Actually the religion is the most important factor in the formation of the Ethnic Minority Groups in the whole world. This is really the most explosive issue in most of the Ethnic- conflicts, leading to wars around the world throughout the history. In former Yugoslavia: Serbs, Croats Kosovo and Bosnia differences are mainly based on religion. In Lebanon, Christian and Arabs are the two opposing Ethnic groups. Even among main religions, sometimes different sects fought each other e.g. Sunni Muslims and Shia’ Muslims, Roman Catholics and Protestants of North Ireland are fighting based on religious differences in their Ethic groups. In Sri Lanka, Buddhist and Sinhalese are fighting. In Indonesia the people from Bali are different from other parts of Indonesia because of the religion only. They remained Buddhist without converting to Islam. Because of the religion, they could not assimilate totally with Indonesian Muslims. They maintained some of their customs and rituals. The main difference of Indian and Pakistan is religion. Internal Racial Riots and continuos internal conflicts in these countries are based on religion. Cyprus, Germany, Italy, Spain UK and USA also have differences and voting-trends based on religious lines. (No Catholic could be elected President of USA for nearly 200 years until J.F.Kennedy became President in 1960).

Karens in Myanmar are also subdivided by religion. Christian Karens are more numerous and different from Buddhist Karens and Muslim Karens. They differ not only in religion and customs but their political alienation or alignment is totally different. Ruling Myanmar Governments always look the Christian Karens with a suspect, because the Christians are more close and loyal to ex-colonial masters. Just after the independence of Myanmar, mostly Christian Karens rebelled against the central government. And the Myanmar army lost most of the country. Christian Karens even arrested a group of top ranked military officers including the Deputy Commander-in- Chief of the Myanmar army. Buddhist Karens betrayed and rescued them back. They were honoured with the highest awards in Myanmar Military’s history. Presently also, we could see the same kind of alignment. Buddhist Karens deserted the fellow Christian Karen rebels. Buddhist Karens joined their hands with Myanmar Army and raided the Christian-Karens across the Myanmar-Thai border. Apart from them, there are also Muslim Karens in Myanmar. Some of them even formed the Kawthoole Muslim Liberation Force (KMLF) and formed alliance with the Christian Karen rebels.

Buddhist-Rakhines are also different from Muslim Rakhines or Rohingyas. Some of them are even active as a rebel group called, the Rohingya Patriotic Front. Panthays or Chinese Myanmar Muslims are also totally different from other Chinese or other Myanmar Chinese. Buddhist Shan and Muslim Shans are also quite different. So it is obvious that the new Ethnic Minority Groups will appear depending upon their religion.

The religions will become the main and very strong bonds in the formation of the various Ethnic Minority Groups in Burma / Myanmar . And the religion is the main obstacle obstructing the complete assimilation of the minority groups. In other words, religion sometimes prevents the disappearing of the Ethnic-minority groups. Daw Aung San Su Kyi in her book “The Voice of Hope” told Alan Clements about the politics and religion: A journalist said to me, “When you speak to the people you talk a lot about religion, why is that?” I said, “Because politics is about people, and you can't separate people from their spiritual values.” And he said that he had asked a young student who had come to the weekend talks about this: “Why are they are talking about religion?” The student replied, “Well that's politics. ”Our people understand what we are talking about. Some people might think it is either idealistic or naive to talk about ‘metta’ in terms of politics, but to me it makes a lot of practical good sense. AC: It's a matter of debate, but politics and religion are usually segregated issues. In Burma today, the large portion of monks and nuns see spiritual freedom and sociopolitical freedom as separate areas. But in truth, dhamma (Religion) and politics are rooted in the same issue - freedom. D A S S K: Indeed, but this is not unique to Burma. Everywhere you'll find this drive to separate the secular from the spiritual. In other Buddhist countries you'll find the same thing - in Thailand, Sri Lanka, in Mahayana Buddhist countries, in Christian countries, almost everywhere in the world. I think some people find it embarrassing and impractical to think of the spiritual and political life as one. I do not see them as separate. In democracies there is always a drive to separate the spiritual from the secular, but it is not actually required to separate them. Whereas in many dictatorships, you'll find that there is an official policy to keep politics and religion apart, in case I suppose, it is used to upset the status quo.

HISTORY AND GEOGRAPHY alone could not be the basic factors determining the legality of the official recognition of the Ethic Minority Groups of a country. Especially history is a very poor guide. There was almost always someone else there first. Israelis and Palestines almost always fight for their ‘native’ homeland. Actually neither of them were there first to occupy that land. Just have a look at the history of Myanmar. Assam and Manipure of India; Phi Mor, Gor Lan and Kan Fan of China (the names stated here are Myanmar names); Ayuthya of Thailand; Penang of Malaysia, were once under Myanmar’s influence, even if it was for a brief period of time. And alternately, Arakan King Narameikhla founded the Mrohaung or Mrauk-Oo with the military help of Nadir Shah, the Muslim Sultan of Bengal. So his heirs, the successive Arakan kings were subject to Bengal from 1430 to 1531 AD.

The Buddhists of Arakan the other major ethnic community, known as Magh or Rakhine are a mix-blooded race descended from Aryans of Maghada, India, Mongolians and Tibeto-Burmans.

Hindus, Portuguese, Chinese, British and Japanese partly or completely colonise Myanmar in history for various lengths of periods.

And in ancient times, Polynesians of Pacific Islands first occupied the ancient Burma and were pushed down by ancient Indonesians and Malays. Actually all those Polynesians, Indonesians, Malays and most of the present Myanmar and Ethnic Minorities descended or migrated from China through Yunan.

Hindu colonists, of Andhra Dynasty, from middle India (180 BC) established Hanthawaddy (actually Mon town Han Sawadi – similar to Thailand citizen Mons) and Syriam (Tanyin or Than Lyin) in Burma.

Even before them, Orissa, Indian Buddhist colonists, arrived there earlier, settled and built pagodas since 500 BC.

There was a well-known belief and people even used to say that Myanmar started from Tagaung, built by Abi Raja, a Sakian (Tha Ki Win min), Indian Royal family member, migrated from Kapilavatthu (India) after defeated by the king of Panchala (India), Vitatupa. He left the Middle Country (India) and established the Tagaung country, known at that time as Sangassarattha or Sangassanagara. On the death of Abi Raja, younger son Kan Raja Nge (younger King Kan) got the throne. Thirty-three kings reigned there. Elder brother Kan Raja Gyi (elder King Kan) went down the Ayeyarwaddy River, ascended the Thallawadi River, arrived Kelataungnyo and ruled there as Rajagaha. He ruled the ancient Arakan. His son Muducitta became king of the Pyus (ancestors of modern Myanmar). He founded the city of Kyauppadaung. He conquered the Dhannavati (built by king Marayu).

So what is the great deal, dear Buddhist Burmese brothers?

The pure Indian or Kala brothers, Kan Rajas (Kan Yaza Gyi and Nge) were your ancestors. One started Myanmar kingdom and another the Rakhine Kingdom. Both of them were very fresh, recent and new immigrants. And your Myanmar (Burmese) and Rakhine Royal families descended from them.

Are all of you are not ashamed to call the Muslims Kalas and labelled as migrants, hybrids, non citizens, when all of you are actually totally same as us. And all of us know that all the major religions never started in Burma. All of the religions are foreign to all of us.

The Mainland Burmese are now able to colonize the Arakan State because, the British presented them, free of charge, as an extra gift during the granting of Independence to Burma. Actually the Burmese could colonize the Arakan State with their own strength for thirty-two years only from 1783 to 1815 AD.

The Arakans (Buddhists and Muslims) agreed to join the Burmese Union because they had trusted all the promises given by General Aung San, during the Pang Long Treaty. If not, the British would not allow including the Arakan and other States to join the mainland Burma. But General Ne Win and successive Burmese Generals betrayed the ethnic minorities and ignored the promises given by General Aung San. Although the minorities including Arakans had given up their rights to separate from the Union, the Burmese Chauvinist Military Generals still refused to recognize their other rights e.g. religious, cultural, political and civil rights etc. Muslims of the Arakan i.e. Rohingyas are suffering most. It is a little bit funny that in spite of long established history of Muslim Rohingyas, the Burmese colonist Generals, who could manage to colonized Arakan for a mere thirty-two years only, claims that they are the rightful owner of Arakan and the Rohingyas are alien migrants.

If we continue back to the glorious Burmese history:

The invading Chinese from the north destroyed Tagaung. The last king of Tagaung, Bhinnaka Raja run away and died later. His followers split in to three divisions. One division founded the nineteen Shan States at the eastern part. Another division moved down Ayeyarwady River and combined with Muducitta (second generation migrant, grand son of Indian Abi Raja) and other Sakiyan (Indian) princes, among the Pyus, Kanyans and Theks.

The third group stayed in Mali with the chief queen Naga Hsein, a Sakiyan.(Indian) She was the queen of the Sakyiyan king Dhaja Raja migrated from India. On the way he founded Thintwe’. Then they founded the upper Bagan(Pagan).

Dahnnavata captured Thambula, queen of Pyus. But Nanhkan (China) queen of Pyus had driven out the Kanyans, who lived in seven hill-tracks beginning Thantwe’.

King Dwattabaung, direct descendent of Abi Raja (Indian Migrant) founded Thare Khit Taya in 443 BC. It was said to be self-destroyed in 94 AD. The history is half -mystical at that time.

Mons or Talaings, an Ethnic Minority Group of Myanmar, migrated from the Talingana State, Madras coast of Southern India. They mixed with the new migrants of Mongol from China and driven out the above Andhra and Orissa colonists. Those Mon (Talaings) brought with them the culture, arts, literature, religion and all the skills of civilisation of present Myanmar. They founded the Thaton and Bago (Pegu) Kingdoms. That Mon mighty Kingdom extended from Lower Burma (Pathein or Bassein, Mawlamyine or Moulmein, Tanintharyi or Tenasserim, Tanyin or Syriam), Thailand and Cambodia. King Anawrahta of Bagan (Pagan) conquered that Mon Kingdom of King Manuha, named Suvannabumi (The Land of Golden Hues).

Two princes named Thamala and Wimala (Myanmar version of Indian names-Thalma and Vimala.) established the town Bago in 573AD. Tabinshwehti (Taungoo Dynasty) conquered it in 1539 AD. The Arabs and European travellers of the ninth century saw many Myanmar-Muslim sailors and traders, in Pegu (Bago), also known as Ussa.

Now there are only a few real Mons (much less than few hundred thousands) in Myanmar. But they were rewarded with the separate Mon State by the General Ne Win’s government because of his strong second man, General Tin Oo (actually he was even well known as ‘one and a half ’ i.e. higher than number two position, as he controlled the Military Intelligence). He was a Mon. Later he was accused of corruption and removed from the number two post. This was allegedly after the Thailand’s official twenty-one gun salute and red carpet reception for his (General Tin Oo) son and daughter-in-law’s honeymoon trip there. Please allow me to interrupt with another interesting short story, which is not directly related with the main issue but because of a lot of coincidences. Another General Tin Oo (now NLD opposition leader) was the Chief Commander or Middle Division Military Command. He was very popular among the grass root people, Military rank and file and among the ruling elite. He had just rooted out the prolonged strong hold of Burma Communist Party’s head-quarters on the Bago Yoma (Pegu Mountain Ranges). When we met, I was surprised because he recognised me although I was almost an ordinary person and we had only met briefly once before that. He greeted me and suddenly joked with me. He told me the story of Kyansittha, during the war with the Mon (Talaings) went to pray the famous Shwe Maw Daw pagoda in Bago. When he came down the ‘Talaings’ had surrounded the pagoda, but Kyansittha manage to come down without any harm. He asked me the reason and answer to this ‘miracle’. The answer is very easy, just a Homophone only. Ta, means one in Burmese. Ta-Line means one line on the shoulder i.e. a rank and file in his own army. So, Kyansittha was not surrounded by the enemy Mons (Talaings) but was just surrounded by his own military men, ‘Ta-Lines’. That General Tin Oo was later promoted to the Chief Commander of Burma Armed Forces and became ‘the number two man’ in Burma. But that position was dangerous under the dictator Ne Win. Once the second man became popular and if there were signs of a threat, he used to removed and replaced with a weaker person so that his number one position would be safe. General Tin Oo was accused of corruption. He had alleged to accept five bottles of liquor, accepted the government controlled foreign currency to buy medicine for his child suffering from leukaemia. The Burmese Military Attaché in London allegedly gave that medicine to him. Another reason for his removal was, his wife, a Medical Doctor was proud and rude among the military families!

Portuguese, Philip Debrito (Nga Zin Ga) established a colony in Syriam from 1581 to 1613.

Chinese Kublai Khan’s Muslim Turkish soldiers, commanded by Nasrudin, the son of Yunan Governor attacked and took over Burma in 1277 AD. Tartars at first took strong hold in Bhamo (Burma) for a few years and later destroyed Bagan (Pagan) in 1287 AD.

Shans of Myanmar and Siams, now known as Thais are from one same Ethnic Group. Their language is different in slang only. They are descended from Sino-Shan and Mon Khamars, who came down from Yunan, China.

U Nu, the last democratically elected Prime Minister of Burma, overthrown by the General Ne Wins’ Military coup, later formed the government-in-exile in Thailand. After he returned (surrendered) to Burma, there were praises in the Government controlled Media, regarding his patriotism in refusal to sign an alleged agreement to allow Shan State to be annexed with Thailand in exchange for the Military and financial aids.

Myanmar language.

Myanmar Muslims are using Myanmar language as their mother tongue. They are well assimilated in this aspect. A lot of Ethnic Minority Groups through out the world are facing problems because of the language differences. Myanmar spoken language is under Tibeto-Burman family. The source of the Myanmar script (written language) was adopted from the Brahmi script from India (500 BC. to 300 AD.), in the reign of King Asoka. This Brahmi Indian scrip spread to Tibet, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia and even some parts of Indonesia. In Myanmar, this Brami script was developed and modified by the civilisations of Pyu (now disappeared and totally assimilated in Myanmar), Mon, Rakhine, and Myanmar. Myanmar language script was fine tune again after introducing Sanskrit, Pali, Pyu and Mon scripts. Earliest Myanmar written language starts in Bagan (Pagan) period of eleven century. When compare to many of the prided, recognised ethnic minorities, who could not speak Myanmar language, most of the Muslims in Myanmar could speak the mother tongue. Myanmar traditional dress. Myanmar-Muslims have adopted and taken the Myanmar dress as their own. It is widely accepted that Taik pone (Myanmar man’s jacket) was taken from China and the Longyi (Sarong) was taken from India. Curiously Muslim religious customary Purdah, a veil for the women, is spread to even Burmese-Buddhists and other Ethnic Minorities. They called that with the adopted name Pawah.

So the present Ethnic Groups all over the world, including the races of Myanmar (Burma) are not the original owners of the land. And are not neatly arranged into Nations. There is a lot of spill over into neighbouring states.

And their religion, language, culture and traditional dresses are usually found to be shared or modified from others.

The author of this book wish to make clear that the above paragraph does not mean to insult or belittle the spirit and pride of Nationality and the state of been a member of a particular Ethnic Group. I wished to reduce the fanatic extremist, Nationalistic Spirits only. After all, we all are just fellow, brothers and sisters staying temporary on earth. Why should we fight the deadly wars and hate each other for the non- permanent properties and lands. Peace, kindness, loving kindness, forgiveness, charity, helping the needy and various good virtues are the teachings of all our Religions.

So, based on the above, undeniable, concrete facts and truths – no one should deny the rights of Muslims in Burma (Myanmar). Myanmar Muslims have a right to be recognized as one of the races in Myanmar (Burma). We are one of the legal Ethnic Minority Groups of Myanmar (Burma). Myanmar Muslims (Burmese Muslims) are no more foreigners nor migrants but full-blown citizens of Myanmar (Burma). Muslims in Myanmar (Burma) have the same and equal rights with all other Myanmar citizens, including Burmese Buddhists and all the ethnic minorities of Burma (Myanmar).

I hereby wish to refer an article written by me in the Burma Digest. (you can confirm with the Burma Digest Chief Editor and Publisher, Dr Tayza that I am the author and copy right owner and is allowed by Burma Digest to republish anywhere including Wikipedia) [1]
Open Letter to the Editor: We are all Burmese in our heart

Dear Editor,

I hope that you and some of the Burmese Digest readers could recalled my name in association with my best friend Ko Tin New (Bo Aung Din). He had mentioned a few times about me in his a dozen Compassionate letters to Nan. As he had mentioned, my grandfather was a Burmese Muslim and married to a pure Burmese girl, Ko Tin Nwe’s grand Aunt that is the sister of Ko Tin Nwe’s grandfather. As he had mentioned, she was disowned by her father because she married a so called a ‘Kala’.

Actually the ‘Kala’ she married was the Burmese Muslim, the son of the royal body guard of Nyaung Yan Prince. Yes! I am not bluffing. His family was famous for the loyalty and braveness and was descendents of Afghanistan warriors at first came to Burma as mercenaries. And they were already regarded as loyal subjects of the Burmese kings or in other words Burmese Citizens. They are completely burmanized except for their religion. They loved to be called Burmese Muslims and successive Burmese Kings had already recognized them as Burmese Muslims and as their loyal subjects/citizens and even given them the relevant lands designated with their jobs.

In old royal capital Mandalay, we could still see the two ‘A Myauk Tans’ meaning Cannon or large artillery men’s quarters. ‘Myin Win’ horse-men’s quarters, ‘Sin Kywone’ meaning Elephant keepers, ‘Ko Yan Daw Win’ meaning Royal Body Guards’ quarters etc still fully occupied by their descendents Burmese Muslims with respectively named Mosques. As Ko Tin Nwe wrote, Oh Bo Mosque was donated by King Mindon, all the teak pillars were meant for the Royal Palace but those that could not go into their respected holes in time according to the astrologers were discarded and donated to build the Mosque. Chinese Muslim Mosque’s land was also donated by King Mindon and he also donated the hostel in Mecca for his Burmese Muslim subjects.

Mandalay was founded on Monday, the 23rd May 1859. But King Mindôn passed away on the 1st of October 1878 at the age of sixty-four. King Thibaw (1878-1885) took the throne illegally or by a palace coup. It was near the end of King Mindôn's illness, which lasted about two months that, the Alaè-nandaw Queen plotted the maneuverings to make Thibaw Prince to get the throne. She was the daughter of King Bagyidaw (1819-1837), by his Chief Queen. She became very powerful after the death of the Chief Queen Nanmadawpaya in November 1876. The rightful Heir-Apparent, the Kanaung Prince was murdered in the rebellion of 1866.

King Mindôn was undecided and hesitated to choose a new successor but put three of the best trusted and elderly Princes as Regents viz: Mekkhara, the Thônzè and the Nyaung Yan Princes.

Alè-nandaw Queen tried successfully to block them from becoming Eing shae min or Crown Prince. She plotted with palace officials to place Prince Thibaw on the throne, her second daughter Supayalat’s lover.

She practically isolated King Mindôn and give orders, as if it were by the King's orders. The

Princes were summoned to the Palace and arrested. The princes Nyaung Ok and the Nyaung Yan managed to escape. They run into the French ‘Embassy’, now No 10th. State High School or formerly known as Than Dae’ School. His bodyguards including my great grandfather escaped into lower Burma and some of them settled in Taungoo.

King Mindon learned about the plot and ordered the Princes to be released. Kin Wun Mingyi and the Supreme Court (Hlut-daw) were persuaded to believe that King Mindôn's wished to appoint Prince Thibaw as an Eing shae min and to marry Supayalat. Other Princes were re-arrested. When King Mindôn passed away, just after the funeral, young inexperience and naive Prince Thibaw was proclaimed King. He was the son of the almost unknown or least powerful Laungshe Queen. The Salin Princess, eldest daughter of Mindôn Min, who was the Princess reserved according to an old custom, to be the Queen of the next King, became a nun. Thibaw married the two sisters Supayagyi and Supayalat. The elder, Supayagyi, should be the chief queen, but Supayalat forced her to live a life of retirement in the Palace.

On February 1879, the interned Princes, together with some Princesses, a Queen and some notables, altogether over 70 persons, were murdered. Another greater massacre took place in 1884. About 300 remaining members of the Royal Family, who had escaped in 1879, were cruelly butchered.

So my great grand father luckily escaped the massacres. His daughter-in-law, pure Burmese lady who converted to Islam and was disowned by her family for the crime of marrying a ‘Kala’ was widowed soon and was very poor but she managed to give all of her children good education. Eldest son became a famous Head Master and he is my father. And she was very proud to see, before she departed, that more than two dozens of her grandchildren got the university degrees including many doctors and engineers. The rest is history.

But now only Myanmar Military rulers are labeling us as guest citizens, ‘Kala’ or mixed blooded persons or not pure citizens. That, however, could not make us, or people like us, to become non Burmese Citizens. We are Burmese citizens no matter how some might disagree, or wish otherwise or decreed by force. Whether mixed blooded or not is not important in the eyes of the whole world but SPDC could not deny our right of 100% pure Burmese citizenship!

We, and all the other persons like us, not just those Indians, Chinese, Bengalis or Pakistanis although we are undeniably mixed blooded immigrants’ children or descendants of immigrants, but we are now full Burmese Citizens. No matter what some like SPDC racists or their cohorts might say contrary.

Our great grand parents and all the ancestors were loyal citizens of Burma and all of them were and are holding the Burmese National Registration Cards or ‘Ah Myo Thar Mhat Pone Tin Cards’. My brothers and sisters’ family members are holding those Burmese National Registration Cards but now the SPDC Apartheid Régime had ordered to issue the differently formatted cards for their younger children. It is curious when the parents and elder brothers and sisters are the same citizens as our Burmese Buddhists at least on paper but now only their youngest children are blatantly or brazenly discriminated as different from others and their own elder siblings.

This racial discrimination is practiced on not only Muslims but on Chinese and Hindis. SPDC National Registration officers decreed that if any one is not pure Burmese Buddhist, could not claim to be pure blood and all the Burmese Muslims must be recorded as mixed blooded persons. Whether correct or not, know or not, must be enlisted as mixed blooded Indian, Pakistan or Bengali. So it is blatant Racial Discrimination or openly practicing Apartheid practice of SPDC Junta.

My nephews and nieces are forced to begin their journey of life differently from their elder siblings and face the reality of the unfair world. We believe that no one has that right to practice the issuing of Apartheid certificate or new type of Registration different from other citizens to us. By doing so, SPDC is clearly starting to commit a Genocide offence.

Our children are entitled to their dreams and should not encounter any disappointments even before they started their tender lives. We wonder how that single document would change their dreams or what would be their vision of their world or Myanmar excluding them or shutting out all of them from all the opportunities. It is our children’s turning points of their lives. SPDC ruthlessly had shown them who they are, why and how they are not welcomed in Burma/Myanmar. Most importantly, SPDC have shown our children a real rejection. In waking to this realization, we suddenly understand that SPDC have already failed all our children’s future. As our children journey into an uncertain future, they will struggle and grapple with their sense of their rightful place in this Myanmar nation.

The constant emphasis on differences by the narrow minded SPDC apartheid racists who could not see value in these children prevent them from being seen, seeing themselves, as anything other than Burmese Citizens. And so SPDC Junta’s dancing with shadows continues, to their pied-piper song of unity and integration in single race and religion, to the beat of their war drums, changing Burma into a Myanmar world of so much bigotry and hatred. Our young children’s every early moments would be yet under another hammer blow, tempering or compromising their fantastic visions into listless and endless compromise under SPDC and cohorts.

Our country’s diversity makes us who we are and what we are today, that cannot be emphasized enough. And though we Burmese Muslims may each resonate differently, harmonizing only at some points in time and never universally, that is we are completely burmanized culturally but differ in religion only but I am sure when we dream we dream as Burmese only because we know Burmese, we love Burmese, and Burmese only is in our heart and mind.

Successive Burmese Kings had accepted us as their loyal subjects or citizens, after Independence U Nu’s government had accepted us. And General Aung San had even promised us: “I want to address the Indians and Chinese residing in this country. We have no bitterness, no ill will for them, or for that matter for any race and nationality in the world. If they choose to join us, we will welcome them as our own brethren. The welfare of all people of this country irrespective of race or religion has always been the one purpose that I have set out to fulfill. In fact it is my life's mission.”

But sadly those illegitimate illegal SPDC Régime is practicing Apartheid committing the Genocide on all of us.

I could guarantee to all of our Burmese friends that we are all Burmese in our heart and we have no intention or imagination to even support the foreign countries believed to be the homeland of our ancient ancestors even if Burma is at war with them!

Please give back our children at least a chance to dream. Please do not shut off their future.

Ko Tin Maung

You could read the above article in Burmese/Myanmar. (I got the copy right to reprint here.) [2][3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darz kkg (talk • contribs) 11:32, 7 February 2007

This seems an exceedingly long essay for the project talk page. I skimmed it quickly, and see no reason to read it; I don't have a lot of time right now. Perhaps there is an article talk page to which it is relevant? Or perhaps it is just off-topic opinionating (I cannot quickly tell). If it is the former, would someone please move it and leave a pointer from here? And if it is the latter, would someone please revert it? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 19:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Standarts

Let me start with an example: When I type Norwegian, a disambiguation page comes up, Norwegian. It includes:

• Something from Norway
• Language
• As an ethnicity - Norwegian people
• Citizens of Norway - Demographics of Norway
• etc..

I think this is a good standart. Many articles are alike but there are exceptions. Like Danish, which doesnt list Demographics_of_Denmark. And there is German. As an ethnicity, it links to Germans which confuses and create misunderstandings like: Talk:Germans#Please_do_a_complete_rewrite. So what I'm suggesting is to standartize such ethnic group pages. When you write an adjective like German, lets call it X, you go to disambiguation page of X which includes:

• Something of or relating to Xland
• X Language
• As an ethnicity - X People
• Citizens of Xland - Demographics of Xland

etc..

Lukas19 23:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia has a standard process for dealing with geo-political demonyms. It is standard practice to make an article for the demographics of a place, the language which takes its name from the place and the ethnic group of the place itself. Clearly, the next step after having an article about the demographics of Europe is to have an article about the European ethnicity-- a group with a tangible cultural heritage and history. European history and Western culture are fields some people devote their lives' to researching. We should move forward with the process of developing Wikipedia's Ethnicity Project. We will make Wikipedia a complete encyclopedia.--^DarkTea 01:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Please read: Ethnic group, Nation, People (well, this last one seems to be rather poor). All those fit the Norwegian people but they hardly fit the "European people", usually considered as plural (i.e. "peoples", except maybe sometimes when dealing with the concept of European citizens, that excludes Norwegians, btw, but not Guadaloupeans, for instance).

Europeans are not a single ethnic group but many, they are not a nation but several, they could maybe considered a people in the political sense but only as long as they share political institutions as the European Union. In any case even the term European people (singular) is almost never heard of at all (except when meaning "Fooans are a European people...", naturally).

There is already an article on Demographics of Europe, and the ethnological considerations can well fit in the general article Europe. Writing an article on European people is just a political statement, not encyclopedic, and therefore merits deletion. --Sugaar 20:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

We can call the article "European peoples"

There is no such thing as citizen of Europe. It is citizen of EU. Lukas19 14:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

There is indeed something called European citizens and it aplies to all citizens of EU countries. It implies some rights:

• the right of free movement and residence throughout the Union and the right to apply to work in any position (including national civil services with the exception of sensitive positions such as defence) (Article 18),
• the right to vote and the right to stand in local and European elections in any Member State, other than the citizen's own, under the same conditions as the nationals of that state (Article 19 [4]),
• the right to protection by the diplomatic or consular authorities of other Member States when in a non-EU Member State, if there are no diplomatic or consular authorities from the citizen's own state (Article 20).

So I can go to live to Cayenne and vote there for major and city coucillors. And vice versa: a Guayanese can come to my city and vote here. Aditionally no obstacles should impede that any of us travel to each other's cities.

I can even become the major of Cayenne, at least in theory. I am a European citizen and I'm only skeptic with the lack of progress towards greater integration. --Sugaar 17:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Eskaya

Hello! Just thought of checking with you guys if said article is within your scope. --Pinay06 05:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure it is. I'm adding the template right now. Thanks. --Sugaar 18:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Amish

Why does it say "You guys know about those sea turtles?" under the section "Amish as an ethnic group." Didn't want to change it in case there was a reason but....

168.122.159.75 21:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you're talking about. It sounds like vandalism of some sort but unless you provide a more specific link, I don't know where to look at. --Sugaar 14:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Query.

Hi, if I wanted to chip in and do some of the grunt work on some of these articles, do I just add my name to participants, to join the project? Or is it by invitation only or something like that? Thanks. Tuviya 06:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You add yourself and start working (up to your prossibilities of course). Welcome. --Sugaar 14:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

White people page subject to profound and clearly suspicious bias.

Just have a look at the article white people. There are 3 fundamental and continuous types of systematic bias.

1.US systematic bias at the definition of White.

2. Anglo-Saxon systematic bias at the definition of white.

3. Extreme White Nationalist systematic bias at the definiton of white.

I think articles like this should be a priority because they compromise Wiki standards and credibility seriously. Veritas et Severitas 22:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that we should try to distinguish articles that are about a term (negro, white people), articles that are about an ethnic group (Zulu, African American, Romanians, Ashkenazi Jews), and articles that are about a census category or about social understanding of race (White American). I suspect that if White people is at all a useful article topic, it would be in the last category. - Jmabel | Talk 02:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

New Rating for the Dutch (ethnic group) article.

Hi, could someone please re-rate the Dutch (ethnic group) article according to the projects quality scale? I feel doing it myself (as one of the articles main editors) is a bit not done. Nevertheless the article is currently B-class and after viewing a few A-class articles I think this article should be rated higher. So if anyone could take a look and make up his/her own mind?Rex 12:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

There is too much lacking inline citation for A-class. It's possible that other articles have been given A-class that should not have been. Those are the ones whose ratings should be reviewed! - Jmabel | Talk 23:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 22:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)