This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
The Aramean people are the indigenous people of Syria (Aram) and Mesopotamia (Aram-Nahrin) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.195.23.227 ( talk) 22:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I just want to be on record saying that this article will eventually be a problem, and is probably not very useful. Tokerboy 21:03 Nov 11, 2002 (UTC)
I just happpened to notice that German-American is listed as an ethnic group. Unless this is meant to refer to the Amish or something, then this article is truly heading in a ridiculous direction. With 190ish countries and presumably a at least a small community of immigrants from most other countries in most of them, that's 190ish to the 190ish power ethnic groups just from immigrant communities alone (I think), to take it to its logical conclusion. Russo-Egyptians? East-Timorese-Kazakhs? See Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion for more reasons why I don't like this one.
Obviously German-American is a bit much, however Amish is certainly a cultural group. I think a list is quite useful.
That sounds like an argument against wikipedia altogether. Yet we already have 90,000+ articles... Lir 01:55 Nov 16, 2002 (UTC)
First of all, I think we should distinguish between ethnic groups and national groups. That would mean that Bengali is a legitimate entry, but Bangladeshi is not. I don't mind the numbers. Once it gets to big, we should organize them into geographical locations, i.e., Native North American, Southeast Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, etc. Other than that, the numbers don't daunt me. Danny
Why is "Jewish" in the list of ethnic groups? Jews are not an ethnic group and never were. That the different Jewish groups around the world have a common root is a myth. Even if it was true, different Jewish groups around the world are still NOT an ethnic group. They have vastly different cultures, vastly different genes, and until recent times have been separated from each other for many years.
Genetic studies that "prove" Jews around the world to have the same genes have several problems with them that I am not going to go into now.
Anyway, there is no "Jewish" ethnic group and it should not be in the list.
- anonymous user
I changed Belorussian to Belarusian but, while this name is prefered for the language, I'm not sure if it is so for the ethnic group. Consider that, dear Internet! 6birc
I notice that, for example, Haiwaiian in the list is linked to Hawaii. But an article on Hawaii will have a lot of information (e.g. its current status as a U.S. state, its role in World War II, its physical geography) which have not much to do with Hawaiians as an ethnic group. Hawaiian should really point to a separate article about the native Hawaiian people (their culture, history, language, religion, biological features & origin, etc.) -- the history of the Hawaiian people is not identical to the history of Hawaii.
I have to say, many of the groupings that various ethnicities are attributed to belong to don't make sense. For example, the Turkish are put down as "Middle Eastern group", and their cousins the Turkmen are put down as "Central Asia" - are not both
Turkic peoples? And the Azerbaijani, who are closely related to the people of Turkey, are put down as "group of the Caucasus", which to me is an error as although they're in the Caucasus, they're ethnically Turkic, and distinct from the real ethnic-grouping 'group-of-the-Caucasus' which is primarily the various peoples of Georgia. The Icelanders are put down as "North Atlantic island", but surely their relationship with other Germanic peoples is comparable with the relationships of the various Polynesian groups with each other? The Maori should have their relationship with the Polynesian group noted. I think this whole page should be put in a table with columns, where it can be clearly shown which group(s) each ethnicity belongs to and their geographic location(s) (without the two catagories being confused and mixed up).
Actually, I think this whole article as it is now is hap-hazard, inconsistant and messed up.
This could never be a sensible article. Even if we could agree on what constitutes an ethnic group, then any definitive list would be monstrously long. And we never will agree. If anybody ever takes this seriously it will be the scene of a lot of angry and wasteful edit wars. Real wars are fought (and whole countries established) because of this messy concept. So Wikipedians are never going to agree about it. Even if we could, I can't see what possible use this list could be. This article will do much more harm than good to Wikipedia and should be deleted. GrahamN 15:36 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)
We have articles about some ethnic groups (see African American, Basque, etc.). Someone might want to know what ethnic groups we have articles on. So how do they find out? The obvious way is to have a list of ethnic groups that they can come to to check! The "we could never agree" argument applies to every single article in the Wikipedia. But the principle of NPOV sorts it out. We don't have to know what an ethnic group actually is; we just report what is commonly held to be an ethnic group by other people. The length argument has been dealt with above - the answer is to split up long lists. Have you seen how many lists of people we have now? Of course this list is a mess at the moment, but that just means that it needs attention, not that it needs deleting. My opinion is that it should only list the groups that we have articles on, or that we're going to have articles on. The unopposed existence of such an article would in itself be convincing evidence that the grouping was a meaningful one. -- Oliver P. 07:44 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Yes, if the list was limited to ethnic groups covered by articles (or inteded to be urgently covered), it might be, to some small degree, useful. But it wouldn't be easy to keep it that way. Alternatively one changes the title of the page to "Incomplete list of nationals and ethnic groups covered by Wikipedia articles".
The NPOV-principle is not promising for lists and similar instances where there is no space for qualifications of the arguments for and against, as the discussion on the date of Germany's "independence" has showed.
Furthermore, a list must be maintained by someone, or it will simply reflect the status of the last time it was properly maintained - and there the usefulness of the list escaped! I suggest that the search-function and "What links here" are more useful means.
This article will do much more harm than good to Wikipedia and should be deleted.
--
Ruhrjung 08:07 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Well, all our lists are incomplete and in need of continual maintenance. That's just the nature of a Wiki. But an incomplete and slightly out-of-date list is better than no list at all, surely? And I have no idea what you mean by it doing "harm". Even if it becomes hopelessly incomplete and utterly out-of-date, it will at worst just waste a bit of space, and we're not short of that, from what I hear. However, you raise a good point about the NPOV principle being troublesome for lists - by inclusing a group in a list of ethnic groups we are implicitly advocating the point of view that it is an ethnic group. But there is space for qualifications. We can put "considered an ethnic group by X but not by Y - see the article for further details", or something like that. Oliver P. 16:23 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Finaly!!!!!! A list of all the peoples in the world, YES! Found it! Thank you all, but I still don't get this Wikipedia thing, who is responsable for checking the information here, and deciding if it is reliable... Yaron Livne March 4 2004
Hey, tell me, for example there is a small village in Israel where only German people live, it's a small comunity, are they considered to be an ethnic group? or are they Germans? Yaron Livne March 4 2004
I care. I am a college student and I am sure there are many more who will care too. (CSUSB Student) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.182.54.185 ( talk) 00:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Should we consider turning this page into an umbrella article organized by continents?
This would give us links to for example List of ethnic groups in Asia, List of ethnic groups in Europe etc. It would be easier to search and find peoples while allowing visitors to explore the immense diversity of languages and cultures that (still) exist on our planet.
Multiculturalism developed as a rejection of this model in favour of cultural and linguistic pluralism. Believe me English Canada recognizes the mistakes of the past and agonizes over them endlessly. What worries us however is that Francophone Quebecers haven't gotten the same message and learnt the same lessons, and are repeating our mistakes. -- stewacide 22:39, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Again language does not equal ethnicity. There are signifigant cultural minorities of all sorts in all the countries listed and non is associated exclusively or primarily with one ethnic group. Also while Spain is multicultural (that's why I said North-Western Europe) it's hard to say the same about France - definately some regional diversity but about as unitary as they come. -- stewacide
The umbrella article could also link to the now extinct languages/ethnic groups. Also, I think a short definition of what exactly is an ethnic group in terms of antropology/ethnology should be given at the top. This could be an excerpt of what is already writtent in the ethnic group article. Mathieugp 16:19, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I agree this article can probably never be NPOV and if we ever managed to list all the ethnic groups in existence (ever?) from the very macro to the very micro it would be unworkably long. While ethnicity is definately a better defined concept than E.g. nationality it's still probably too ambigious to be of any real use.
A better solution could be a master List of articles on ethnicity and nationality or something to that effect that would link to anything and everything related to the subject EXCEPT supposed ethnic/national groups themselves. Only in actual articles (e.g. Ethnic groups of New Guinea, European nationalism, Jewish diaspora, etc.) can such a complicated subject even be approached. -- stewacide 02:32, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I have edited the British groups in this article. English were denoted a 'germanic' group, Scottish a 'predominately Celtic' group and Welsh a 'celtic' group. There was also a listing for Cornish. These use of Germanic or Celtic to define the people of Britain is factually and historically incorrect and serves a nationalist purpose. I have added Briton to represent all the indigenous people of Great Britain and have listed English, Scottish and Welsh correctly as British groups within Britain. I have removed Cornish as there is no Cornish ethnic group. If defining ethnicity on culture, suffice to differentiate it from a majority culture, then I will replace it (for we have separate English, Welsh and Scottish) but also shall put in various other distinct groups from within England and Scotland, such as Highlanders, Geordies, Yorkshiremen, etc.
I have replaced Cornish because there is a Cornish ethnic group, I am of it. In 2001 for the UK census you could record yourself as Cornish and on the 2004 schools census in Cornwall you could describe yourself as Cornish. Many other organisations, companies and associations also allow people to describe themselves as Cornish such as the Royal Cornwall Hospital. Finally the Council of Europe has recommended that the UK government recognise the Cornish for protection under the framework convention for protection of national minorities.
So if you are going to argue that the Cornish are not a national / ethnic group you will have to tell me what I am. Legally I recorded myself as Cornish, other options being English or British. If I cannot be Cornish in this manner then what am I?
To the anonymous poster who removed Cornish please try to check your facts before making edits and try not to allow your personal prejudice cloud your judgements.
For Census 2001 the UK Office of National Statistics designated separate codes for the English, Irish, Scots, Welsh and Cornish, debate over! Bretagne 44 21/7/05
See the new Cornish people page Bretagne 44 26/7/05
I added Hoklo (the cultural group of which most Han Chinese in Taiwan are members). As far as I'm concerned, if we're willing to lise Hakka as a distinct ethnic group in spite of being Han Chinese, the same concession should apply to the Hoklo. If anybody objects to this, I could removed both Hakka and Hoklo. The same is true of groups like French Canadians. Where should the line be drawn between ethnic and cultural groupings? The differece between a Serb and a Croat, for instance, are entirely cultural, with Serbs having a very Slavic culture and being members of the Serb Orthodox church and Croats being more aligned with Southern Europe in culture and being members of the Roman Catholic Church. -- User:Jj frap
I wish to suggest that an "Australian" ethnic group be added to the list, as these could identify the inhabitants of Australia who have a long history compared to recent immigrants in Australia.
eg. one who was born in australia, and all their living family was also born in Australia, then they cannot possibly be of any other ethnic group, so therefore they could be considered a ethnic Australian.
I point to comparisons such as the English or Austrian Ethnic groups, where they are noticeably related to other ethnic groups yet they are recognised as their own ethnicties which is correct, and so would recognising the Australian ethnicity.
Also, the ABS allows for "Australian" to be answered as an ethnic group on the census, which further backs up my suggesion.
It is impossible currently for all the different ethnic/national ancestry groups (English, Irish, Scottish, Arab, Chinese, Italian, Indigenous, Croat and many more) to become a single ethnic group because there are so many new migrants and a majority of Australians have arrived within the last 100 years (most Australians will have at least one non-Australian born grandparent). Only around 37% of Australians identify their ancestry as Australian, compared to 31% as English, 9% as Irish, etc. Only a plurality of Australians identify their ethnicity as Australian, which means a majority don't.
I'm an Australian - and my ethnicity is mixed Punjabi, Serb, Russian and Slovene. Similarly, most people of the Northern European majority still identify themselves as English, Irish, Scottish, German, Dutch, Welsh, etc. so even saying that Northern European Australians are the ethnic Australians doesn't work. Saimdusan Talk| Contribs 11:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
How can Jamaican be an ethnic group? Jamaican is a nationality. As defined there, Eddie Seaga (Lebanese descent), Super Cat (Indian with some African) and Michael Lee-Chin (African-Chinese) do not belong to the "Jamaican" ethnic group. I am also confused as to why "Central American" is listed as one of the contributing ethnic groups.
I will try to list more tribes of Ireland just as there are the tribes of the Americas listed. 66.73.198.159 14:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Irish-Australian is in here. And no this is not a point, I want all Irish ethnic groups to be listed, but wikipedia is making a point of descriminating against Irish. 66.73.198.159 15:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Mike, I beleive it would be a grave mistake to remove ethnic backgrounds in order to be replaced by a citizanship,after all what purpose does a definement of citizan serve other than to create a control of government over the people. If one is to look hard at the U.S. constitution under the 14th amendment,which created a new status of citizanship of those not free men but made free under the color of law,thus making a once slave person based upon an ethnic background to be made free by privilage of the federal,and state governments. Thus the citizan of the government is an axiom of a citizan being a subject of government. And being a subject of government is in opposite of the powers of the people to change their own form of government. hittingrabbit
I have to agree with my fellow anon. I am half Irish, and am quite offended. If we remove all the specific tribes of Ireland, but that standard we must remove all the specific tribes of Americans Indians. Because I don't think anyone a agrees with doing that, those same people should not agree to lumping all Irish together. If you don't have any pride in your heritage that's your prerogative, but then just stay out of the way and let us do the work.-- 68.192.171.249 21:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
being irish is not an ethnicity its a nationality, you are making a holy show of Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.125.39.213 ( talk) 18:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, as a step towards removing links to the Disambiguity page "Native Americans" as per Wikipedia policy, I changed the targets of all links pointing to that page. In future check that the link you create is not a Disambiguity page when you go to create it.
Secondly, someone may want to double check links for ethnic groups noted as in the Rocky Mountains area (Coeur d'Alene, Nez Percé, Pueblo people, Tetons, Ute), and in the Pacific Northwest (Coast Salish, Haida, Klamath, Nuu-chah-nulth, Tlingit, Tsimishian). Due to these two geographic areas being in both Canada, and the United States, I chose the more generalised article Indigenous peoples of the Americas to link them to. However, if these ethnic groups are solely in the one country or the other, then they should be redirected to "Native Americans in the United States", or "Aboriginal peoples in Canada". SauliH 03:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Bostonian?? Ah, come on. This is a flawed article... AndrewMcQ 19:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree with those who said that the article is problematic, and, in the end, useless. According to its premise, I would suppose that everyone is of some ethnic group. But I couldn't find one to fit in, nor I felt the urge to create one more... (Afro-Brazilian? Maybe, there's Afro-Cuban, right? Or should I adopt the categories invented in 19th century Brazil, that defined the population by "races" and "mixed races" and is still tought in schools?) The idea of having an article on the concept of "ethnic groups" is useful and desirable, but having a list is so essentialist and absurd that equals racism. How come there's no Caucasian? Or Aryan? Or whatever. Bostonian... Parababelico 09:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I deleted this because the Shanqella (or Shank'ella) aren't actually an ethnic group, but an Amharic word (actually originally an Agaw word) used to refer to the very black (in skin color, obviously) tribes of the Southwest peripheral areas of Ethiopia.
Of course there is a French ethnic group! What do you think the native French-speakers of French origin and descent represent? They are so lucky these people, they even share a language, French, which allowed them to have a common culture for the past few centuries...
In anycase, the Ethnologue site seems to think there are some 51 million of them in France where some 61 million French citizens live.
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=fra
-- Mathieugp 22:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Your evidences is simple personal opinion, in crude words,
doxa. If you take the trouble reading the
French people page, you will see that neither French people, nor the French Republic, recognize the existence of a so-called "French ethnic group". The only people in France who use this expression (transl. by "Français de souche") are the far-right racist
Front National party. Please understand the French context before such "ethnologue.com" links.
Lapaz 17:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Reading again your comment: you are confusing French citizenship with a French ethnic. The French language was massively popularized in France with conscription and the French Third Republic public instruction laws. Before the 1789 revolution, only scholars and aristocrats spoke French. Lapaz 17:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I understand what an ethnic group is. But you bypass the fact that the French nation-state has founded itself against this idea, because of a universalist and republican conception. It may be criticized, in the name of multiculturalism or whatever. But I think you don't realize how wide the gap is between this Anglo-Saxon conception and the French conception. The main question is this: if you are correct in your (unclear) definition of a so-called French ethnic group, how do you tie this notion to the French nation-state? Lapaz 20:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The question of "French ethnicity" is a bit of a controversial one here in France. The French Republic does not recognise a "French ethnicity", only a French citizenship and nationality. No population census asks questions about ethnicity; it would actually be illegal for the government to collect data on the population's ethnic composition (although Sarko wants to change that). A few comments, therefore:
I know a few people who are from both Chicano and White parents. What is the term for this new breed of people that are common in parts of Texas and California (not to mention a presence in a large quantity of other states)?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.65.185.129 ( talk • contribs) 16:57, 27 July 2006.
Hello,
WikiProject Ethnic groups has added new assessment criteria for Ethnic Groups articles.
Your article has automatically been given class=stub and reassess=yes ratings. [corrected text: --
Ling.Nut 22:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)] Don't be alarmed if this article is actually far more than a stub -- at least in the beginning, all unassessed articles are being automatically assigned to these values.
Revisions of assessment ratings can be made by assigning an appropriate value via the class parameter in the WikiProject Ethnic groups project banner {{ Ethnic groups}} that is currently placed at the top of Ethnic groups articles' talk pages. Quality assessment guidelines are at the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team's assessment system page.
Please see the Project's article rating and assessment scheme for more information and the details and criteria for each rating value. A brief version can be found at Template talk:Ethnic groups. You can also enquire at the Ethnic groups Project's main discussion board for assistance.
Another way to help out that could be an enjoyable pastime is to visit Category:WikiProject Ethnic groups, find an interesting-looking article to read, and carefully assess it following those guidelines.
Thanks!
--
Ling.Nut 03:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
This article includes ni-Vanuatu (but not Solomon Islanders or, say, Papuans). This brings us back to the definition of ethnicity. There are a wide variety of indigenous ethnic groups in Vanuatu, most of them Melanesian. Is "ni-Vanuatu" an "ethnicity"? I suppose it could be, in the sense that it's related to the idea (encouraged by national politicians) that all indigenous inhabitants of Vanuatu share what is supposed to be a common Melanesian culture heritage and kastom (although kastom is often seen as specific and local...). But I would suggest (tentatively, for now) that, as in other parts of Melanesia, sub-national indigenous ethnic belongings are more important, in terms of the way people view themselves (if we consider self-perception as the sine qua non of ethnicity). I'm not saying we should remove it; I'm just saying it's... complex. Aridd ( talk) 09:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
It is completely pointless to keep an alphabetical list of this scope with no additional information. We have categories for that. Already List of African ethnic groups is too much and may need to be split, or at least needs additional information in tabular form. Wikipedia isn't paper, alphabetical lists are not needed for navigation. You just use the search function. See e.g. List of deities for another list that used to be completely pointless, successfully converted into a list of lists. -- dab (𒁳) 12:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
The Altaic Peoples page is been considered for deletion, mainly because the taxonomy has no evidence backing it up, and is being signaled as original research. Then, it makes sense to change this article to reflect the Altaic language speaking people instead, as the list is showing ethnic groups by language groups.-- 190.140.147.221 ( talk) 17:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't see that articles about diaspora or expatriate populations like Koreans in Iran, Russians in Japan, etc. belong on this article. They're not separate ethnic groups, they're just groups of expatriates. But even if the consensus is to include them, they should not be referred to by American-style neologisms like "Korean Iranians" or "Russian Japanese" which you will never find in any reliable sources. They're not even Iranians of any kind; they're Korean expatriates who work in Iran. Same goes for many of the other groups. I have removed all such terminology from the article. cab ( talk) 03:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Why are white people included as one of the ethnic groups? This is a matter of race, not ethnicity and I think it should be removed, because it is erroneous. Norum ( talk) 13:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I've spent some time trying to clean up, add and reorganize some information, and get a better idea of what there is in it. On the one hand I think it can be a useful article for some needs. On the other, it sure is a pot pourri of categories with errors and inconsistencies. Aside from the points raised above, there are also historic peoples (i.e. Huns? Aztecs? Hyksos?) that raise the question of whether these should be removed to another article (if it doesn't already exist). I'm presuming that this article is intended as a list of current ethnic groups. Is there any consensus on what this article should be?-- A12n ( talk) 21:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
The alphabetic list is essentially an unstructured and redundant duplication of our categorization system. If we are to keep it at all, it should become Index of ethnic group articles, categorized in Category:Indexes of articles. -- dab (𒁳) 07:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I was looking at a page this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_language_families#Major_language_families which has the percentages of the world, for major language families. Number 2. Sino-Tibetan languages, is 21% of the world language families. But I am looking for it on this page, to find the numbers in millions of population for each ethnic group (by language - the first section on this page). I can't see where the Chinese or Sino-Tibetan languages would come, or if there are any numbers for their speakers. I would like to see numbers for all the main upper families, so that we can compare equally, and hope they would add up to the world population of 6700000000 approx, or so.
Could someone have a look, and see where chinese speaking people would fit, into the first section of ethnic groups by language families?
P.S. Because it was useful to see that Indo European speakers total added up to 3 billion. So I would like to see the other numbers there add up to the other 3.7 billion of the 6.7 billion total population of the world. So I think Chinese would be a good start to this, of 1.6 billion or so. I don't know where the other remaining 1 to 2 billions come from exactly.
Thanks. Dave N —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.195.41 ( talk) 21:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
The Aramean people are the indigenous people of Syria (Aram) and Mesopotamia (Aram-Nahrin) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.195.23.227 ( talk) 22:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I just want to be on record saying that this article will eventually be a problem, and is probably not very useful. Tokerboy 21:03 Nov 11, 2002 (UTC)
I just happpened to notice that German-American is listed as an ethnic group. Unless this is meant to refer to the Amish or something, then this article is truly heading in a ridiculous direction. With 190ish countries and presumably a at least a small community of immigrants from most other countries in most of them, that's 190ish to the 190ish power ethnic groups just from immigrant communities alone (I think), to take it to its logical conclusion. Russo-Egyptians? East-Timorese-Kazakhs? See Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion for more reasons why I don't like this one.
Obviously German-American is a bit much, however Amish is certainly a cultural group. I think a list is quite useful.
That sounds like an argument against wikipedia altogether. Yet we already have 90,000+ articles... Lir 01:55 Nov 16, 2002 (UTC)
First of all, I think we should distinguish between ethnic groups and national groups. That would mean that Bengali is a legitimate entry, but Bangladeshi is not. I don't mind the numbers. Once it gets to big, we should organize them into geographical locations, i.e., Native North American, Southeast Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, etc. Other than that, the numbers don't daunt me. Danny
Why is "Jewish" in the list of ethnic groups? Jews are not an ethnic group and never were. That the different Jewish groups around the world have a common root is a myth. Even if it was true, different Jewish groups around the world are still NOT an ethnic group. They have vastly different cultures, vastly different genes, and until recent times have been separated from each other for many years.
Genetic studies that "prove" Jews around the world to have the same genes have several problems with them that I am not going to go into now.
Anyway, there is no "Jewish" ethnic group and it should not be in the list.
- anonymous user
I changed Belorussian to Belarusian but, while this name is prefered for the language, I'm not sure if it is so for the ethnic group. Consider that, dear Internet! 6birc
I notice that, for example, Haiwaiian in the list is linked to Hawaii. But an article on Hawaii will have a lot of information (e.g. its current status as a U.S. state, its role in World War II, its physical geography) which have not much to do with Hawaiians as an ethnic group. Hawaiian should really point to a separate article about the native Hawaiian people (their culture, history, language, religion, biological features & origin, etc.) -- the history of the Hawaiian people is not identical to the history of Hawaii.
I have to say, many of the groupings that various ethnicities are attributed to belong to don't make sense. For example, the Turkish are put down as "Middle Eastern group", and their cousins the Turkmen are put down as "Central Asia" - are not both
Turkic peoples? And the Azerbaijani, who are closely related to the people of Turkey, are put down as "group of the Caucasus", which to me is an error as although they're in the Caucasus, they're ethnically Turkic, and distinct from the real ethnic-grouping 'group-of-the-Caucasus' which is primarily the various peoples of Georgia. The Icelanders are put down as "North Atlantic island", but surely their relationship with other Germanic peoples is comparable with the relationships of the various Polynesian groups with each other? The Maori should have their relationship with the Polynesian group noted. I think this whole page should be put in a table with columns, where it can be clearly shown which group(s) each ethnicity belongs to and their geographic location(s) (without the two catagories being confused and mixed up).
Actually, I think this whole article as it is now is hap-hazard, inconsistant and messed up.
This could never be a sensible article. Even if we could agree on what constitutes an ethnic group, then any definitive list would be monstrously long. And we never will agree. If anybody ever takes this seriously it will be the scene of a lot of angry and wasteful edit wars. Real wars are fought (and whole countries established) because of this messy concept. So Wikipedians are never going to agree about it. Even if we could, I can't see what possible use this list could be. This article will do much more harm than good to Wikipedia and should be deleted. GrahamN 15:36 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)
We have articles about some ethnic groups (see African American, Basque, etc.). Someone might want to know what ethnic groups we have articles on. So how do they find out? The obvious way is to have a list of ethnic groups that they can come to to check! The "we could never agree" argument applies to every single article in the Wikipedia. But the principle of NPOV sorts it out. We don't have to know what an ethnic group actually is; we just report what is commonly held to be an ethnic group by other people. The length argument has been dealt with above - the answer is to split up long lists. Have you seen how many lists of people we have now? Of course this list is a mess at the moment, but that just means that it needs attention, not that it needs deleting. My opinion is that it should only list the groups that we have articles on, or that we're going to have articles on. The unopposed existence of such an article would in itself be convincing evidence that the grouping was a meaningful one. -- Oliver P. 07:44 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Yes, if the list was limited to ethnic groups covered by articles (or inteded to be urgently covered), it might be, to some small degree, useful. But it wouldn't be easy to keep it that way. Alternatively one changes the title of the page to "Incomplete list of nationals and ethnic groups covered by Wikipedia articles".
The NPOV-principle is not promising for lists and similar instances where there is no space for qualifications of the arguments for and against, as the discussion on the date of Germany's "independence" has showed.
Furthermore, a list must be maintained by someone, or it will simply reflect the status of the last time it was properly maintained - and there the usefulness of the list escaped! I suggest that the search-function and "What links here" are more useful means.
This article will do much more harm than good to Wikipedia and should be deleted.
--
Ruhrjung 08:07 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Well, all our lists are incomplete and in need of continual maintenance. That's just the nature of a Wiki. But an incomplete and slightly out-of-date list is better than no list at all, surely? And I have no idea what you mean by it doing "harm". Even if it becomes hopelessly incomplete and utterly out-of-date, it will at worst just waste a bit of space, and we're not short of that, from what I hear. However, you raise a good point about the NPOV principle being troublesome for lists - by inclusing a group in a list of ethnic groups we are implicitly advocating the point of view that it is an ethnic group. But there is space for qualifications. We can put "considered an ethnic group by X but not by Y - see the article for further details", or something like that. Oliver P. 16:23 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Finaly!!!!!! A list of all the peoples in the world, YES! Found it! Thank you all, but I still don't get this Wikipedia thing, who is responsable for checking the information here, and deciding if it is reliable... Yaron Livne March 4 2004
Hey, tell me, for example there is a small village in Israel where only German people live, it's a small comunity, are they considered to be an ethnic group? or are they Germans? Yaron Livne March 4 2004
I care. I am a college student and I am sure there are many more who will care too. (CSUSB Student) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.182.54.185 ( talk) 00:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Should we consider turning this page into an umbrella article organized by continents?
This would give us links to for example List of ethnic groups in Asia, List of ethnic groups in Europe etc. It would be easier to search and find peoples while allowing visitors to explore the immense diversity of languages and cultures that (still) exist on our planet.
Multiculturalism developed as a rejection of this model in favour of cultural and linguistic pluralism. Believe me English Canada recognizes the mistakes of the past and agonizes over them endlessly. What worries us however is that Francophone Quebecers haven't gotten the same message and learnt the same lessons, and are repeating our mistakes. -- stewacide 22:39, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Again language does not equal ethnicity. There are signifigant cultural minorities of all sorts in all the countries listed and non is associated exclusively or primarily with one ethnic group. Also while Spain is multicultural (that's why I said North-Western Europe) it's hard to say the same about France - definately some regional diversity but about as unitary as they come. -- stewacide
The umbrella article could also link to the now extinct languages/ethnic groups. Also, I think a short definition of what exactly is an ethnic group in terms of antropology/ethnology should be given at the top. This could be an excerpt of what is already writtent in the ethnic group article. Mathieugp 16:19, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I agree this article can probably never be NPOV and if we ever managed to list all the ethnic groups in existence (ever?) from the very macro to the very micro it would be unworkably long. While ethnicity is definately a better defined concept than E.g. nationality it's still probably too ambigious to be of any real use.
A better solution could be a master List of articles on ethnicity and nationality or something to that effect that would link to anything and everything related to the subject EXCEPT supposed ethnic/national groups themselves. Only in actual articles (e.g. Ethnic groups of New Guinea, European nationalism, Jewish diaspora, etc.) can such a complicated subject even be approached. -- stewacide 02:32, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I have edited the British groups in this article. English were denoted a 'germanic' group, Scottish a 'predominately Celtic' group and Welsh a 'celtic' group. There was also a listing for Cornish. These use of Germanic or Celtic to define the people of Britain is factually and historically incorrect and serves a nationalist purpose. I have added Briton to represent all the indigenous people of Great Britain and have listed English, Scottish and Welsh correctly as British groups within Britain. I have removed Cornish as there is no Cornish ethnic group. If defining ethnicity on culture, suffice to differentiate it from a majority culture, then I will replace it (for we have separate English, Welsh and Scottish) but also shall put in various other distinct groups from within England and Scotland, such as Highlanders, Geordies, Yorkshiremen, etc.
I have replaced Cornish because there is a Cornish ethnic group, I am of it. In 2001 for the UK census you could record yourself as Cornish and on the 2004 schools census in Cornwall you could describe yourself as Cornish. Many other organisations, companies and associations also allow people to describe themselves as Cornish such as the Royal Cornwall Hospital. Finally the Council of Europe has recommended that the UK government recognise the Cornish for protection under the framework convention for protection of national minorities.
So if you are going to argue that the Cornish are not a national / ethnic group you will have to tell me what I am. Legally I recorded myself as Cornish, other options being English or British. If I cannot be Cornish in this manner then what am I?
To the anonymous poster who removed Cornish please try to check your facts before making edits and try not to allow your personal prejudice cloud your judgements.
For Census 2001 the UK Office of National Statistics designated separate codes for the English, Irish, Scots, Welsh and Cornish, debate over! Bretagne 44 21/7/05
See the new Cornish people page Bretagne 44 26/7/05
I added Hoklo (the cultural group of which most Han Chinese in Taiwan are members). As far as I'm concerned, if we're willing to lise Hakka as a distinct ethnic group in spite of being Han Chinese, the same concession should apply to the Hoklo. If anybody objects to this, I could removed both Hakka and Hoklo. The same is true of groups like French Canadians. Where should the line be drawn between ethnic and cultural groupings? The differece between a Serb and a Croat, for instance, are entirely cultural, with Serbs having a very Slavic culture and being members of the Serb Orthodox church and Croats being more aligned with Southern Europe in culture and being members of the Roman Catholic Church. -- User:Jj frap
I wish to suggest that an "Australian" ethnic group be added to the list, as these could identify the inhabitants of Australia who have a long history compared to recent immigrants in Australia.
eg. one who was born in australia, and all their living family was also born in Australia, then they cannot possibly be of any other ethnic group, so therefore they could be considered a ethnic Australian.
I point to comparisons such as the English or Austrian Ethnic groups, where they are noticeably related to other ethnic groups yet they are recognised as their own ethnicties which is correct, and so would recognising the Australian ethnicity.
Also, the ABS allows for "Australian" to be answered as an ethnic group on the census, which further backs up my suggesion.
It is impossible currently for all the different ethnic/national ancestry groups (English, Irish, Scottish, Arab, Chinese, Italian, Indigenous, Croat and many more) to become a single ethnic group because there are so many new migrants and a majority of Australians have arrived within the last 100 years (most Australians will have at least one non-Australian born grandparent). Only around 37% of Australians identify their ancestry as Australian, compared to 31% as English, 9% as Irish, etc. Only a plurality of Australians identify their ethnicity as Australian, which means a majority don't.
I'm an Australian - and my ethnicity is mixed Punjabi, Serb, Russian and Slovene. Similarly, most people of the Northern European majority still identify themselves as English, Irish, Scottish, German, Dutch, Welsh, etc. so even saying that Northern European Australians are the ethnic Australians doesn't work. Saimdusan Talk| Contribs 11:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
How can Jamaican be an ethnic group? Jamaican is a nationality. As defined there, Eddie Seaga (Lebanese descent), Super Cat (Indian with some African) and Michael Lee-Chin (African-Chinese) do not belong to the "Jamaican" ethnic group. I am also confused as to why "Central American" is listed as one of the contributing ethnic groups.
I will try to list more tribes of Ireland just as there are the tribes of the Americas listed. 66.73.198.159 14:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Irish-Australian is in here. And no this is not a point, I want all Irish ethnic groups to be listed, but wikipedia is making a point of descriminating against Irish. 66.73.198.159 15:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Mike, I beleive it would be a grave mistake to remove ethnic backgrounds in order to be replaced by a citizanship,after all what purpose does a definement of citizan serve other than to create a control of government over the people. If one is to look hard at the U.S. constitution under the 14th amendment,which created a new status of citizanship of those not free men but made free under the color of law,thus making a once slave person based upon an ethnic background to be made free by privilage of the federal,and state governments. Thus the citizan of the government is an axiom of a citizan being a subject of government. And being a subject of government is in opposite of the powers of the people to change their own form of government. hittingrabbit
I have to agree with my fellow anon. I am half Irish, and am quite offended. If we remove all the specific tribes of Ireland, but that standard we must remove all the specific tribes of Americans Indians. Because I don't think anyone a agrees with doing that, those same people should not agree to lumping all Irish together. If you don't have any pride in your heritage that's your prerogative, but then just stay out of the way and let us do the work.-- 68.192.171.249 21:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
being irish is not an ethnicity its a nationality, you are making a holy show of Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.125.39.213 ( talk) 18:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, as a step towards removing links to the Disambiguity page "Native Americans" as per Wikipedia policy, I changed the targets of all links pointing to that page. In future check that the link you create is not a Disambiguity page when you go to create it.
Secondly, someone may want to double check links for ethnic groups noted as in the Rocky Mountains area (Coeur d'Alene, Nez Percé, Pueblo people, Tetons, Ute), and in the Pacific Northwest (Coast Salish, Haida, Klamath, Nuu-chah-nulth, Tlingit, Tsimishian). Due to these two geographic areas being in both Canada, and the United States, I chose the more generalised article Indigenous peoples of the Americas to link them to. However, if these ethnic groups are solely in the one country or the other, then they should be redirected to "Native Americans in the United States", or "Aboriginal peoples in Canada". SauliH 03:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Bostonian?? Ah, come on. This is a flawed article... AndrewMcQ 19:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree with those who said that the article is problematic, and, in the end, useless. According to its premise, I would suppose that everyone is of some ethnic group. But I couldn't find one to fit in, nor I felt the urge to create one more... (Afro-Brazilian? Maybe, there's Afro-Cuban, right? Or should I adopt the categories invented in 19th century Brazil, that defined the population by "races" and "mixed races" and is still tought in schools?) The idea of having an article on the concept of "ethnic groups" is useful and desirable, but having a list is so essentialist and absurd that equals racism. How come there's no Caucasian? Or Aryan? Or whatever. Bostonian... Parababelico 09:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I deleted this because the Shanqella (or Shank'ella) aren't actually an ethnic group, but an Amharic word (actually originally an Agaw word) used to refer to the very black (in skin color, obviously) tribes of the Southwest peripheral areas of Ethiopia.
Of course there is a French ethnic group! What do you think the native French-speakers of French origin and descent represent? They are so lucky these people, they even share a language, French, which allowed them to have a common culture for the past few centuries...
In anycase, the Ethnologue site seems to think there are some 51 million of them in France where some 61 million French citizens live.
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=fra
-- Mathieugp 22:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Your evidences is simple personal opinion, in crude words,
doxa. If you take the trouble reading the
French people page, you will see that neither French people, nor the French Republic, recognize the existence of a so-called "French ethnic group". The only people in France who use this expression (transl. by "Français de souche") are the far-right racist
Front National party. Please understand the French context before such "ethnologue.com" links.
Lapaz 17:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Reading again your comment: you are confusing French citizenship with a French ethnic. The French language was massively popularized in France with conscription and the French Third Republic public instruction laws. Before the 1789 revolution, only scholars and aristocrats spoke French. Lapaz 17:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I understand what an ethnic group is. But you bypass the fact that the French nation-state has founded itself against this idea, because of a universalist and republican conception. It may be criticized, in the name of multiculturalism or whatever. But I think you don't realize how wide the gap is between this Anglo-Saxon conception and the French conception. The main question is this: if you are correct in your (unclear) definition of a so-called French ethnic group, how do you tie this notion to the French nation-state? Lapaz 20:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The question of "French ethnicity" is a bit of a controversial one here in France. The French Republic does not recognise a "French ethnicity", only a French citizenship and nationality. No population census asks questions about ethnicity; it would actually be illegal for the government to collect data on the population's ethnic composition (although Sarko wants to change that). A few comments, therefore:
I know a few people who are from both Chicano and White parents. What is the term for this new breed of people that are common in parts of Texas and California (not to mention a presence in a large quantity of other states)?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.65.185.129 ( talk • contribs) 16:57, 27 July 2006.
Hello,
WikiProject Ethnic groups has added new assessment criteria for Ethnic Groups articles.
Your article has automatically been given class=stub and reassess=yes ratings. [corrected text: --
Ling.Nut 22:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)] Don't be alarmed if this article is actually far more than a stub -- at least in the beginning, all unassessed articles are being automatically assigned to these values.
Revisions of assessment ratings can be made by assigning an appropriate value via the class parameter in the WikiProject Ethnic groups project banner {{ Ethnic groups}} that is currently placed at the top of Ethnic groups articles' talk pages. Quality assessment guidelines are at the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team's assessment system page.
Please see the Project's article rating and assessment scheme for more information and the details and criteria for each rating value. A brief version can be found at Template talk:Ethnic groups. You can also enquire at the Ethnic groups Project's main discussion board for assistance.
Another way to help out that could be an enjoyable pastime is to visit Category:WikiProject Ethnic groups, find an interesting-looking article to read, and carefully assess it following those guidelines.
Thanks!
--
Ling.Nut 03:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
This article includes ni-Vanuatu (but not Solomon Islanders or, say, Papuans). This brings us back to the definition of ethnicity. There are a wide variety of indigenous ethnic groups in Vanuatu, most of them Melanesian. Is "ni-Vanuatu" an "ethnicity"? I suppose it could be, in the sense that it's related to the idea (encouraged by national politicians) that all indigenous inhabitants of Vanuatu share what is supposed to be a common Melanesian culture heritage and kastom (although kastom is often seen as specific and local...). But I would suggest (tentatively, for now) that, as in other parts of Melanesia, sub-national indigenous ethnic belongings are more important, in terms of the way people view themselves (if we consider self-perception as the sine qua non of ethnicity). I'm not saying we should remove it; I'm just saying it's... complex. Aridd ( talk) 09:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
It is completely pointless to keep an alphabetical list of this scope with no additional information. We have categories for that. Already List of African ethnic groups is too much and may need to be split, or at least needs additional information in tabular form. Wikipedia isn't paper, alphabetical lists are not needed for navigation. You just use the search function. See e.g. List of deities for another list that used to be completely pointless, successfully converted into a list of lists. -- dab (𒁳) 12:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
The Altaic Peoples page is been considered for deletion, mainly because the taxonomy has no evidence backing it up, and is being signaled as original research. Then, it makes sense to change this article to reflect the Altaic language speaking people instead, as the list is showing ethnic groups by language groups.-- 190.140.147.221 ( talk) 17:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't see that articles about diaspora or expatriate populations like Koreans in Iran, Russians in Japan, etc. belong on this article. They're not separate ethnic groups, they're just groups of expatriates. But even if the consensus is to include them, they should not be referred to by American-style neologisms like "Korean Iranians" or "Russian Japanese" which you will never find in any reliable sources. They're not even Iranians of any kind; they're Korean expatriates who work in Iran. Same goes for many of the other groups. I have removed all such terminology from the article. cab ( talk) 03:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Why are white people included as one of the ethnic groups? This is a matter of race, not ethnicity and I think it should be removed, because it is erroneous. Norum ( talk) 13:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I've spent some time trying to clean up, add and reorganize some information, and get a better idea of what there is in it. On the one hand I think it can be a useful article for some needs. On the other, it sure is a pot pourri of categories with errors and inconsistencies. Aside from the points raised above, there are also historic peoples (i.e. Huns? Aztecs? Hyksos?) that raise the question of whether these should be removed to another article (if it doesn't already exist). I'm presuming that this article is intended as a list of current ethnic groups. Is there any consensus on what this article should be?-- A12n ( talk) 21:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
The alphabetic list is essentially an unstructured and redundant duplication of our categorization system. If we are to keep it at all, it should become Index of ethnic group articles, categorized in Category:Indexes of articles. -- dab (𒁳) 07:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I was looking at a page this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_language_families#Major_language_families which has the percentages of the world, for major language families. Number 2. Sino-Tibetan languages, is 21% of the world language families. But I am looking for it on this page, to find the numbers in millions of population for each ethnic group (by language - the first section on this page). I can't see where the Chinese or Sino-Tibetan languages would come, or if there are any numbers for their speakers. I would like to see numbers for all the main upper families, so that we can compare equally, and hope they would add up to the world population of 6700000000 approx, or so.
Could someone have a look, and see where chinese speaking people would fit, into the first section of ethnic groups by language families?
P.S. Because it was useful to see that Indo European speakers total added up to 3 billion. So I would like to see the other numbers there add up to the other 3.7 billion of the 6.7 billion total population of the world. So I think Chinese would be a good start to this, of 1.6 billion or so. I don't know where the other remaining 1 to 2 billions come from exactly.
Thanks. Dave N —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.195.41 ( talk) 21:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)