Talk:Norwegian diaspora

rename and use of term diaspora

The article was recently subject of an AFD, where it was argued (including by me) that term "diaspora" in the title of the article and in the article itself is overly dramatic, and not consistent with many editors' perspective on what the term means (i.e. the Norwegian gradual emigration over many centuries does not conform to the involuntary, forced, sudden dispersals of peoples in other dramatic emigrations known commonly as diasporas). I boldly moved the article to "Norwegian emigration and emigrant communities", one name suggested in the AFD, to put it at a less controversial name. Hopefully this bold move is okay. I would be glad to see a thoughtful Requested Move discussion to put it to a better phrase, if/when there is a thoughtful other proposal, besides merely returning it to a controversial name using term diaspora (which, IMO, was pretty well shown to be a neologism, not an actually-commonly used phrase, despite efforts finding quotes which used "diaspora" word in conjunction with Norway.) Comments? --doncram 16:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

This "bold move" is certainly not ok with me. It is my belief that "Move" is only for page moves that are likely to be uncontentious. This process has been extremely contentious, and it is not my impression that YOUR belief about the proper usage of diaspora is the consensus belief or even the !majority belief in any discussions. We have been waiting for an uninvolved admin (not somebody who has entered the debate for one side or the other) to help us reach an orderly consensus. I might add that we have Wikipedia articles for British diaspora and Dutch diaspora, plus a category "Scottish diaspora". We need a considered and orderly solution to a general problem here, not a unilateral hijacking of one particular article in hot dispute. Sharktopus^talk 18:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The move might have been a tad rash, but I think you are wrong regarding consensus. Many of the keep voters in the two AfDs, if not most, felt that the content should be kept but the name should not. Add that to the delete voters who all agree that diaspora is wrong, and one understands why Doncram might feel that this is the consensus view. I certainly do.Griswaldo (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Why don't you come up with a list of what you think are legitimate diasporas. That we can all get a feel for your thinking process. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

A brave example of why boldness is sometimes the best policy. I agree that the new, more general name is more appropriate than "diaspora" which has overtones of flight and forced emigration. I accept that articles exist on other "diasporas"; perhaps they should be renamed too? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

That would be the case in 1881 when it was first used in English as the Jewish Diaspora, but this is 2011 and language evolves. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Many of them should (see Swedish diaspora for instance), some should not. I think we need to look at them on a case by case basis. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed: Jewish diaspora, Irish diaspora and Armenian diaspora are clearly appropriate, IMO as are several others, probably. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• I moved it back to its original name since there was no consensus for the change. [1] To have one article out of hundreds/thousands(never counted all of those in the many subcategories) of similar article, named different than the rest, because a couple of people argue about the name, is ridiculous. Dream Focus 02:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Please leave your disdain at the door. It isn't "ridiculous" at all. Outside of yourself, Sharktopus and RAN, I don't think there is a single person who supports this entry name, There are very few editors who have explicitly supported the diaspora name, while many have specifically argued against it and I mean out of all the many editors who have now chimed in at the AfD, here and other venues. Yes, there was no consensus to delete, but no there certainly is no consensus to keep this name. Now, I agree that discussing it prior to moving is probably a good idea, but like I said it's hardly ridiculous. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 02:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

In search of consensus

If I understand it correctly, some people think we should rename some but not all Wikipedia pages currently named "Foo diaspora," where "foo" is some ethnic and/or national descriptor like "Jewish," "Irish," "Dutch," or "Scottish." I believe that "Foo emigration and emigrant communities" is a good alternative, if we decide to rename our diaspora pages.

Now, in what follows, please consider that I will do a better job representing my own POV than I would in describing anybody else's POV. So I will mainly express my own opinion, leaving to others to express their own differing ideas.

I think we should use "Foo diaspora" for ALL articles about "Foo emigration and emigrant communities" instead of for some and not others.

WP:TITLE lists the 5 major criteria on article titles as recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness, and consistency, adding "When no consensus exists, it is established through discussion, with the above principles in mind. The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists."

The word "diaspora" is frequently used in news articles without any explanation of what it means to describe many, many nationalities of emigrants/exiles and their communities. But the word is also used for "emigrant" groups that fit no scholarly definition of diaspora but are clearly expected to be understood by readers, e.g. from the NYT "Democratic diaspora" (Feb. 24, 2011) and "Sudanese basketball diaspora" (Feb. 20, 2011).

Both "conciseness" and "consistency" favor using "diaspora" for all articles that group in one place emigration, emigrants, and emigrant communities.

Also, which communities get "diaspora" and which don't? Can we declare there was no Dutch diaspora, when Amazon sells a book titled The Dutch Diaspora? Can we declare there was no Scottish diaspora when there is now a centre for studying Scottish diaspora and the scholarly journal Diaspora has a recent article about it? Will we make our decisions on who is in or out in a way that is intelligible to our general reader and puts the interests "of a general audience above those of specialists"?

My arguments are basically that it is practical, simple, in accord with much current practice here and in news media, and in accord with WP:TITLE to use "diaspora" rather than (selectively) using a longer attempted synonym. Sharktopus^talk 00:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The media misappropriate terms all the time. It is not our job to follow suit every time a new story uses an established term in a different manner. That argument is a slippery slope of epic proportions in my mind. There are differences between certain emigrant communities and certain emigrations. We do no one a service by pretending that those differences don't exist. The answer is simple. We follow the sources. You realize that not naming an entry "X diaspora" doesn't exclude all use or discussion of diaspora in the entry. The appropriateness of using the term in an entry title, and also of mentioning it as a relevant concept in an entry will have to be decided on a case by case basis, by editors editing those entries, just like it always is, on all of our entries because that's how we work here. What we don't do is sit down and impose artificial entry titles, or minority POVs onto some subjects out of a desire for consistency. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The English language evolves. Scholarship develops new concepts and terms; people seize upon useful concepts for new uses. The media uses new terms, it expands old terms -- to call this natural process "misappropriates" is unnecessarily pejorative.

The word "diaspora" has many useful meanings. I consider it unnecessarily restricting to confine it to "emigrations diaspora studies professors discussed at length using the term 'diaspora'. " I don't mean to mis-state the test you think should be used, so if I'm mistaken please correct me. Such a test would definitely fail our WP:TITLE's constraint that we should consider the needs of a general audience.

With all respect, the "slippery slope" argument can be applied to almost any small change anybody proposes to any situation. I do not believe that disaster necessarily follows from our using one particular word in Wikipedia as if it meant what WP:RS news media, English dictionaries, many scholars, and most general readers think it does mean.

I was not proposing to run around Wikipedia re-naming articles that do not currently have diaspora in the title. It seemed to me that the massive re-naming of articles, ignoring consensus from the people who have been editing those articles for years, was advocated by those who object to using diaspora in titles, not by the people who think it is ok to use it. Sharktopus^talk 02:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Renaming

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Norwegian diaspora → Norwegian emigration and emigrant communities — Move to "Norwegian emigration and emigrant communities" or any other name that does not use term "diaspora", as that term is overly dramatic and has been shown not to apply to Norwegian out-migration in 2 AFD discussions on this article. --doncram 15:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep name The articles could be called "Foo emigration and emigrant communities" but I see no reason to move away from the standard synonym "Foo diaspora", it is concise. What rule would we use to determine who gets to be called a diaspora? A definition from 1990 or a book of essays that lists only a dozen? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It's easy: all the articles about emigration and emigrant communities should be given accurate names omitting "diaspora", except for the few where "diaspora" is shown by reliable sources and consensus of scholarly work to apply. Richard Arthur Norton, WHY are you so bent on including the term "diaspora". Do you want to promote this article and similar ones in a dramatic way? Is it a way to generate more reader interest, do you think? Honestly, why do you want to keep and expand use of that term, rather than use a modest term that is descriptive but not dramatic, and not controversial. Do you just want controversy? --doncram 15:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The article already has reliable sources using the term "Norwegian diaspora". In your concept if Norway or another country is not listed in the reliable sources you prefer we change the name for them? Why are the reliable sources already listed considered unreliable by you? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a fair question even if a bit harsh in tone. We're not talking about deleting any content at this point, just the title.Griswaldo (talk) 15:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a question that offensively violates WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Sharktopus^talk 16:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Be that as it may I still think it's fair to ask RAN why he is so instant on the terminology. I'm not sure he's really ever explained this. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Gris, the q may be fair. The suggested answers were improper. I too have wasted a lot of time on this, and my reason for doing so is my stated reason in the debates. I think the "dramatic" meaning of diaspora is outdated, the new broader meaning is useful, short, and in wide current use on Wikipedia. Your team's plan of renaming a pile of existing articles will be a contentious nightmare, in my opinion. But I am sure Wikipedia will survive either way. My gratitude to you Gris for your civil tone and reasoned arguments. 17:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharktopus (talk • contribs)

• Keep Norwegian diaspora as the article's name. For reasons already said too many times already. Dream Focus 05:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Rename to something that accurately reflects the literature. "Norwegian emigration" without the "and ..." is my preference. Second choice would be the suggested title here. Last choice, with others in-between that I wont bother mentioning, would be the present title..Griswaldo (talk) 13:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

If I remember correctly you argued that "Norwegian diaspora" had to be deleted because there were so few references using the exact title "Norwegian diaspora". There are no references using "Norwegian emigration and emigrant communities". I have no problem with descriptive titles but they need to be concise. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Why because "diaspora" happens to be more "concise"? Norwegian emigration, has a whole lot of hits. I'll be happy to amend my vote. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Norwegian emigration started around 1825 and peaked around 1880. This article is not only about the process of emigration but the cultural ties back to Norway of communities 100 years after emigration. That is why "diaspora" is the best title. I have no objection to renaming all 244 or so articles and categories "Foo emigration and emigrant communities" if consensus is reached, but I do object to just renaming one or two and making Wikipedia inconsistent. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

On what grounds do you make such an objection? Unless there is consensus to create a manual of style entry for emigration related entries that specifies a broad application of certain terms the very idea you promote is against policy. Entries are on individual topics, and we determine their names on an individual basis. I don't see why "Norwegian emigration" would have to be restricted to only discussing the act itself. The literature on Norwegian emigration certainly doesn't only discuss the act of emigration. The next option, for me, would be Norwegian immigrant community. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

We don't need a new rule just for "diaspora" we already have general rules for titles in Wikipedia at WP:Title. It says: "Editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial title to another is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. If it has never been stable, or unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• As nominator, Rename to "Norwegian emigration and emigrant communities" or anything else that omits word "diaspora", an argumentative term that asserts a dramatic out-migration that is involuntary and/or otherwise is associated with regret about leaving, per the more learned discussion in 2 AFDs about this article and an AFD about Swedish diaspora. --doncram 15:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Rename per two comments above. While there may be some sources using the word "diaspora" in a very broad way, I don't think these are in tune with common usage which still reserves the word for emigration which is in some way enforced (if only by economic necessity, for example). I note that other articles use this term, but in my view these too should be reviewed if they use it loosely. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The dictionary says: "the movement, migration, or scattering of a people away from an established or ancestral homeland." any further restrictions on the usage, based on what you think is involved, is original research and not backed up by the most reliable source on usage, the dictionary. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Rename Historically the word diaspora was used much more narrowly. I agree that recently it is being used more frequently, however it would take some time to see whether this is just a passing fad. The usage in Wikipedia is even more widely spread than the current outside usage. We should be slowly following outside usage instead of leading the pack. I agree with Kim Dent-Brown that the usage in other articles should be reviewed. I am at a loss to understand why a group of editors is so in love with this word. Dingo1729 (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, if this article is being used as a test case for the use of "diaspora" it seems a rather poor choice. Diaspora must, from the greek, mean a scattering and should mean communities in multiple areas and nations. The only expatriate Norwegian communities seem to be confined to the US Upper Mid-West (and maybe across the border into Canada). All the other Norwegian emigrants have assimilated to wherever they emigrated. That's not to say the Norwegians in the US aren't pretty well assimilated too, they've just added their heritage to the melting-pot. Dingo1729 (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Two problems with your argument: "Expatriates" are people who have citizenship in one country and are living in a second country so the word doesn't apply to the descendants of immigrants that you are referring to. Secondly, while the US received the largest number of emigrants, it was not the only country to receive them. I would show you the list of Norwegians outside Norway but it was deleted, but you can read Kola Norwegians and Norwegian South African and Norwegian Australian to start with. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Your objection to my misuse of "expatriate" is just quibbling and has nothing to do with the discussion. The articles you reference make it clear that the people in these places have been or are being assimilated. There will always be people who have some slight interested in where their ancestors came from, but that does not make them part of a diaspora. People move around. It's called migration, not a diaspora. Dingo1729 (talk) 20:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. This is all about clear and concise definitions agreed to by the people who construct dictionaries. Diaspora is "the movement, migration, or scattering of a people away from an established or ancestral homeland." There are no restrictions on usage for "assimilation" or as others have tried to cobble on "a desire to return to the homeland" or "forced emigration". The definition is the definition is the definition. That is why we have the Gay diaspora and the New Orleans diaspora. When usage first expanded after the 1881 coining in English as the Jewish diaspora it did have restrictions, but the word has evolved in the past 100 years. The "fad" in usage for the term "Norwegian diaspora" started at least in 1955, which is the first recorded use in Google Books. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It says "a people" not "a few people" or "some people" or even "people". The meaning is that all of the group, or at the very least a large portion of the group have been scattered. You are misreading the definition. Dingo1729 (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I hereby award you the William Jefferson Clinton first "It depends on what the meaning of the word is is" award for 2011. Cherish it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

This sarcasm is unhelpful and not in the collaborative spirit of WP. Of course this is a discussion about the meaning of a word; what else could we be discussing here? Please try and see that others' viewpoints may be equally sincerely and thoughtfully held as your own. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a still open WQA regarding just this kind of thing from Richard Arthur Norton. He really needs to tone it down.Griswaldo (talk) 22:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Clinton was clutching at straws, but on the other hand I feel that there is a real distinction between "people" and "a people" especially in a definition like this. Dingo1729 (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep as is This Google Books search, provides more than a dozen sources that use the term "Norwegian diaspora", and articles such as this source from The Scotsman make use of it as well. On the other hand, the proposed name of "Norwegian emigration and emigrant communities" is entirely artificial, arbitrary and awkward, and I am unable to find any source anywhere that uses the term. Alansohn (talk) 19:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep as is, refer to WP policies instead of !voting, and discuss more generally elsewhere the proposal to change our current longstanding practice of using "diaspora" in article titles. Editors whose strong feelings about the word "diaspora" are based on its association with diaspora studies have no special right to forbid the use of "diaspora" in its common, familiar sense of "emigrant communities". On the contrary, WP:TITLE specifically states that "The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists." When NYT writes about "Democratic diaspora" and a "Sudanese basketball diaspora"; when the Economist describes London's French neighborhoods as one of "many diasporas"; when "diaspora tourism is now a significant market niche"; when "norwegian diaspora" has 595,000 Google hits, it is upside-down-backward logic to deny that this broad usage in major media, dictionaries, marketing jargon, and common parlance is a legitimate meaning for "diaspora." WP:AND: "Sometimes two or more closely related or complementary concepts are most sensibly covered by a single article. Where possible, use a title covering all cases...Where no reasonable overarching title is available, it is permissible to construct an article title using "and"..." I submit that "diaspora" is a reasonable overarching title. It is not a perfect title but it is better than the alternatives. WP:TITLECHANGES: "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." Sharktopus^talk 22:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I get 2,030 hits for "norwegian diaspora" and 16,000 for "norwegian emigration". Am I doing a different search from you? I don't deny that people are using "diaspora" in a wider sense than they were a few decades ago. I just believe that we should not be at the fore-front of change and I believe that Norwegian Emigration or something similar is a better and more accurate title. Dingo1729 (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

"Norwegian diaspora" was in use since at least 1955, when it was first recorded being used in Google Books. I don't think we risk being at the "fore-front of change" unless Dwight Eisenhower is still president. The article isn't solely about emigration. It also is about existing ties to the homeland 100 years after emigration peaked by the next two and three generations of descendants. If you want to change all 244 or so articles and categories to "Foo emigration and emigrant communities" I will hear your arguments, but if you want to say that Norway is an exception, because they are "people" but not "a people", I say no. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not say that Norway is an exception, nor that The Norwegian People are not a people. I do agree that "some Norwegian people emigrated or scattered". I do not agree that "The Norwegian People scattered". I thought I had made my position clear but your comment seems to indicate that you had not understood. Is it clear now? I'm not asking whether you agree with me, just whether you understand the distinction. Dingo1729 (talk) 01:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I had mistakenly omitted the quotes around "norwegian diaspora" in my search, so your number is more accurate. I don't agree that "foo emigration" is an accurate substitute for "foo diaspora" in the titles of our many articles that cover emigration AND emigrant communities. I don't agree that the clear evidence that "diaspora" is a popularly understood widely-used word is nullified by arguments that the exact phrase "norwegian diaspora" has "only" 2030 Google results.

I do agree that we should not be at the forefront of change. Perhaps the Economist was at the forefront of change in 2003 when its article "Diasporas: A world of exiles" felt it necessary to explain diaspora as "a community of people living outside their country of origin." Perhaps the NY Times was at the forefront in 2005 when it called alumni of the Dance Theatre of Harlem a "dance diaspora" or ex-employees of Drexel "the Drexel diaspora". Perhaps our article title "Dutch Diaspora" was at the forefront in 2007. We would not be at the forefront in 2011 using the broader meaning of a common word in order to perform a service to our readers of keeping article titles short and consistent.Sharktopus^talk 00:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Your references are interesting. "dance diaspora" and "the Drexel diaspora" are very much in line with the old-fashioned definition of diaspora. They are both examples of a whole group being scattered near and far by a single event. My reaction to "Diasporas: A world of exiles" was that if something so recent needed to explain the word, then it wasn't in common usage. Perhaps there is an "age" thing going on here, My definition of "new usage" may not be yours. "Dutch Diaspora" is an example of the Wikipedia use of the word, lumping together multiple instances of migration in different centuries with different reasons and different outcomes. Dingo1729 (talk) 03:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

To me, 2003 does not seem "something so recent." In 2011, the NYT uses "diaspora" without explanation. But if now "diaspora" requires the scattering of a whole group (not sure I've seen that requirement in any scholarly definition of the word) are we going to rename Irish diaspora and African diaspora? I do understand that the word "diaspora" comes with a wealth of sacred meanings to many people--one commenter in one of these discussions compared using "diaspora" more widely to appropriating "holocaust." I myself find it easier to keep the two meanings of "diaspora" in separate mental boxes -- my reverence and horror when I think about "real" diasporas like those of the Jews or (by fairly accepted usage) the starving Irish is not lessened by the fact that people increasingly use "diaspora" as a handy word with a broader but related meaning. To me, it is just a practical matter to use it in Wikipedia in the broader way.

I have been wasting a lot of time putting forward arguments based on logic, history, and Wikipedia policy, but I don't think I have convinced even one person who started out arguing against diaspora that we should use it. As a practical matter, my time would be better spent elsewhere. Sharktopus^talk 13:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, if I may, I don't think your time has been at all wasted! I think almost all of the discussion above here has been an excellent example of healthy WP discussion between good-faith editors who disagree but are willing to attack one another's arguments rather than one another's personalities. You have explained your position well and produced good evidence for it. Indeed, you haven't persuaded me to change my view - but you have persuaded me that yours is also a reasonable one. Any decision to re-name this article would need to achieve a consensus for renaming, and at present I see no such consensus. Hence, the status quo will prevail unless we get a sudden rush of new editors or new arguments. Thank you for taking part so energetically and constructively. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to endorse Kim Dent-Brown's remarks. From the AfD I thought there was a stronger movement for renaming, but the discussion here has involved fewer people and is currently at no consensus. Dingo1729 (talk) 15:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You might consider contacting everyone who participated in the AfD with a neutral message. I do not think that doing so would be inappropriate given the fact that the discussion about the entry's name had already started there. I also concur that Sharktapus has been very civil, even civilized in this discussion. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You might consider contacting everyone currently watching Wikipedia articles such as Dutch diaspora, Scottish diaspora, British diaspora, etc. etc. whose articles should also be renamed based on the arguments offered here. With respect, many AfD !voters suggested renaming the article as a compromise, without the slightest consideration for our policy WP:TITLE despite the admonition in the template above that THIS discussion should "Remember to base arguments on article title policy." Sharktopus^talk 16:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC) ((Just a much later footnote on this old post of mine, it was NOT intended as sarcasm or ridicule; it was a serious suggestion to reach out to a wider group of people who have potential interest in the discussion.)) Sharktopus^talk 17:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Answered below. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for those very kind words, dear also-civil-and-constructive arguing-companions, you have cheered up this gloomy old Sharktopus on a gray morning. I think it is true that we are all "members of the team that cheers for Wikipedia" whatever the outcome of any specific debate. Sharktopus^talk 15:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• They're different topics: Diasporic communities don't have to have any emigrants at all, e.g. Jewish diaspora, Black diaspora, Asian diaspora. Emigration and Emigrant communities are different topics from diasporas (diasporae?) and should have their own article(s). Aristophanes68 (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm unsure what you mean by that in terms of the present discussion. Part of the problem is that in this context, as in what the subject of this entry is, diaspora is being used to discuss emigrant communities. And not ethnic communities that were dislodged from their ancestral homeland centuries ago. That type of community simply does not exist when it comes to Norway. That fact is part of what all the disagreement is over. Can you please have a look at the present content and opine on whether or not is should be under the heading "diaspora". Thannks.Griswaldo (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose the current title is WP:AT:CONCISE, and not WP:JARGON. The deletion discussion on this article was concerned with the title, and jargon usage of "diaspora" over common usage as found in a dictionary. 184.144.163.245 (talk) 05:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I have no problem with changing the name of all Wikipedia articles that use the term fooian diaspora, but I don't like the proposed new name. I understand the problem with the word "diaspora" but unless a replacement term that is equally as convenient is proposed I cannot support this move. Abductive (reasoning) 00:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Notifying past participants

Discussion about notifying past participants
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is a response to Sharktapus above, who has suggested that notifying the participants of the AfD wouldn't be justified any more than notifying anybody who is watching any of our many pages with "diaspora" in their titles. I don't agree here at all. Here are some of the comments from the AfD, which was for this entry, and not any of the other "X diaspora" entries. "Keep but rename - From our own article on diaspora: The notion of diaspora is often linked with the diasporic community harboring a longing for, or a wish to return to, the ancestral homeland, and generally with a maintenance of a separate ethnic identity over significant periods of time. I don't see any evidence of this being true among Norwegian expatriates or their descendants, and I also don't see many sources using the word "diaspora" to describe this phenomenon. I'm not sure what the ideal title would be for the article, but something along the lines of Norwegian emigration would work for me." "Keep but rename I'm with the nominator that "diaspora" is not correct in this case, as reflected by the lack of sources, but that the topic itself, under a title such as Emigration from Norway or Communities of Norwegian origin, is notable." "Keep It pretty much needs a rename. There just is not enough scholarly use of the title as it currently exists. And it is going to be pretty hard to come up with a name that isn't 10 words long." "speedy keep. If you have a better title under WP:NAME, suggest a move. I am aware that the term "diaspora" sees excessive use on Wikipedia. "Expatriate community" may be better. So, by all means move this to Norwegian expatriates or Norwegian expatriate community or something, but don't submit stuff to AfD that aren't AfDs." Are we seriously saying here, that these people cannot be legitimately informed of this name discussion, which is on the exact topic they directly commented on? I fail to understand how these people are comparable to those who have Dutch diaspora on their watch-list. The reason I suggested to contact ALL participants of the AfD, was to not only single out those who mentioned the rename, since they ALL happened to have mentioned it in the direction that I agree with.Griswaldo (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC) I did not at all mean to ridicule your suggestion as you seem to think. My sincere apologies if I sounded dismissive. I was seriously suggesting engaging other people as well. The group you propose contacting en masse had more !votes for the outcome you prefer than for the outcome I prefer. I hope any neutral message will emphasize the importance of reading and citing WP:TITLE, particularly WP:TITLECHANGES. Sharktopustalk 19:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC) Yes but that is usually the case with any group that has had a prior discussion. How often do you find past discussion that were split 50/50 on the dot in terms of POV? It is one thing if the group in question is a group that identifies specifically with some POV or another, but an AfD is just a community discussion. Hopefully it reflects the community and not some segment of it. I'll wait to see if there are any other objections but I see nothing suggesting it would be improper at the present time. As to neutrally worded messages, I don't think any mention of any policy is needed or even desirable. The message should simply notify people of this discussion. See for instance, [2] and [3]. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC) You have much more Wikipedia experience than I do, but is it really appropriate here to send out messages to a group whose !votes are known to agree with yours while objecting to inviting people from other groups? I also can not see how mentioning policy in a notice is inappropriate; without policy considerations, you are merely inviting !voters to repeat a former !vote, a course whose outcome one can easily predict. Sharktopustalk 20:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC) All the AfD participants did not have votes that agreed with mine. That's my point. Elsewhere you guys have argued that there was no consensus to rename in the AfD. OK, if that's the case then I have no idea how notifying the participants in the AfD could be construed as canvassing people of a certain POV. You see how you can't have it both ways on that issue? There is no need to mention specific policies. Wikipedians are expected to argue based on policy in any community discussion. Highlighting one policy or another just opens the notifying up to potential criticism. Maybe the manner in which I mention it will be construed as non-neutral, or maybe mentioning one policy and not another will be. There is nothing more neutral than simply saying. Here's a relevant discussion, you're welcome to join it. Period. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC) I don't think there is anything wrong with notifying either just the AfD participants or the wider group suggested by Sharktopus or starting a RfC and notifying the whole community. This whole discussion is a result of the Afd and remarks made by the closing admin. I'm personally not going to do the notifying, because my guess is that even though it might move the center of gravity of the debate, there wouldn't be enough of a move either way to be able to declare consensus. We would just have a larger non-consensus. I might be wrong, so I'm not standing in the way of any notifying anyone else wants to do, but I'm just not committed enough to do the work. Dingo1729 (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Category side-discussion

There's general need for a big wp:CFD towards renaming Category:Norwegian diaspora and most of the other elements of Category:Diasporas, for the same reasons as apply in this Norwegian diaspora rename case (which i expect apply to to most but not all of the others). The diaspora categories have been applied more widely than the article name use of "diaspora". I.e., many/most of the categories contain no articles named "diaspora", but rather include articles named "Foo expatriates" or "Foo emigrant communities" etc. Some opposition to changing the Norwegian diaspora article name has been because it is pointed out that there are many others that would require renaming too. Okay, lets do those too. I suppose the wp:CFD should be started now? And then notification can call for comments in this specific Norwegian diaspora article Requested Move case, and also for comments in the renaming of many categories all at once in one CFD. --doncram 22:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, what I think we need to do is discuss renaming or deleting our Category:Diasporas, and (inspired by doncram's really good breakthrough suggestion) I have nominated it. Does somebody want to go through and file the same notice to all the specific diaspora categories that won't measure up to the new proposed usage? Norwegian, Swedish, Danish, Dutch, English, Scottish, French ... are those the only non-diasporas or am I forgetting some? Sharktopus^talk 23:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

<--So, for those interested in discussing the wider issue of what "diaspora" should mean in Wikipedia generally, there is discussion underway of renaming our category "Diasporas" as well as some of the articles and subcategories now called "diasporas", over at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_March_8#Category:Diasporas. Sharktopus^talk 16:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of renaming this article resumes

• Keep Diaspora is a more than two thousand years old. Words' meaning evolve. Today it has acquired a broader meaning besides its original sense, as attested by the numerous sources above. It is a convenient word for describe overlapping concepts like emmigrants, immigrants, colonists, expats, etc in a single article. ^walk victor falk ^talk 03:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Swedish diaspora

Shouldn't Swedish diaspora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) also have a move discussion at this time (a separate one) ? 184.144.163.245 (talk) 05:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we start individual votes at all 244 articles and categories at the same time at each article and category to maximize the time and effort going into this process. I think we have enough articles at about 3M, we should now concentrate on finding the perfect name for each article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Richard Arthur Norton's sarcasm is not helpful, IMO. If there are 244 categories and articles using term "diaspora" now, that is mostly because one or a few editors created a whole bunch of misnamed categories. I think there are relatively few articles using the "diaspora" term, reflecting fact that actual editors/writers have not been applying the "disapora" term widely, as they should not. It is mostly the categorization of articles about emigrant groups that is incorrectly using the term. Look at contents of Category:Diasporas, and drill down in one or two country areas, and you will probably find no articles about "diaspora" at all. Note, IMO, any move to rename an article about emigration to use the term "diaspora" should be considered a controversial move, requiring a wp:RM process. Richard Arthur Norton and others should not "win" in their attempt to use a terminology that many others think is inappropriate, by their widely applying the term incorrectly in adding inappropriate categories.

There is discussion properly now at wp:CFD for renaming the Category:Diasporas. --doncram 12:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The CfD approaches the problem in a very strange manner. If a category is legitimate, but people think that many of the entries that have been tagged with it should not be included, the way to go about it is not to rename the category. I'm rather confused by this request.Griswaldo (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Just looking at the first five "diaspora" categories of Category:Diasporas (Aruban diaspora, Azorean diaspora, Bahraini diaspora, Baloch diaspora, Botswana diaspora) these five were created by five different editors at five different times. This is not a matter of "one or a few editors" looking for drama. This is a matter of many people independently believing it is legitimate to use "diaspora" as non-scholarly WP:RS use it. Sharktopus (talk • contribs) 20:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Information: Mr. Norton mentioned Margaret Clunies Ross as a expert of some sort in the discussion regarding these diasporas, so I decided to simply ask her for her opinion:

“ Hi, I haven't met you before, but your name was mentioned as an expert in reference to a discussion (on Wikipedia) of emigration from Norway and Scandanavia in general.

I was wondering if you would be willing to describe your opinion on the use of the term 'diaspora' in relation to historical emigrations of people, and whether you feel it is a term many academics use presently.

Any guidance you are willing to provide is much appreciated. I also would ask permission to quote your answer to provide others with a substantive source for guidance.

” — Avanu, Email request

“ I'm not an expert on emigration from Norway and Scandinavia in general, I'm afraid, so you will have to find someone else for that. I can confirm that scholars are coming to use the term 'diaspora' rather a lot these days to refer to any exodus of peoples from their homelands to settle elsewhere rather than in the strict sense of the dispersal of the Jews from their homeland.

Yours

Margaret Clunies Ross

” — MCR, Email response

Final comment: Is this Original Research? Probably. But at least we don't have to disagree about what Ms Ross' opinion is any longer. I hope this helps to provide insight. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 07:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Time to end dispute over the lead sentence

I suggest that we simply model the lead on one of many many other lead sentences already stable is other Wikipedia articles "foo diaspora", and offer several models found via List of diasporas:

• "The foo diaspora encompasses foo-ians outside of foo." (as in Albanian diaspora, a lead sentence that has been there since at least October, 2008.)
• "The foo diaspora is the name given to describe people of foo origin living outside their traditional homeland." (as in Basque diaspora), which has had the same lead sentence since at least January 2007).
• "The foo diaspora consists of foo emigrants and their descendants in countries such as ...." (as in French diaspora. which has had the same lead sentence since its creation in June, 2009.)

There is nothing special about Norwegians that should require this article to follow a different policy than is in force elsewhere throughout Wikipedia. Suggestions to rename the article did not reach consensus. A CfD concerning Category:Diasporas reached consensus against redefining the category and suggested consensus against renaming articles now called "foo diaspora" for any foo. There is no need for the lead paragraph of this article to apologize for its use of "Norwegian diaspora" by tying it to a dictionary definition (one out of probably thousands of definitions somebody could point to). I am going to pick one of those models that seems to fit this article's actual contents. Sharktopus^talk 20:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we use the same wording in the dozen diaspora articles. I am all for it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Place to discuss the dispute over the quote attached to lead paragraph

Edit summaries aren't a good substitute for trying to reach consensus on the talk page. The issue here should not be use of the word "diaspora," a dispute on which the community finally demonstrated consensus here not to override Wikipedia's substantial past practice of allowing use of "diaspora" as a coverall term for "people of foo origin living in not-foo."

It seems to me, however, that the quote is oddly placed in the lead and would fit better into the section on "Ties to the Homeland." Sharktopus^talk 13:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

In answer to the first paragraph, the community consensus was clearly one that felt deleting the category was not useful. They were not, however, in agreement that it should be used in all cases.

For example: "Keep. Just because the term might not apply to all of the articles presently in this category, doesn't mean the category isn't useful as it's currently named. The contents are subject to debate, but the name is sound. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)"

That type of reasoning was very prevalent in the discussion, it is misleading to ascribe anything beyond that. -- Avanu (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that the contents of any article are open to debate, including any particular usage of the word "diaspora." It seemed to me that the consensus was decidedly against requiring that any particular emigrant group foo must have been studied as "foo diaspora" before allowing Wikipedians to group articles about their foo emigrant communities under a category title "Foo Diaspora." Sharktopus^talk 20:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

"Norwegian heritage"

Is anyone who claims "Norwegian heritage" now somehow part of the "Norwegian diaspora?" I ask in relation to this edit. I concede that this article was kept, but how far are people willing to stretch the subject matter? Surely people who know that great-great grandfather Olaf came from Norway once upon a time are not taking part in a global dispersed Norwegian ethnic community of some kind. The stories of recent immigrants with ties to the homeland are one thing, but current census data about those who identify as "Norwegian American" is quite another. I mean the edit added this, for instance -- "30.1% of the people of the US state of North Dakota are of Norwegian descent." Surely we're not saying that 30.1% of North Dakotans are part of the Norwegian diaspora are we?Griswaldo (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

My impression is that diaspora is being used by some academics to give their papers some 'cachet' and make them sound more intellectual. I would be careful in overusing the term, however. For example, do we have an "okie diaspora" because of the 1930's Dust Bowl? Or is the term 'migrant' better? I've never personally heard anyone use the term diaspora in that context yet, BUT if I go onto Google right now... one sec....

"A native Oklahoman, Guthrie was born in 1912 and lived through the Dust Bowl and "Okie" diaspora to California during the Depression." from Rio Grande, 2004.

"The Dust Bowl migration was part of a larger heartland diaspora that has sent millions of Southerners and rural Midwesterners to the nation's northern and western industrial perimeter." from American Exodus, 1989.

"Are Ohioians the new Okies? I guess I never thought much about how our economic diaspora might be affecting other communities. Aren’t we the ones responsible for the gangbuster real estate industry in the South?" from Are Ohioians the Okies of the Great Recession?, blog post from June 2010

So yes, if you want to sound psuedo-intellectual by throwing out the word with 'cachet', by all means, use it until the cows come home (from their diaspora). But if you want a word that is specific and means what it says, and says what it means, then diaspora isn't your bean. -- Avanu (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

We already went over this in the Categories for Discussion debate. Webster's dictionary is very clear that diaspora include "people settled far from their ancestral homelands"--e.g. the "African diaspora", which includes African Americans whose families have been in the States for 200 years. Moreover, Webster's supports the Okie diaspora term with its example of "the black diaspora to northern cities"."Diaspora" I find it odd that we're accusing university professors of being pseudo-intellectual--aren't they the ones who set the standard for which terms are appropriate? Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

A perfect example of what I meant by psuedo-intellectual from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy here. -- Avanu (talk) 20:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

OK but that doesn't deal with my question. I'm not asking about Okie diaspora, I'm asking about nth generation "Norwegian Americans" or the 30% of North Dakotans who claim "Norwegian heritage". I've never seen a dictionary definition that justifies the idea that these people are part of a diaspora. Please answer that question. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

A few online examples of "a dictionary definition that justifies the idea that these people are part of a diaspora": From Collins English dictionary, "dispersion or spreading, as of people originally belonging to one nation or having a common culture." From the American Heritage Dictionary, "A dispersion of a people from their original homeland...The community formed by such a people...A dispersion of an originally homogeneous entity, such as a language or culture." It seems to me that the 30% of North Dakotans who claim "Norwegian heritage" are self-identifying with a wider community of other people of Norwegian heritage. The unknown % of North Dakotans who may be part Norwegian but don't self-identify as having "Norwegian heritage" obviously do not get counted as part of any Norwegian diaspora. Sharktopus^talk 20:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

That was the point of the African diaspora example. All black Americans are part of the African/Black diaspora, no matter how far back their American lineage goes. Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

We're not discussing the African diaspora, which as far as I understand it, is a term usually only invoked for descendants of African migrants (forced or voluntary) who show a continuation of their old world African culture in the Americas and the Caribbean. That African slaves were part of the African diaspora does mean that all of their descendants are part of the African diaspora. Note however, that there have been many "back to Africa" movements within the African American community, and their relationship to African culture in general is not like that of 30% of North Dakotans to Norwegian culture. Can you please provide a source that says these people are part of the "Norwegian diaspora". Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, I raised the African example only because I understand it differently than you do, and much more in line with this article's use of Norwegian diaspora. When my colleagues teach classes on African diaspora, it has very much been a larger, Black Atlantic approach that includes the descendants of slaves, especially since (as Gates and others have shown) African traditions have maintained a presence in African American culture after all this time. So yes, in my book, 5th generation Americans of Norwegian descent are part of the diaspora by default, although moreso if they maintain some connection to Norwegian culture and traditions. And I thought my dictionary example--"people settled far from their ancestral homeland"--cleared up that problem. It seems to me that the question we're wrestling with here (and no doubt academics are faced with the same question) is whether the term diaspora requires some preservation of ancestral customs, either deliberately or through the simple passing on of traditions, recipes, etc. We need to figure out the RS answer to this question: when does a person or group cease to be of Norwegian heritage? Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You have colleagues who teach college level classes on the "African diaspora," and include in it all contemporary African Americans, however much or little they themselves identify with the diaspora, and however much or little they participate in diasporic culture? Are you really sure about that or are you conflating the general inclusion of African American culture in the diaspora with the sum total of all self-identifying African-American people? If you think I'm mincing words, I assure you I'm not, because the contentious addition here has precisely to do with the sum total of people who self-identify as such and such (i.e. Norwegian-American or having Norwegian heritage) and not with "Norwegian-American culture". I also believe you render the dictionary definition meaningless if you take it to mean something so general. How far back does one go to define one's "ancestral homeland" if there doesn't have to be some cultural connection to it? You know Germanic peoples were not native to present day Norway. In fact they most likely migrated into the area displacing the Sámi who were already there. Does that mean I can call bullshit on all of this and say there can't be a Norwegian diaspora after all! All joking aside the maintenance of a cultural connection matters 100% here, otherwise we'd all be part of the African diaspora, and only the African diaspora. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

<--The fact that people self-identify as Norwegian is enough of a cultural connection for them to be considered part of the Norwegian diaspora. The article's scope is defined in the lead as "Norwegian emigrants and their descendants, especially those who ..." It does not say "exclusively those who ..." The scope of an encyclopedia article has to be something that is practicable to ascertain. It is easy to count people who self-identify as having "Norwegian heritage." If we only want to count people who eat lutefisk twice a month, how the heck would we find them? And how significant would that distinction be? The maintenance of a cultural connection may matter 100% to you, but it does not matter 100% to many writers of dictionaries or to the scholarly authors whose definitions are cited in the lead of diaspora or, apparently to the faculty colleagues of Aristophanes68. Sharktopus^talk 07:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The point isn't to figure out how many people eat lutefisk, or how may people can trace back their ethnic origins, the point is to discuss the topic the way it is discussed by reliable sources. Who is included in the Norwegian diaspora according to reliable sources? Answer that and you're fine.Griswaldo (talk) 13:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

As a point of fact, the dictionary definitions do not support you reading of this at all. They speak of a dispersion of people from their homelands, they do not speak of a continuance through future generations ad infinitum. If that were the case, then again I put it to you that we'd all belong to only one diaspora, the African diaspora. But it is clearly not the case. The dictionary definition does not define the continuity or discontinuity of the people in question. Where are you getting that from? Further more, where is anyone getting the notion that the "Norwegian diaspora" is so defined? It is OR to claim that "because my colleagues treat the African diaspora in X manner, by extension we need to treat the Norwegian diaspora the same way". Although I note that Aristophanes has not answered my last question, because I believe he's confused about what his colleagues are up to in the first place. Regarding the specific disputed addition to this entry I'm not sure you realize what was most probably asked of the North Dakotans, because I doubt that 30% self-identify as "Norwegian American" even. This is probably based on some survey that asked people to identify the countries of origin of their ancestors. Being able to identify the country of origin of one's migrant ancestors is a far cry from even considering oneself "X American". Needless to say the information has no source. Please do not add it back without a source.Griswaldo (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

This is how the census asks the question. "What is your ancestry or ethnic origin?" Please show me the source that says that someone who is able to identify their "ancestry or ethnic origin" as such and such belongs to a diaspora of that ethnic group. This is completely and utterly WP:OR.Griswaldo (talk) 13:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Importance of consensus

(original section title was changed by Sharktopus in the interest of appropriateness to an article talk page) Original title was "Richard Norton - please seek consensus", and the following comment by Avanu should be read in that context.))Sharktopus^talk 20:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I know you have to have these pages on your watchlists. And we have an editor above who is questioning the scope of the word diaspora, and immediately thereafter, you go to work on the article adding an expanded definition.

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norwegian_diaspora&diff=next&oldid=421156474

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norwegian_diaspora&diff=next&oldid=421156742

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norwegian_diaspora&diff=next&oldid=421156921

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norwegian_diaspora&diff=next&oldid=421157162

But why are you so averse to actually discussing this on the Talk page? This is the problem that I am trying to address with your editing. It is simply a one-sided thing that you choose to ignore others, and it isn't that you are not available, you have hundreds of pages on your Watchlist, and you make dozens to hundreds of changes to Wikipedia every day. So instead of getting support, you just decide. I don't see any references to support the changes made above. I actually went out and checked Google in order to answer the editor above. I am strongly in favor of reverting all the above edits, but I don't want to become an edit warrior, I want to see my fellow editor take the time to actually engage in the community. The above edits, and several others I have taken note of recently, in this editor's opinion have taken on an air of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, and I feel that it needs to be addressed. -- Avanu (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

For example, "Norwegian New Zealander (Norwegian:Norsknewzealendere) are New Zealanders of Norwegian ancestry, the majority of these people were part of the Norwegian diaspora."

Later in the article it makes a mention of two settlements one starting in 1868 and the other in 1872. It also mentions emigration from Norway died down.

In the edits you added, you still haven't provided an answer to the editor above, and I am reluctant to modify the first paragraph ("The Norwegian diaspora consists of Norwegian emigrants and their descendants") without consensus to remove "and their descendants". -- Avanu (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

As a relatively new article, this one obviously has much room for collaborative improvement. Civil discussion in which we address ways of improving the article would be a blessing. Wikipedia has forums like WQA and RFC/U to address issues with any individual editor; article talk pages are to discuss edits, not other editors.

I agree that it is good to discuss edits on the talk page. Particularly after a revert makes it clear that an edit is contentious, a re-revert with an assertive edit summary is a poor substitute for seeking consensus on the talk page.

In the case of the first sentence, consensus was sought and (I thought) achieved in a section above this one, Talk:Norwegian_diaspora#Time_to_end_dispute_over_the_lead_sentence. Sharktopus^talk 20:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You and Richard were the only two people to comment on that section. I think everyone else was probably simply tired of arguing. -- Avanu (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to reopen the discussion, I just wanted to point out where the relevant issue of Wikipedia's well-established practice had been cited before. Sharktopus^talk 20:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

If people want to discuss the "real" meaning of "diaspora"

This isolated article talk page, on the watchlist of very few people, is not the place for it. The word "diaspora" is used in the titles and in the text of many Wikipedia articles and categories. A long and well-attended CfD addressed many of the issues that should be considered if we wanted to restrict editors' use of the word "diaspora," most relevantly the increasingly broad use of the term by international WP:RS.

If you feel that Wikipedia should change its current practice, please suggest a good venue and phrasing for an appropriately public RfC, and some mechanism for alerting hundreds of editors who have "diaspora" articles or categories on their watchlists. Sharktopus^talk 21:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem is the same one I witnessed before after this was brought to a dispute resolution. I don't think these other editors want to discuss or change the meaning of diaspora. They simply are asking for an appropriately scoped use of the word, not one that is stretched beyond its meaning. This isn't about changing current practice, it is simply about honoring the definitions and meanings of words in order to have a reliable encyclopedia. The discussion you quote above has many of its editors saying the same thing we are saying today. And the question at hand there was whether to rename Category:Diasporas to Category:Emigrations and emigrants. The general opinion showed that people felt there was a need for both, not one or the other, so it passed as "KEEP". Makes perfect sense, and I would have suggested the same thing. But you're representing it as if people defined Diasporas there, which they did not. Also it is a bit dramatic to assume we have to modify *all* such articles just because one is changed. -- Avanu (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Diverse opinions were voiced. The CfD was closed on March 19. The final statement, which attempted to describe what I thought had been reached as consensus, was made by me on March 14. Not one person, including the closing admin, objected to my attempt to describe consensus there, so let me just reproduce it here: "It seems to me that the consensus from people !voting here is to leave the current name for Category:Diasporas, and to use that category to contain and describe all the articles and subcategories currently inside it, without making judgments about what is or is not a "real" diaspora. There seems to be also a divergent but strongly-felt belief of some people that the word "diaspora" should not be paired with any nationality foo that did not experience major forced emigration from its homeland. I would be grateful if someone could suggest an appropriate forum to adjudicate this slightly different dispute, instead of seeing it fought out article by article as it ongoingly still is in Norwegian diaspora." (Not one of the disputants took up that suggestion, however, and after that the disputes at Norwegian diaspora died down for a couple of weeks.)

If the CfD consensus agreed with you that we need a Category:Emigrations and emigrants to purify the category Diasporas, I am surprised that not one person in the discussion contradicted my assertion there and then that we did NOT need a different category. Sharktopus^talk 22:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

How does your 'final comment' make it the authoritative one? Besides that, the discussion was whether to rename Category:Diasporas to Category:Emigrations and emigrants, not whether "to use that category to contain and describe all the articles and subcategories currently inside it, without making judgments about what is or is not a 'real' diaspora". Why would people bother to contradict you if the discussion was ended/ending and they were done with it? -- Avanu (talk) 00:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

<--I have just gone back to look again at the discussion, and although it was not "about" how Wikipedia should define "diaspora," nearly all who took part expressed an opinion on that very issue. In my opinion, here is how those editors' opinions lined up:

8 who spoke in favor of using a broad definition

• Epeefleche
• Aristophanes68
• Occuli
• Hmains
• Sharktopus
• IP 184.144.163.245
• RAN
• Alansohn who made the best comment of anyone.

3 who spoke in favor of using a narrow definition

• doncram
• Dingo1729
• Malik Shabazz

2 who did not clearly !vote on whether Wikipedia should narrow its definition of "diaspora"

• Good Ol'factory
• Cordless Larry [4], [5], [6] (I think the last of his 3 diffs is leaning toward a broader definition, however.)

I encourage you to contradict these very clear claims by me of what was said in that discussion using actual diffs. Did I count wrong? Am I mistaken that at least 11 editors expressed a clear opinion about how Wikipedia should use the word "diaspora"? Am I mistaken that only 3 editors favoring the narrow definition you prefer can be counted here, against 8 editors favoring the broader definition that is in use throughout Wikipedia and elsewhere in WP:RS? Sharktopus^talk 01:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You are going to extraordinary lengths to make a point that doesn't matter. The issue before them was not a definition, but whether to rename a category. Its clear from their discussion that the more restrictive definition was fine *as well*. I'm not going to go on and on with a silly argument with you, it doesn't lead anywhere productive. However, if you'd like to actually look at some good points, Griswaldo made some very excellent points above, and I have yet to see you address any of those. I'm going to get drawn into an intractable argument over quibbles that can't be decided with certainty. -- Avanu (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Scratching my head. I have just been responding to inaccurate claims you made "with certainty" about the particular CfD -- "you're representing it as if people defined Diasporas there, which they did not." (WRONG, 11 of 13 of people expressed a strong opinion about defining diaspora) and that "The general opinion showed that people felt there was a need for both, not one or the other" (WRONG, that was an opinion voiced by a tiny minority, even smaller than the group of 3 who wanted a narrow definition of diaspora). If you are tired of the discussion because you are now willing to abandon those claims and admit that a group of 11 editors expressed strong opinions in the recent past on defining diaspora, with only 3 of them agreeing with you that a narrow definition should be FORCED on everybody, while 8 of them agreed that a wider definition should also be PERMITTED to everybody, great.

I don't agree with you that I should similarly waste time in this talk page answering "excellent points" whose gist is that people are again trying to enforce a narrow definition of diaspora on this article, a narrow definition that was the basis of a (rejected) recent AfD, a narrow definition that was espoused by only 3 of the 11 who expressed an opinion at a recent relevant CfD, a narrow definition that has not been enforced anywhere else in Wikipedia. (I did answer one of the questions about 8 hours ago.) If you want to reopen the question, again, of whether or not you can force a narrow definition of "diaspora" on other editors, it should be reopened in a wider forum. Sharktopus^talk 04:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

If that's what you feel you need, then by all means, do so, however, due to the varying and wide use of the word in different contexts and situations, I feel that such a discussion would not directly have bearing in this discussion, and I feel that it is a fallacy to assume that it must. Good day. -- Avanu (talk) 04:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Now I'm confused -- if you agree that the word has varying and wide use in different contexts and situations, why on earth should this article's use of it be subjected to local diktats? In what possible way does it help us to build an encyclopedia to demand that the meanings of common and malleable words be debated privately in the talk space of multiple articles, so that minuscule wiki-mobs can enforce little mini-consensuses that vary from article to article? I see that you worked on Julian Assange -- what if words like "evidence" and "hearsay" were forced to have specific legal meanings in that article but permitted to be used in a general way all over Wikipedia? Or vice versa? Wouldn't that be unfair and somewhat misleading? Sharktopus^talk 04:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources on the word 'diaspora' document two different uses. One is a more strict and narrow definition, and the other is a more broad and loose definition. It would not be advisable to simply switch between the two usages without reason within a single article. Also, in most cases where the stricter definition is used, we see alternate words like "emigration" used. My impression of your approach to this word is that you would like to see the broadest definition used almost all the time. This is not in line with the sources, and as such, would be incorrect. Ultimately our sources are what we have to rely on in Wikipedia for material. To stridently ignore what they say in order to come up with a definition that appeals to us, rather than simply taking it as it stands, is clearly original research. I really feel that I have given more than enough explanation here, and I get the feeling that you would like to continue to badger me on this until I decide to agree with you. My advice is to review a wide range of sources, and keep an open mind. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 04:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources on the word "diaspora" document hundreds of different uses. Dictionary and scholarly definitions document scores of attempts to clarify those uses. My opinion is that a broad meaning should be PERMITTED when it is useful to creating Wikipedia articles with good content and short, appropriate titles--like this one. I understand that the broad usage is contentious, even upsetting to some people. If there were a good one-word substitute covering the same territory, I would go for it. I hope you also understand that it is contentious, even upsetting to some people to be told that they are forbidden to use the word "diaspora" as they see WP:RS and other Wikipedians using it elsewhere every day. I have no expectation you will decide to agree with me but I have a hope we will both be guided by policy and consensus. Sharktopus^talk 05:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I still pretty much agree with Avanu, but on the other hand Sharktopus' summaries of the discussion are about correct. I was surprised at how broad a definition people supported for "diaspora". As I understand it, there doesn't have to be a mass migration, any movement will do; it doesn't have to be far, just over a border to find cheaper housing is still a diaspora; the migrants can merge with the local population or not, they are still a diaspora after several generations; almost any group is entitled to its own diaspora. With all this it would be pedantic to demand a reference calling something a diaspora when it is such a commonly used word. I don't dispute that sources can be found for all these broadenings. The rules of the game seem to be that one such broadening outweighs a hundred usages of the word in a tight definition. As I see it, "diaspora" seems to be a fashionable word outside wikipedia and even more so within wikipedia, so fighting against it is like holding back the wind. I have the choice of either sitting here repeating "you're all wrong, you're all wrong, you're all wrong" or walking away. I think I'll walk away. Thanks for the discussion. Dingo1729 (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you Dingo. I think the dispute has arisen because of the difference in usage. Do we call something that happened in 1872 a "Norwegian diaspora" or "Norwegian migration". Migration seems to point out more clearly what happened. Advocates for diaspora believe it can apply to those born generations later. Griswaldo makes an argument above asking how do we delineate - where does it end? (Are we all part of the African Diaspora?) As for the loosening of the meaning, does "The Morning Diaspora" mean 'my commute to work'? I guess what we have here is some editors who are wanting to have a clearer picture of what the word means and use it with accuracy, and other editors who argue that the word has changed and should be used liberally in all cases where it could apply. I'm not terribly biased toward either view, but what I don't like is a hodgepodge where people reading the article might not know what in the world we are saying. I simply want clarity. -- Avanu (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Wording of text

"Norsemen left the area that is now the modern state of Norway in the Viking expansion, including the settlement of Iceland and the conquest of Normandy"

Comment: Needs improvement, IMO.

--80.203.102.99 (talk) 20:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Norwegian Argentines

Argentina has one of the largest Norwegian communities in the Americas. There has already been an article about that but it was deleted. I would like to know why. I didn't infringe anything. It was a good article and full of interesting information about the Norwegian immigration to Argentina. It would be good to know more about this. Delotrooladoo (talk) 20:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)