Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ethnic groups by population

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of ethnic groups by population

List of ethnic groups by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The purpose of this article is to rank the world's ethnic groups by population. Unfortunately, the list is an orgy in original research, humorous at times but never encyclopedic. The topic itself is not without interest, but the problem is that a list of this kind could never be sourced, and would be definition always be original research. I'll list some of the main problems

1. While one can easily define nationality (by one's passport), the population of a country (by censuses) or even native language (less precise but still easy to define), one cannot define ethnicity in the same clear-cut way. While a Swede born in Sweden to two Swedish parents, four Swedish grandparents and eight Swedish great-grandparents is likely to be an ethnic Swede, what ethnicity is an American born in the US with eight great grandparents who were, say, English, German, Irish, Italian, French, Greek, Jewish and Chinese? In short, there are established, universally accepted ways to define nationality, there are no universally accepted ways to define ethnicity
2. Because of the lack of any data on ethnicity, a list like this will never be able to build on a source. This is evident in the current article, where different sources are used for different ethnicities. Such a practice is not serious, as it allows for wide measurement and interpretation differences. This makes it impossible to compile a list, as the data is not comparable
3. A quick look at the different ethnicities reveals a very uneven treatment. For some ethnicities, it seems that only those born in the country and speaking the language are counted. For other ethnicities, it's evident that even fourth or fifth generation emigrants who mostly do not speak the language are counted.

I could list more problems, but I perceive these to be the most serious. Since there is no agreed way to define ethnicity, there are no data on ethnicity around the world, no sources for the articles to build on and no chance of achieving comparable data, a list of this kind will always be original research, at least until the day when there is massive DNA testing and ethnicities defined on those tests. If that day comes, the list can be recreated. As that day is not coming in the near future, I move that the list be deleted. Jeppiz (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right and that's another reason I find this unsourced article redundant. Wikipedia in many languages have a list of different ethnic groups, such as the one you linked to above. Such a list is not problematic, and for some ethnicities one can even find pretty accurate population estimations. I have no problems with an article of that kind, but one that claims to be able to count and numerically rank all ethnicities in the world is simply not serious. So I think Lists of ethnic groups should be kept, while List of ethnic groups by population should be deleted.
I thrust you did not read the book you claim to be a good source? If you did, you would have found that it supports my argument. For some ethnicities, it does give some population estimates for some countries. For other ethnicities, and for other countries, it simply talks about "there is also a very large immigrant population." How do you propose "very large population" should be represented numerically. Such cases abound, in countries where ethnicities are not recorded, or otherwise unknown, the book simply says that there is "a very large population", "a large population" or "a small population". That is perfectly in line with my argument, that the different census methods in different countries, lack of censuses in other countries, and different definitions between countries make it impossible to count and rank the ethnicities of the world. The book you found supports that argument.Jeppiz (talk) 10:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most statistics about the real world are estimates and approximations. For example, measuring the length of a river is a complex matter, as its shape is a fractal and its course is not fixed. We still have list of rivers by length and such information is commonly found in encyclopedia and reference works. Perfect is the enemy of good. Warden (talk) 11:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite true, and this is another aspect I already mentioned in my nomination. The important difference is that you CAN measure the length of rives, but there is no accepted way to measure ethnicity. Several hundred million people are of mixed ethnicity. If every individual were counted, what would be the ethnicity of the American whose great grandparents who were, say, English, German, Irish, Italian, French, Greek, Jewish and Chinese?
If you think that ethnicity can be measured, please tell me how. And if there is a source that give numerical estimations for the ethnicities of the world (instead of just saying "very large population" as in the book you found), please direct us to it. I don't have anything against the subject of the article as such, I would even think it would be interesting if a measurement of ethnicity existed and if there were a source we could use. As long as we don't have either, how can you possibly source a list like this?Jeppiz (talk) 11:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - we have dozens of articles on ethnic groups, such as an article on Han Chinese, an article on Russians, an article on Germans etc. All those articles include an infobox detailing the size of the particular group, with references to source it. If it's possible to include the sizes in those articles, it must be possible to do the same in a list. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 13:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate your comment, you miss the point. First of all, we don't have more than very rough estimates for any ethnicity, and for many we don't even have that. Second, and this is crucial a list needs to build on a single source. How do you know that the way ethnicity calculated in the source for Han Chinese is the same way that ethnicity is counted for Germans, and how do you know that the source for French doesn't use a third way to determine and calculate ethnicity. If we do what you suggest and use the sources in the various articles on ethnicities to make a list, we're guilty of a rather extreme form of original research.Jeppiz (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What the question boils down to, and what I perhaps failed to make clear in the nomination, is this: Where is the source for the ranking. Yes, we can look at the article about Han Chinese and find a source about their estimated number, and we can look at the article about Germans and find a different source for their estimated number, then a third source with an estimate for the French in the French article. But a ranking? Perhaps we can find a source saying that Han Chinese make up the largest ethnicity, but where are the source saying that Bengali is the second largest? The source that Germans are the third largest? The source that Russians are the fourth largest? That's what this article does, it makes claims about which ethnicity is the largest, second largest, third largest and so on. I haven't found any source for that, and we can most certainly not use the sources in the various articles on different ethnicities. Those sources make no claim about whether a certain group is larger of bigger than another, and they were not written to be compared in that way. Compiling a ranking based on them is original research through and through.Jeppiz (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You make a good point. I think that there is relative certainty that the Han Chinese and Bengali are the first and second largest groups, respectively, but agree that for a variety of reasons, such as population changes and some things you touched on above, there probably aren't citations to be found to establish ranks for the others. Rather than deleting the whole page, I think a better solution is either to do away with ranking on the list altogether while leaving it default-sorted by population, or just note deficiencies in being able to accurately rank this sort of thing as a disclaimer at the top and keep the ranks for convenience.
    • I think that it is convenient and appropriate to have a list of the world's largest ethnic groups in one place to be able to refer to. Merging this with the much more comprehensive list you mentioned might be cumbersome for those who are just interested in what is in itself a very noteworthy topic.
    • Keep in mind also that, although there is no common standard for what an ethnic group is, there are commonly accepted notions about what defines specific ethnic groups, which usually revolve around government-, popular-, scholarly- or self-identification, and endogamy. If it is good enough for credible organizations to take the time to base estimates on, it is probably good enough for this list. It is probably the best you are going to find. Nanib (talk) 05:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or significantly change - When looking over the list I noticed several of the items aren't even ethnicities ("American" is a nationality, not an ethnicity, for example). On top of that, it is poorly sourced, per nom and others. If not deleted, it needs to be significantly improved. —JmaJeremy✆✎ 21:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, delete, then redirect to Lists of ethnic groups per Wikipedia:Content forking - The truth/one source required arguments are not persuasive. In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that information comes from a reliable source. That's it. The issue here seems to be which reliable sources to use to 1. determine the popultion number to list and 2. determine what is and is not an ethnic group. The article "Lists of ethnic groups" already has some population information and it would be better for all interested editors to meet on the talk page of "Lists of ethnic groups" to figure out the sourcing issue rather than having two talk pages. The main article "Lists of ethnic groups" needs to be improved before subsections of it are ready for WP:SPINOFF. As for a spinoff, List of ethnic groups by population merely represents one column from a table. By the same logic, we can have a separate list article for each column in the lists now in List of ethnic groups by population and in "Lists of ethnic groups." The talk page of Lists of ethnic groups is a best place to figure this all out. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are too many judgment calls involved that prevent a list like this from being meaningful. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When the second largest ethnic group listed is "American", which is not an ethnic group but a nationality or a citizenship status, then it is clear that the whole venture is too flawed to save. It is impossible to come up with a shared or standardized definition that covers all these groups, or any reliable population estimates for most of them.Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fork of ethnic groups, and as pointed out above too unreliable and unexplained to be useful. For example, the United Kingdom is listed as having significant numbers of many of the ethnic groups listed in the first table. True up to a point, but the total population of the UK is only 63 million. I have no idea what is meant when it is claimed that the UK has a significant number of 'American people' because the largest grouping of people in the UK from the Americas are from the Caribbean - in what sense do they share an ethnicity with, say, the people of Nebraska or Newfoundland rather than, say, west Africa from which many of their ancestors came or English people amongst whom they have now made a home? There are people born in the USA who now live in the UK, and many of them may well identify as 'Americans' whilst very possibly holding UK citizenship (a very British approach some in the USA appear to find odd), but I have never heard it suggested that 'Americans' are a significant ethnic group in the UK, especially as many will have some UK ancestry anyway. And so on. --AJHingston (talk) 08:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_ethnic_groups_by_population&oldid=1138009668"