Talk:List of contemporary ethnic groups

"Primary homeland" of Jews

@TheCrimsonKing'sCourt: I removed "Crimea" as one of two "primary homelands" of Jews. You say that the note that Crimean Karaites and Krychaks are indigenous to Crimea was sourced. I can't find that source. Even if a source should exist, "indigenous" doesn't mean the same as "primary homeland". Just one example for the difference: In 2021, there was a celebration of 1700 years of Jewish presence in Germany. To me, that means Jews are indigenous to Germany. But Germany is not their "primary homeland." Rsk6400 (talk) 19:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Karaites of Ukraine. Who are they? • Ukraїner (ukrainer.net)

Crimean Karaites and Krymchacks (iccrimea.org)

Crimean Karaites and Krymchaks As Indigenous Peoples of Crimea in the Modern Conditions - DocsLib

Babin-GJAR (iccrimea.org) TheCrimsonKing'sCourt (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that ukrainer.net and iccrimea.org are WP:RS. Even if they are RS, that doesn't make Ukraine the "primary homeland" of the Jews. Rsk6400 (talk) 17:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

It makes it a homeland for the specifically subgroups listed. Especially since Karaites are occasionally grouped differently than ethnic Jews. TheCrimsonKing'sCourt (talk) 03:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Following this logic, we could list all countries with a long history of Jewish presence as "primary homeland". Rsk6400 (talk) 12:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to it, no. Especially if their governments recognize them as indigenous. 2600:1014:B1AE:48C5:0:1D:D7B3:8401 (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Ethnic groups and languages

TheCrimsonKing'sCourt, I also removed the long lists of subgroups of Germans, French people, and Italians. While it is clear that the groups listed speak (dialects of) German, French, or Italian, that doesn't make them Germans, French people, or Italians. Swiss people normally identify as Swiss, and few Austrians identify as Germans. If you want to state the opposite, you have to provide reliable sources. The other claimed subgroups are also OR. One example: Rhinelanders as a subgroup of Germans - I've never heard that. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Rsk6400: Many of the edits you've made are way more destructive than they needed to be. If you were trying to remove German, Italian, and French-speaking Swiss people from the lists, was there really a need to remove groups like Bavarians who are definitively considered subgroups of Germans? ~Red of Arctic Circle System (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

In addition, there is no reason to remove minority languages. And it's quite well established that High German and Low German are distinct language families. This insistence that one ethnic group necessarily speaks one unified language is quite strange. ~Red of Arctic Circle System (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you that I shouldn't have removed Bavarians and Swabians. My bad. Of course, one ethnic group can speak several languages. My concern is about the vast amount of original research contained in this list. Low German as a language family, all speakers of High German languages (including Yiddish and Luxembourgish) considered members of one ethnic group, all those groups of German ancestry listed as "subgroups" forming part of the German ethnic group - where are the sources ? Rsk6400 (talk) 13:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I looked up our article Germans and its two main sources, Hartmann and Moser. None of them mentions two language families, but all of them mention "the German language" as an important part of German identity. If we want to be more exact than our sources, that's WP:SYNTH. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:05, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't mean to be patronizing, but just to make sure we're on the same page, what do you think the term "language family" means? ~Red of Arctic Circle System (talk) 10:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I was referring to the note to Low German that said "Language family; with some exceptions, all speakers of the various languages within this family are typically seen as one singular ethnicity." I don't think that there is a source calling Low German a language family. The same note was also added to "High German", implying that speakers of Yiddish belong to the same German ethnicity. Also, sources that describe Germans as an ethnic group normally refer to the German language in singular, at least Hartmann and Moser do (the first two sources given at Germans#Bibliography). Here is not the place to discuss whether Low German is a language of its own. Our task is simply to report what RS say. Another problem of OR is arbitrary sampling: Why should we mention Low German, but not Frisian ? In the line for the French: Why not the Langue d'Oc ? Rsk6400 (talk) 11:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

For one thing, the note says with some exceptions, speakers of Yiddish are often exceptions to this, though I suppose you could argue that generically listing High German is too broad. Even if sources related to Germans as an ethnic group only say "German language", various High and Low German languages (the Low German dialect continuum is often divided into multiple languages, but how many and where the boundaries between them are is contested) are subsumed as dialects of German, even when describing them as languages would be more accurate, similarly to how the various non-standard languages of Italy are often considered dialects of Italian and the Langues d'oïl and Arpitan are subsumed as dialects of French. The traditional language of Bavaria and Bavarians is the Bavarian language, which is a distinct language from Standard German, but it and similarly distinct languages/dialect groups are often subsumed together German dialects. A fair number of ethnographic sources may just say "German language" for the sake of convenience.

The trouble with listing Occitan as a language spoken by French people is because it's more typically spoken by Occitans, though perhaps there are some populations of French people with Occitan as a native language, but do keep in mind that that entry is referring to French people as in the ethnic group, not as in the nationality. It is rather annoying that the English language doesn't have a good way of differentiating between ethnicity and nationality in regards to the dominant group in a nation-state. Whether talking about ethnicity or nationality, it's just French people, or Germans, or Spaniards. Really annoying.

Perhaps this discussion should be taken over to either WP:WikiProject Ethnic groups and/or WP:WikiProject Languages because I'm not sure I have the expertise to approach this adequately, but it would benefit from further discussion with other users. ~Red of Arctic Circle System (talk) 09:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I understood "with some exceptions" as meaning "some scholars see this differently", but I see now that I was probably wrong. Be that as it may, my central point is that we may not try to be more precise than our sources. If the sources say that Germans speak German, that's enough for a list. For notable details, Germans would be the correct place.

Regarding the question of ethnicity and nationality: I don't agree with you. Ethnicity is no clearly defined concept. In many societies in Western Europe (e.g. Germany, which I know best), there is no statistics showing ethnicity. And there is no way we can "scientifically" determine somebody's ethnicity. Cem Özdemir, for instance, the German minister for agriculture, has two parents born in Turkey and a Turkish name. But all reliable sources call him a "German", or a "Swabian", sometimes adding "with Anatolian roots" - and that's what he is.

If you want to discuss this at WikiProject Ethnic groups (I think that'd be a better place than Languages), I'll surely join you there. Rsk6400 (talk) 11:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Sources also say that Bavarians are a subgroup of Germans and that Bavarians speak Bavarian. It's not that there aren't any sources that are more precise, but rather that it's common for details about languages like this to not be elaborated on in general overviews of the whole group due to a focus on other aspects than linguistics. I think so, anyway. I can't say I'm entirely sure though. Also bear in mind that we are not talking about individuals, we are talking about groups. We don't need to scientifically determine each individual's ethnicity for this list, that's beside the point. ~Red of Arctic Circle System (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that any source says that Bavarians (or speakers of Low German) don't speak German. The intention of my example about Özdemir was to show that in most cases in Germany you simply can't attribute a certain ethnicity (like e.g. in the US or in societies based on tribal structures). In France, ethnicity is no census category, either. Speaking from my knowledge of the German situation, I doubt that you can say that Occitans are not French people. But this whole discussion has gone astray: The main point is that WP neutrally reports what reliable sources say, not what we (as editors) think or know. And since this is a list, we should depend on the sources given in the articles. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying Bavarians don't speak German, I'm saying Bavarians traditionally speak Bavarian as well. Plenty of sources confirm this. ~Red of Arctic Circle System (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

In addition, census records aren't the be-all-end-all of determining which ethnic groups exist. China's census, for example, tends to lump separate ethnic groups together or lump members of the same ethnic group into different ethnic groups because one part of said ethnic group lives on the mainland while the other lives on a nearby island. ~Red of Arctic Circle System (talk) 06:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Adding to the French line: Why not Basque / German (or Alsatian ?) ? Speakers of Langues d'oïl are also found in Belgium, Togo and a lot of other countries. Do they really belong to "one singular ethnicity" ? Rsk6400 (talk) 09:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Can we revisit the subgroups of Italians? I mean, Sammarinese is on the list even though they are quite literally in the middle of Italy. Linguistically, a speaker of the local tongue (some form of the Emilian-Romangan dialect continuum) would be closer to true "tuscan Italian" compared to say, a Venetian. Obviously Sardinian and Sicilian are on the list and those should stay but I feel like the other ones should come back too. Genetic tests have shown large contrasts between Northern Italians, Tuscans and Central Italians, Southern Italians and Sardinians. The only groups that are closely genetically related are Southern Italians and Sicilians and even then, there are some big differences. YT DomDaBomb20 (talk) 15:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

WP is about neutrally presenting what reliable sources say. If you want to add all those languages and subgroups to Germans, you have to present a good academic source that lists exactly those languages and subgroups. Combining different sources (e.g. one source that calls Bavarian a "language" and another one stating that some Germans speak Bavarian) is called original synthesis, see WP:SYNTH, and is also covered by WP:NOR. I think this discussion has been going on long enough now, feel free to take it to a WikiProject as you proposed or to start an RfC. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

How could Bavarian be simultaneously a language spoken by Bavarians, a subgroup of Germans, and not be a language spoken by Germans? I don't see how it's possible for those things to be true simultaneously. ~Cherri of Arctic Circle System (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

First: I didn't say that Bavarian is not a language spoken by Germans. Then: In disciplines dealing with humans, many things are possible that are impossible in natural science. E.g. the following dialogue: Bavarian: I'm fluent in three languages, German, English, and French. I: But didn't you say that Bavarian is a language of its own ? Bavarian: Of course, grammar, phonology, lexicon, even Wikipedia of its own. I: So you are fluent in four languages: Bavarian, German, English, and French. Bavarian (with a smile): Sounds pretty wrong. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I mean if you're fluent in Standard German and Bavarian, then yeah, I'd say you're fluent in multiple languages. It doesn't sound wrong at all. I am rather confused as to what you're trying to say here. ~Cherri of Arctic Circle System (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm saying the same thing over and over again: We need sources ! Because what seems logical to us as WP editors ("I'd say you're fluent in multiple languages") may be different from what an expert on the subject says. And, no, we can't draw our own conclusions from the sources, that is called WP:SYNTH. I really think this discussion has come to an end. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

So if some sources say that trees have branches without saying that they have leaves and other sources say that tree branches have leaves, saying that trees have branches with leaves would be synth? ~Cherri of Arctic Circle System (talk) 05:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I realize that question isn't entirely fair, but I do have to ask: What kind of sources would be required to say on the list that "Bavarians, who are Germans, speak Bavarian, which is a language"? Because if sources that show that Bavarians are a subgroup of Germans, Bavarians speak the Bavarian variety, and that Bavarian is a language don't prove that, then I don't know what would. Though maybe part of the issue is that the term "language" is too vague in the first place. Within the field of linguistics, there isn't a clear distinction between a language and a dialect, where you can definitively say that one variety or group of varieties is a language, and the other is a dialect or group of dialects. This is covered with sources here. ~Cherri of Arctic Circle System (talk) 05:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

If you want to discuss WP rules, this is not the right place to do so. WP:NOR is quite clear, and the section „What is not OR“ doesn‘t even include anything similar to your tree example, meaning, yes, your tree example is a case of synthesis. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

You're probably right. Though as I said, perhaps part of the issue here is that the term "language" is too vague to be useful here in the first place, considering one has to figure out what is distinguished cleanly between languages and dialects for the purpose of the language section of each entry, which is ultimately impossible to do in any definitive way. ~Cherri of Arctic Circle System (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

The top column should be edited to allow for minority, and extinct religions.

There is no reason why information on minority and historical religions within ethnic groups should not be included on this page. Just as we include minority, and extinct languages, allowing minority and extinct religions can help quickly provide context regarding why certain ethnic groups are distinct from others, give a general framework of their history, and highlight important subgroups. For example, including Islam as a former religion of the Andalusians helps to provide information regarding the continuing legacy of Islamic culture in Andalusia, that many Andalusians use to distinguish themselves from the rest of Spain, and including Islam and Judaism on the African-American entry provides information on historically significant movements within the African-American community without taking up to much space, or detracting from the list format of this article. TheCrimsonKing'sCourt (talk) 16:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOR and WP:V are core principles of Wikipedia. We can only report what reliable sources say and we may not use arbitrary sampling. If we'd want to add "formerly Islam" to Andalusians, we'd have to provide RS that actually say, "Today, most Andalusians are Catholics, but formerly many were Muslims." BTW: Andalusia was under Muslim rule, but that doesn't mean that many members of the ethnic group were Muslim in former times. Nearly all Muslims and also descendants of Muslims who had converted to Catholicism were expelled from Spain. Rsk6400 (talk) 04:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

None of the edits I made were based on information that was found outside of their pages. Since this is a list, we can use information found on the items listed here. African-Americans as a further example. On the article on the religion of African-Americans entire articles written about their presence in African-Americans are linked. And stating that Albanians used to practice Albanian paganism, and Abkhazians used to practice Abkhaz Native Religion is hardly arbitrary at on. The articles on these religions both describe them as the former ethnic religions of Albanians and Abkhazians respectively. And even so, even if every single edit I have ever made in the religion column to include minority religions was entirely wrong, that would not mean that this list should not contain any minority religions. TheCrimsonKing'sCourt (talk) 16:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

What I meant by "arbitrary" is the selection: How do we decide which religions to include and which not ? Either we include all historical and minority religions (e.g. for Germans: Germanic paganism as historical and virtually all the religions that exist today as minority religions), or we have a certain criterion (like majority / plurality religion), or we drop the column alltogether (which would be my preferred solution). Rsk6400 (talk) 07:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Since this is a dynamic list, a think some level of arbitrary sampling, and incompleteness is implied when reading the list. We can't hope to cover every single nuance of every single group listed here, because the definition of ethnicity is so vague. However, I think we, as editors can determine whether a minority religion is significant enough to include here just based on how it's used on relevant pages. Islam should undoubtedly be listed as a religion under African-Americans since there are entire pages on it, and Muslim African-Americans frequently reoccur on articles relevant to African-American history. We wouldn't include Hinduism however, since there are barely any mentions of large numbers of African-American Hindus. And yes, Germanic paganism would 100% be included under Germans, since that fact is relevant to their history prior to Christianization. TheCrimsonKing'sCourt (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

About 2 % of African Americans are Muslim - is this really significant ? German ethnicity emerged in medieval times (a well-sourced sentence from Germans) - that means, after Christianization. As I showed above, you were wrong in the case of Andalusians. These are only three of the problems your suggestion would lead us into. But more important: I can't see how you could bring your suggestion in line with the core principles of WP I mentioned above. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

2% of African-Americans are Muslim, however, this minority is extremely significant historically. Many of the core leaders of the civil rights movement were Muslim, or part of Islam-derived religions. And even nowadays, Muslim organizations play a major role in inner-city African-American communities. So while African-American Muslims are small, their influence is larger than their numbers would imply. And more to the point, even if every single example provide is wrong, that doesn't mean we shouldn't include minority religions. Nothing about that contradicts the policy on no original research. TheCrimsonKing'sCourt (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay here is my proposal, we should include majority religions on the list, but we should also list any indigenous religions the ethnic group might have. This would allow Islamic off-shoots like NOI or Moorish Science under African-Americans, for example. Other examples would be traditional African religions for most African ethnic groups, and Native American religions for most Native American groups. TheCrimsonKing'sCourt (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree, for the reasons already given above. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Fine. I give up. We'll get rid of the religion category, and I will cease to interact with this page. You win. TheCrimsonKing'sCourt (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Svans and Megrels/Mingrealians

Megrels and especially Svans are not a subgroup of Georgians. Megrels could be merged with Laz, while Svans definitely should be separate. 128.227.1.24 (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)