Talk:Ethnicity

A very confusing article
This page uses a lot of words to say very little. It does not list main ethnic groups and the linked pages for continent specifics only order ethnic groups by language, without any division through macrocategories. It starts as a lesson for racists and then muddles everything up becoming an incomprehensible mess of links and superfluous details. It really needs some serious cleaning, less smoke and more meat. 2001:B07:A96:9FA6:C1E6:6324:C5A:90D4 (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Will do in a few months. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Attempts to correct have been made SereneNecrosis (talk) 03:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Edits by were reverted for major structural flaws, including removal of categories and the SEe also section. There are issues with tone and compliance with the Manual of Style that also need addressed. That is without considering content, which I did not look at one way or the other. —C.Fred (talk) 03:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 15 March 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Silikonz 💬  15:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Ethnic group → Ethnicity – The article not only defines ethnic groups (referred to as "An Ethnicity"), but also emphasizes the broader sociological concept of ethnicity, which is an uncountable noun. Maedc (talk) 11:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * At first sight this makes sense.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.--Rjensen (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.--Treetoes023 (talk) 17:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Ethnicity: a social construct
My recent edits with reliable sources for some reason have been reversed, there are tons of reliable sources that states that ethnicity is a social construct like these ones:


 * “Ethnicity, like race, is a social construct, but it's still a construct with significant implications for the world. How people perceive ethnicity, both their own and that of others, can be tough to measure, particularly given that it's so subjective” Washingtonpost
 * “Ethnicity is a complex social construct that influences personal identity and group social relations.” And “Ethnicity is typically invoked via the term, ‘race/ethnicity’;” ncbi
 * “Contrary to supposedly scientific approaches to determine the objective physiological, genealogical , or genetic origins and boundaries of racial groups, a growing consensus of scholarship across fields and disciplines has now concluded that ethnicity is a social construction , a fictional product of a people's common imagination .”   Ethnic Negotiations: The Function of Race and Ethnicity in Acts 16, emory university

i hope people stop removing reliable sourced content. Chafique (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a social construct, but certainly a very different one when compared to race (unless "ethnicity" is abused as a euphemism for "race", as often happens in US discourse). I object to have them mentioned in one breath. Also, our opening sentence clearly talks about "people who identify with each other", which obviously equals a social construct. We also say this in the forth paragraph, so repeating it is redundant here.
 * Since the social (and hence fluid) understanding of ethnicity is mainstream now over primordalist interpretations, we might consider to put it further up in the text. But not with unencyclopedic phrasing such as "but still" and "it's so subjective". I'll think of a more adequate fix. –Austronesier (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It’s not me or you who decide that, it’s reliable sources, the source say “Ethnicity, like race, is a social construct, but it's still a construct with significant implications for the world. How people perceive ethnicity, both their own and that of others, can be tough to measure, particularly given that it's so subjective” [1 ], these are the exact words of the source, it’s the source that says “like race”, you are objecting to the source not me. You have no right to claim that the source is wrong or made a mistake without at least providing a source stating that. And no saying “people who identify with each others” is not as saying “ethnicity is a social construct”, and if we got to choose between a direct or indirect statement to introduce an information we should go with the direct statement.  Chafique (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've just become aware that you have plagiarized the WaPo text (see WP:COPYVIO). I will make my final revert explicitly for this reason. I have already voiced my substantial objections to your text (which isn't yours), let me just add that I have all the right to object to a text that contexualizes ethnicity in a way that does not reflect the scholarly mainstream understanding of the concept (i.e. as something similar to "race"). WP:Due weight is part of Wikipedia policy. But now it's time for other to chime in. I suggest you stop edit warring about. –Austronesier (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I will make my final revert explicitly for this reason.
 * great. Then i guess after fixing that then we are fine.
 * I have already voiced my substantial objections to your text (which isn't yours)
 * yeah you are objecting to the reliable source, not me, that’s your personal opinion and belief not what reliable sources say. You have provided zero sources so far and yet you are pushing your personal opinion over the reliable sources.
 * let me just add that I have all the right to object to a text that contexualizes ethnicity in a way that does not reflect the scholarly mainstream understanding of the concept (i.e. as something similar to "race")
 * then provide a source that support your claim !, you are the one claiming that a reliable source doesn’t reflect or contradict with the “scholarly mainstream understanding of the concept”, provide quote/s from any source that says or show that. Until you do, this remains your own personal opinion. Chafique (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This edit does remove the COPYVIO but remains problematic.
 * FIRSTLY adding three sources to the lead is WP:OVERCITE.
 * SECONDLY, on sourcing, The Washington post source is really not of the kind we should be using for this kind of information, and Barreto (2010) is all very well but you reveal in the referencing that you have not read the book, but merely searched for the phrase "ethnicity is a social construction". This suggests you have begun with the point you wish to express and googled sources that support your point of view. This is not how this should be done (although it is not uncommon). Austronesier, above, says I have all the right to object to a text that contexualizes ethnicity in a way that does not reflect the scholarly mainstream understanding of the concept, by which we understand that what is required here is a review of what all the sources say, not cherry picking sources that seem to agree with us (but may not if we read them in full).
 * THIRDLY, we should not need to cite anything in the lead if the lead is properly a summary of the main text, where the information is cited. This per MOS:CITELEAD. Inserting this in the lead with citations reveals that it does not, in fact, properly summarise main text and so it does not belong there.
 * FOURTHLY, there already is a summary of what the main text does say about ethnicity being a social construct, so your addition is repetitive in what is already a long lead.
 * FIFTHLY, you tried an edit and it has been reverted, and now it is incumbent on you to gain a consensus before retrying it. Per WP:ONUS, this text stays out until their is consensus on what should be there.
 * For all these reasons I have reverted the addition. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This suggests you have begun with the point you wish to express and googled sources that support your point of view. This is not how this should be done
 * are you accusing me of being biased or lier ? Are you assuming a bad faith in me ?
 * by which we understand that what is required here is a review of what all the sources say, not cherry picking sources that seem to agree with us
 * I am the only one here citing sources, both you and Austronesier haven’t provided a single source for your opinions and beliefs. And yet again it seems like you are assuming a bad faith in me. Both of you also made edits and removed content other than mine without reaching any consensus, so i am going now to revert you and restore the last stable edit until we all reach consensus here. Chafique (talk) 12:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Without rationale, you have reverted four edits that are unrelated to the contested piece of text that you want to add:
 * You have changed "perceived shared attributes" back to "shared attributes", even though this is line with the overall presentation of ethnicity as a social construct, which you yourself want to repeat with the disputed text. This looks like a tit-for-tat revert.
 * You have restored the unsourced and hardly meaningful sentence "Ethnic groups often continue to speak related languages". Is it one ethnic group speaking several related languages? Is it several ethnic groups speaking related languages? What does "continue" refer to here?
 * You have restored a dictionary definition, which is ok. But not having it in the lede is also ok. But never mind, better seems to be more, regardless of what MOS:LEAD says.
 * You have restored the citation to a NYT opinion piece which might be a valuable addition to Race (human categorization), but is quite off topic here, since the words "ethnic" or "ethnicity" are not mentioned in the source at all. Why should we have in the lede section a source that does not cover the topic of this article?
 * You do not accept my revert of your additions in spite of my arguments, which is of course perfectly fine: without disagreement, there's no consensus to build. But do you think it's ok to make a revert to unrelated material without any substantial explanition? –Austronesier (talk) 22:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Chafique, you say: are you accusing me of being biased or lier ? Are you assuming a bad faith in me ? I am certainly not accusing you of lying, and that ought to be quite clear. Neither am I assuming bad faith. I had assumed your faith was good. It was the method that was bad. We don't go googling for keywords in a source to support something we already want to say. Instead, we read and understand the sources, and from a position of knowledge, we describe the consensus of opinion. The page already has that, and as explained, your text both duplicates what is already there, but also nuances it in a way that actually contradicts the main text. That can't happen in the lead. Also, per Austronesier's comment, I don't understand your revert of unrelated edits I made to clean up the lead. What is the policy reason for putting those back in? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * you have found time to make edits elsewhere on Wikipedia but have not answered these questions. Why have you reverted my cleanup edits of yesterday, removing WP:OVERCITE from the lead, unrelated to your previous content dispute? Your only rationale for these edits (asserted twice) was Both of you also made edits and removed content other than mine without reaching any consensus. I believe you are not familiar with WP:ONUS or the essay, WP:BRD. Let me summarise: Any editor can make a bold edit without discussion, but if another editor reverts that edit, it requires consensus before the edit may be reasserted, so I was entirely within my rights to make two cleanup edits. You, having reverted them, should now express what is wrong with these edits. Your current rationale reads as retaliation, which I am sure is not what you meant. Note that failure to express a policy reason for reverting those edits looks like WP:STONEWALLING. Particularly with edit summaries like "Restored the last stable edit". Your "Restored the last stable edit" simply removes two cleanup edits of mine that were unrelated to your previous content dispute. An editor attempting to freeze a page at a "stable version" is also WP:STONEWALLING. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my late response, i have reverted your edits mainly because it removed “Ethnic groups often continue to speak related languages.” which should have stayed, an example for it would be the Kurds, Zazas are ethnically kurds who speak the zaza-gorani languages, unlike most kurds who speak kurdish. They speak related languages but not the same. There are a lot of other similar examples. That’s why i opposed your edits.
 * now regarding out main topic,
 * We don't go googling for keywords in a source to support something we already want to say. Instead, we read and understand the sources, and from a position of knowledge, we describe the consensus of opinion.
 * thanks for your advice, that’s exactly what i did, i leave the keywords in the url to make it easier for check ups. the source states that there is a scholarship consensus that ethnicity is a social construct, a human fiction, as the source says: “ a growing consensus of scholarship across fields and disciplines has now concluded that ethnicity is a social construction, a fictional product of a people's common imagination .”, this needs to be more directly and clearly shown in the lead. same way “race” is, we have also an extra source that likens ethnicity to race, i still don’t find a reason go exclude it. None of you provided any source to support his claims about it or that “it goes against the mainstream consensus”, until now you are objecting for the sake of objection without providing any source. It looks like the remaining main argument against the direct mention and confirmation of ethnicity as a social construct is that “it’s mentioned indirectly” and the claimed duplicates, so perhaps i will rephrase the lead to make it more clear and mentioned more the beginning that ethnicity is a social construct. So anyone have any objection ? Chafique (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Then you should only have reverted that text and not unrelated edits. As to the point about (Barreto, 2010), this all seems very strange. The reference you found, and that you claim supports your inclusion of text that changes the fully sourced conclusions of this article is
 * Barreto, Eric D. (2010) Ethnic Negotiations: The Function of Race and Ethnicity in Acts 16. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
 * So it is a theological treatise. You found it by googling, but do you realise it is theological? If this article were about Acts 16, it would be an excellent source, but this article is about ethnicity, and you are trying to use it in a definitions section. The fact that you still insist this should be in this article is rather surprising. But yes, clearly I object to its use here. It is not a suitable WP:RS for this article.
 * As for Ethnic groups often continue to speak related languages. - That is unsourced in the lead and not clearly a summary of anything in the main. Why do you think it should be there? Removing that was a good edit in my opinion. I have, for now, reasserted my edits that it turns out you did not object to, and the word "perceived" that you did not object to, but left that sentence alone. Yet I think consensus already lies with its removal. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I basically agree that the current lede creates a WP:FALSEBALANCE between the outdated primordalist/essentialist POV and modern constructivism. So having "social construct" in prominent position as primary understanding of the concept is definitely a good idea. But since this is an anthropological/sociological topic, we should give preference to sources that 1) pass WP:SCHOLARSHIP and 2) are primarily concerned with this topic. A WaPo opinion piece serves well as a mirror about how the topic is perceived in public discourse, but is second choice when it comes to hard definitions. Let's dig for sources that do the job (and also do not sloppily mix ethnicity with "race").

As for "Ethnic groups often continue to speak related languages", why single out this special case? More often than not, ethnic groups speak one language (with the shared language being the primary token of group identity). Also, next to the less common example of Kurds speaking several related languages, there are also cases where members of an ethnic group speak may entirely unrelated languages (e.g. Brahuis). –Austronesier (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Edits today introduced possible OR, unreliable sources, etc
Marxist.org, Bitesize, Wordnik, none of these are reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 12:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree, and even if dictionaries like wordnik would be reliable, using dictionaries for such ambiguous topics as ethnicity sound like primary sourcing to me. In addition the edits are very substantial both in contents and in structure; where the nation-racism elements (that in my view are not, and should not be central to ethnicity) are given a prime place (and what the added painting of a Moorish ambassador has to do with any of this is a mystery to me). Given that ethnicity is a sensitive topic, I would at the very least expect an explanation of all of this on talk - which is lacking. My suggestion would be to revert this and ask the editor to gain consensus here before changing it again. Arnoutf (talk) 13:16, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the second unsourced edit and very tempted to revert the lot. As per Anoutf, dictionaries don't pass muster here. Per Doug Weller, those are not reliable sources. The BBC is reliable, but not really context appropriate here. Some good information seems to be cut too, and it is hard to see what all the changes are. Although not immediately reverting the whole lot as I don't have time to read it through again right now, I suspect that a revert and discussion might be the best way to see what the issue is and how the article can be improved. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I tried to understand the core issue of these edits but then found that all the page categories and other such page information had also been inadvertently removed. The information added has the above sourcing issues and it is not clear why information that was removed was removed. I am sure there is a discussion to be had, but I have reverted to status quo while we have that discussion because of the inadvertent damage to the page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The information was not removed, it was reorganized, as the previous structure was unreadable. The only thing removed was the section titled Ethnicity and Race, which uses dubious and discredited professors from PRE WW2 to paint a narrative that Ethnicity and race are the same, which is not the Anthropological consensus. As for the sourcing issue, the works cited was not Marxists.org, but a public domain book located on Marxists.org that features a complex and in depth analysis of the definition of Nationality. I can source the book itself from the internet archive if necessary. There are several academic papers that define Ethnicity in the same terms, if that would be a preferable alternative source. SereneNecrosis (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply. So the Ethnicity and Race section says several things, some of which could be challenged, but I don't see the case for the removal of the whole section which provides history and context. There is an unsourced statement there, although the statement looks ok but the language defining race could be tightened up. It would be easy to find sources stating race is a social construct. Then there is reference to Ramón Grosfoguel, which feels like something someone has added in at some point, that could be balanced out or reconsidered. Then there is history and context. Rather than deleting that section, couldn't it be rewritten and improved? Shall we start there and work from that? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:16, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Certainly, that would be a solution. I still believe that the organization of the page could be broadly improved by reorganizing it into simple sections and relevant subsections. Perhaps the Ethnicity and race section could be renamed and reorganized under the proposed "Historcal Theories and Understandings" section, to differentiate from the current mainstream understandings of Ethnicities, Nations, and Race. I have the edited format in my sandbox still and can test an addition of this section under the different article structure for readability and clear flow of concepts SereneNecrosis (talk) 23:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * additionally, the relevance of Moors, an ethnic group of the Middle Ages, could perhaps be expounded upon, in relation to the concept of Eugenicist Historcal Denialism on the grounds of Pseudo-Scientific ideas about Race. Knowledge of the moorish ethnic group, as explained by the BBC article, is limited due to the intentional erasure of the history of the ethnic diversity of European States, in service of the Nazi-era agenda to enforce the Pseudo-Scientific notion of a "White" "Race" and "Degeneration Theory". Presenting melanated nobility who have a destinctly European ethnic identity, is an important addendum in the analysis of the errasue effect of Pseudo-Scientific ideas about race on European ethnic history. Like, literally, Ethnically English and Ethnically Italian
 * Black People were in Elizabethian England and Italy, holding land and being treated as equals before the dawn of "Degeneration Theory" (which invented the concept of "Race" as a false biological category) and it's descendant ideologies such as "Eugenics" and "Biological Essentialism" in the 17th century. They were recognized as a non-dominant Ethnic Subgroup by the term "Moorish", and were considered equals in the Nation-States of England and Italy (and more). SereneNecrosis (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with much you say above on the ethnicity of non-white Christian Europeans. However the naming of Moors seems to be a white Christian denominator for a variety of groups (i.e. not a single ethnicity, in fact not even self identification); also the fact that melanated people had a strong role in early modernity is well known but to what extent was ethnicity really an issue before the rise of nation states (in early 19th century). For such claims we really need high quality (secondary) sources making those claims. Arnoutf (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

New Structure: Enhanced readability+organization
Readded information as requested under the subject "Progression of Ethnographic Theory in the 20th Century" under "Historcal Theories and Understandings", added additional clarifications and cited better sources concerning Ethnicity, Nationality, and Race. Will now re-edit the page, seeking peer-review. SereneNecrosis (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't see any request for you to re-add the information, and unfortunately it appears you have now exceeded 3RR and been blocked. It is a short block, so when you come back, please do discuss here first, rather than attempting to re-assert your edits in full. The way to improve an article like this is, I think, incrementally. Let's leave all sections where they are for now. I think you did not realise you were damaging the page by deleting categories because you are new to this. But if we just work on the text in one section, and avoid the restructuring for now, then we can make progress whilst you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia and the way we do things. I suggest we look at just the section you wanted to delete: Ethnicity and race. Small changes, one at a time, could improve that. If an edit gets reverted, discuss it here, and we can try to achieve a consensus. Have a read of WP:BRD too. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No such deletions were made and as I've exhaustively litigated in my ban appeal, the allegations of mass deletion of subjects are maliciously targeted lies.
 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SereneNecrosis
 * Anyone wishing to preview my proposed edits can view them here:
 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SereneNecrosis/sandbox#
 * I will not be attempting to do any work on Wikipedia in the near future, as it is evidently a toxic white supremacist space, and I have better things to do than to sit around arguing with a gaggle of moronic administrators
 * who genuinely believe that Eugenicist Race Essentialism is the foremost Anthropological understanding of Ethnicities in year 2023 of the Common Era. SereneNecrosis (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Why are you so obsessed with race when this article is about ethnicity? It may be that in certain highly segregated countries, ethnicity serves as a euphemism of "race" for people who in theory know that the pseudo-biological folk taxonomy based on some crude phenotypical features is bullshit, but yet cannot let go of classifiying people within this very framework. This crypto-racialism is very visible in the rejected (in part highly bizarre) changes (like randomly adding three pictures of various people collectively labeled with the European-/white-centric exonym "Moors"). In most other parts of the world, people don't biologize their group identity, so let's stick to the actual topic of the article, which is ethnicity.
 * I will not be attempting to do any work on Wikipedia in the near future – good idea. We don't need this kind of genuine toxicity (plus utter jerkishness) here. –Austronesier (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's not lower ourselves to this kind of behaviour. User:SereneNecrosis in my view is truly convinced they were contributing in a relevant way. And this article does have its problems. The problem of an ambitious new editor may be that they do not understand core policies and etiquette. Their original edits were bold, and were hence reverted. However, instead of engaging in a Bold-Revert-Discuss cycle the editor then became rather aggressive and stopped assuming good faith of about everyone else. This is indeed not constructive, nevertheless given that the editor is a newcomer, some slack should be given, which by the way is evident in the very polite comments of the involved admins in this case. Sad that SereneNecrosis still considered much of this a personal attack on them, considering that if they would have adopted a more relaxed position their comments/ideas could be relevant. Arnoutf (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

SereneNecrosis got themselves indefinitely blocked
By 331dot. Doug Weller talk 13:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikidata
Can someone help me to merge this item and this item into one item. Illchy (talk) 02:54, 4 September 2023(UTC)


 * An refers to an individual's ethnic background, while an  pertains to a collective category of individuals who share the same ethnic background. These distinctions are intentionally maintained between the two concepts. Kpratter (talk) 10:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Political Bias
While the article is generally balanced, some parts - particularly on biological essentialism - are not supported by any known study and are often based on personal reflections or feelings. Also, the debate about the extent to which cultural traits are heritable is still ongoing, and the prevailing view among geneticists is that they are. Finally, the literature cited for this article is not sufficient to support an article of this importance. 2003:A:A0B:4100:44C3:A7AE:28C0:71E5 (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Deleting cited content because you personally disagree with it doesn't really fly on Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)