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)

Indigenous doesn't mean how long you've stayed in an area but if you are native there. 107.144.132.45 (talk) 05:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Microstate ethnic identity

Where is the evidence that Liechtensteiners, Monegasques, and Sammarinese are distinct ethnicities, but not Andorrans? 70.184.145.33 (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

"Anglo-Saxons"? What?

Excuse me, but who is the smart guy who decided to create the category "Anglo-Saxons"? Has anyone ever considered themselves beyond the ethnic group "Anglo-Saxon"? Do the English and Anglo-Americans consider each other as one people? What's next? Unite all Slavic peoples into the category of "Slavs"? Even that would make more sense than "Anglo-Saxons", who don't even have their own Wikipedia article, except as an ancient and long-extinct bunch of peoples from the Middle Ages! 31.61.239.179 (talk) 11:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

On the possibility of breaking up the Hispanic American entry

Right now, the entry 'Hispanic Americans' seems to simply refer to all Hispanophone white, and mixed white-indigenous peoples living in the Americas. This is of course, not adequate as there is next to no ethnic identity uniting say, white Argentines with mestizo Mexicans, so breaking up this entry into smaller ones seems preferable. However, I'm not entirely sure how this should be approached. Should I simply split it into racial categories by country, like with the Afro-Latin American entries? Or should another approach be taken? 73.243.214.103 (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Even though the Hispanic American identity does exist as a macro cultural/ethnic identity linking Spanish speakers in the Americas, it is true that most people in Hispanic America and Latin America as a whole identify first as being part of their particular country and then as being part of wider Hispanic American or Latin American region. With this in mind, I think the most appropriate approach would be to separate them according to national origin. For example, Hispanic-Mexican, Hispanic-Colombia, Hispanic-Argentinian, Hispanic-Peruvian, etc. Mestizo and white Hispanics in most of Latin America consider themselves to be part of a single "cultural" or "ethnic" group and in some regions it's even hard to separate one from the other. Also, the National census of many Latin American countries classify them as a single group. Untitledjuan (talk) 13:06, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I concur, though I think we should broaden the discussion into splitting this list up into six lists by continent and splitting those lists into subsections by country. But I suppose that's out of scope for this particular duscussion. Arctic Circle System (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@73.243.214.103 As far as I know, there are a huge number of people who identify their ethnic group as "Hispanic Americans," especially members of their diaspora in the United States. So, I think there is nothing wrong with this category. 31.61.229.223 (talk) 12:17, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Split proposal

Over the past year, this article has grown very large and unwieldy to browse, and especially to edit. Of particular note, turning syntax highlighting on when editing this article results in the browser freezing up and sometimes crashing, and every time one types even a single character, it freezes again. This is not an ideal state of affairs. Therefore I propose that the list be split into six parts; one for Europe, one for North America, one for South America, one for Oceania, one for Asia, and one for Africa. This should, in theory, make the lists more manageable and easier for editors specializing in a specific region to edit. I would also like to propose that each of those lists be split into sections by country, though this is a less pressing matter. The only major hang-up I can see with this proposal is where to place the Caucasus, for which we have three options: A. put it in both the Europe and Asia lists, B. put it in Europe or Asia only, or C. split it out into its own list (i.e. List of contemporary ethnic groups of the Caucasus). What do y'all think of these proposals? Arctic Circle System (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with that. Though I think that the Middle East should be it's own list. 73.243.214.103 (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

If we're doing that, then I think other regions of Asia, especially South Asia, should be split off as well. Though I think we should try just keeping it to continents for now and split it further if that becomes unmanageable. Arctic Circle System (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

That is a decent idea given the sheer size of this article. I do have some concerns about where to put some of the ethnic groups. Particularly Hispanic Americans and Arabs. I could see Hispanic Americans being split up by country, but the Arabs are more difficult. Would they be in just Asia or be features in both Africa and Asia?

There is also the question of diasporas, i.e. Han Chinese, though they are very much an Asian ethnic group, have significant populations in other continents as well. I personally don't think this would warrant their inclusion in other continents, however I can see an argument being made for the contrary. Beni-Enma Alter (talk) 08:34, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I would personally add any diaspora groups notable enough to have an article, though not as separate entries, just as parts of a broader entry on that group's diaspora in North America or Africa or something. As for Arabs, there are many Arab tribes in North Africa as well, so I think an entry there would be justified. Though then I suppose the problem becomes whether or not they consider themselves to be part of the Arab ethnic group or a related but distinct group. Basing it on what RSes say about self-identification and how they are identified in academia (i.e. the Molise Croats consider themselves to be Slavic-speaking Italians while they are commonly referred to as a subgroup of Croats in academia, which is why they're currently in both entries with a note explaining the situation). In lieu of such information, I tend to either keep such entries as a distinct ethnic group until there are RSes information to the contrary (mainly because if they're listed as an ethnic group when they're a sub-ethnic group, then at worst it might be pointed to by some nationalists who don't understand how Wikipedia works; but if they're listed as a sub-ethnic group when they're an ethnic group, then there's a good chance it contributes (even if only in a relatively small way) to marginalization and erasure of already disadvantaged or otherwise sidelined groups). Hungarians, or more specifically the Magyarabs, would also be in Africa as well if that helps. Arctic Circle System (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to start working on splitting Europe off in my sandbox. For now, I'm just going to assume Caucasian ethnic groups will be put in both Europe and Asia. Arctic Circle System (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Hm... I suppose there is the problem of countries that have territory that straddles the line between continents as well, but eh. I'm sure we can figure out how to split that, i.e. European Kazakhstan. East Thrace, and European Russia are well-defined enough to make splitting there relatively easy. Arctic Circle System (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Put the North Caucasian groups (Circassians, Chechens, Ingushes, etc.) in the Europe category, while put South Caucasian groups (Georgians, Armenians, Azerbaijanis, etc.) in the Asia or Middle East category. There is a clear geographical divide which the Greater Caucasus mountain range clearly delineates. Epitome of Creativity (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Arctic Circle System (talk) 05:07, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

On second thought, maybe adding and sorting diaspora groups would be rather tedious? But then that leaves the position of the diverse Jewish groups of Europe up in the air. Certainly not just Israel. Arctic Circle System (talk) 04:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@Arctic Circle System I think it would be logical to divide ethnic groups according to the ethno-linguistic classification, which is most often used to classify ethnic groups, as is done, for example, in the "List of Religions and Spiritual Traditions". 31.61.229.223 (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

This only works if you avoid speakers of language isolates, and it would also split this into significantly more pages. I don't think it's quite the best idea. Arctic Circle System (talk) 17:11, 10 June 2025 (UTC)