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 SereneNecrosis 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)

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 ethnicity (Q5404323) refers to an individual's ethnic background, while an ethnic group (Q41710) 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)

Second paragraph

Second paragraph is simply, factually untrue. 2A06:C701:4F3B:ED00:319C:EEFD:D5BE:5333 (talk) 03:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

You need to go into a lot more detail than that to get a sensible response. What, specifically, is untrue? HiLo48 (talk) 04:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

LOVE

LOVE IS SOMETHING YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE TO EARN LOVE 2600:1015:A002:BF76:4C25:FF42:A47F:38D7 (talk) 13:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)