Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups

WT:ETHNIC

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by .

CfD nomination of Category:United States ghettos

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

Italian settlers in Libya

if i were you i would not use wikipedia becouse all of it is rong and annyone can edit thispage like myself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.136.33 (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Italian settlers in Libya#Italian Libyans. Need a third opinion on the title of this article. This probably also affects Italian Somalians, Italian Eritreans, Italian Egyptian, all of which have been named by analogy to Italian American without any evidence that reliable sources use such names. Thanks, cab (talk) 02:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely don't understand why Italian Libyans cannot be used as a title, like Irish Americans or German Australians. Furthermore, German Namibians is related to colonial times like Italian Libyans, but it is accepted without problems. Just see the Template:European Americans. Sincerely.--Triasm (talk) 03:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is because the name "German Namibians" is actually used in the scholarly literature unambiguously to refer to them: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. This is in great contrast to "Italian Libyans". Libya is not America or Australia or Brazil. We don't generate names by analogy like this. There are too many competing conventions. Some countries say it one way around: Indian American, Malaysian Australian. Some countries say it the other way around: British Chinese, Burmese Indian. Some countries say it neither way at all: Hindoestanen, Koryo-saram, etc. We don't just take one pattern and try to apply it to the whole world. cab (talk) 03:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, my dear CaliforniaAliBaba. Italian Libyans is used -as you know- in scholarly literature like in the example of International Law [1], from a google book ("International Law Reports" of E. Lauterpacht) about an Italian Libyan named Kemali (born in the 1930s in Libya from Arab father and Italian mother). And I have found, reading this google book, this sentence: In the absence of any such express provision all Italian Libyan citizens, and thus the respondent in the present case, retained Italian citizenship... To me this is a legal confirmation of the existence of the term Italian Libyan citizens. It say clearly Italian Libyan, yes or no? And what is all your comments about the fact that Libya is not Brazil or the USA: it is a country and that it is what matters to all of us or to the ONU. It is a country like Namibia, where we have the colonial community of the German Namibians.BTW, find me an evidence (like the one above about Italian Lybians) from an international law book about the use of the word "German Namibians"......IMHO you cannot decide what is right or wrong by your own opinion without evidences, and so decide that German Namibians is right while Italian Libyans no (even if there are clear and undeniable evidences about the scholar & law-diplomatic existence of "Italian Libyans"--Triasm (talk) 04:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And still you are going everywhere repeating your fallacies. "Italian Libyan" = "Citizen of Italian Libya", who may be Arabs (as discussed in your source) or indigeneous Jews, but are a different category than citizens of the Kingdom of Italy who resided in Libya [2]. That is different than "Libyan with Italian ancestors". cab (talk) 04:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mine are not fallacies: an "Italian American", for example, is NOT different from an "American with Italian ancestors" (I am one of them)....and a "German Namibian" is NOT different from a "Namibian with German ancestors"....and so on and on with all the examples you want (again, just see Template:European Americans). Why only "Italian Libyans" should be different from "Libyans with Italian ancestors"?--Triasm (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issue at French people

There's a long-standing debate regarding the French people article. By law and custom in France, French people are defined by culture, language and citizenship rather than ethnicity (see the article). So, should the article French people be taken off the list of ethnic group articles? If so, is the expression "X people" solely reserved for ethnic groups in Wikipedia and so should the name of the article be changed (it should be noted that the French form a people, just not on ethnic grounds)? Advice would be welcome.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For me, this points to a wider problem with the classification of ethnic groups on Wikipedia. I would say that the French are a national group rather than an ethnic one, even leaving aside the issue of citizenship. As a number of editors have pointed out on the article's talk page, the "native" French are themselves composed of multiple ethnic groups. On the wider point, take a look at Category:Ethnic groups in Europe. It includes such diverse articles as Black people in Europe, Germans and Anglo-Norman. These are clearly not all ethnic groups if that term is defined the same in each case. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Major Issue with Moroccan Diaspora Articles

I edited the article Moroccan Americans quite recently, simply for grammatical errors and unencyclopædic language. I returned to the article today, and found a comment that had been posted on the article's talk page, which pointed out that much of the article's content was identical to that of Moroccans in Sweden.

After looking over the article again, I realised that this was indeed correct. As perhaps the most obvious example, the first sentence of Moroccan Americans states that "Migration of Moroccans to America is a part of Moroccan migration to Western Europe". In addition, the article Moroccan-Dutch shares the same introductory paragraph as the first two articles. Moroccan Americans and Moroccans in Sweden both contain identical unsourced statistics on Moroccan immigrants in buisness, and cited no references whatsoever until I revised the population statistic for the American article using cited Census data.

I noticed that these articles fall under the scope of this WikiProject, and was wondering if anyone would be interested in helping me sort out what goes where with regard to these articles, and in helping add some relevant, verifiable information. --Whytecypress (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have time to help right now but a while back I had to deal with a similar issue with a number of "X people in the United Kingdom" articles which mixed the groups up. I recommend paring the articles back to a bare minimum of content and then to re-add material as and when it can be verified. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, working on Moroccan-Dutch. Cheers, cab (talk) 00:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've done as you have recommended, and reduced Moroccan Americans to only verifiable content, and will move on to Moroccans in Sweden soon. My regards to cab for his help with Moroccan Dutch. --WhyteCypress 01:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with Turkish diaspora articles

I don't see any hope for the following articles:

~~Turks in South Africa~~, Turks in India, Turks in Argentina, Turks in Chile, Turks in Uruguay, Turks in Liechtenstein, Turks in Luxembourg, Turks in New Zealand, Turks in Poland

All part of a series of mass-created stubs based on a population table. Unless anyone knows of any sources that can be used to improve them, I'll be nominating them for deletion over the next few weeks. (I already nominated one such article, Turks in the Czech Republic.) There's also some others that are currently in a bad state, but can probably be improved (e.g. articles about Turkish people in former Ottoman territories like Turks in Egypt or Turks in Croatia); those I won't be nominating.

BTW, some caveats if you plan to look for sources for the above articles

Turks in Latin America: local sources, especially older ones, often use the term "Turks" to refer to Syrian/Lebanese Christians whose ancestors came on Ottoman passports; they identify as Arabs, not Turks. The Arab Chileans article has more discussion of this point.
Turks in India: books like [3] aren't valid sources. The Turkish diaspora series is supposed to be about expatriates from the Ottoman Empire or the modern Republic of Turkey, not the Timurid dynasty's conquests.

Cheers cab (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: found some sources for Turks in South Africa --- not particularly good sources, just discussions of individuals rather than the "community as a whole", but probably the article can be merged somewhere rather than being deleted. Nominated a bunch more for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turks in Latin America. Appreciate everyone's opinions. Thanks, cab (talk) 03:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion: Asian Americans

I am seeking a second opinion on gender-equality regarding the images in the infobox. I have requested the inclusion of certain additions that would help balance that, particularly for the representatives for Bengali (both genders) and Indonesian (female), but one of the editors keep rejecting that. I believe that their reason is valid although I doubt that pushing it in this case is unnecessary. Could anyone please help?--124.104.45.106 (talk) 10:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]