Category talk:Anglo-Burmese people

Er, why?
Somewhere in this set of edits, Stevvvv4444 wrote that Category:Anglo-Burmans shouldn't be confused with Category:British people of Burmese descent. The former now says that it's for "People of mixed English/ Burmese ethnicity"; the latter for "Citizens of the United Kingdom of full or partial Burmese descent." I can understand how certain people might be the one or the other, but the groups seem to overlap considerably. Till a few minutes ago, each category had a redlinked discussion page. I'd be grateful if Stevvvv4444 would reconsider whether both categories are needed, and, if Stevvvv4444 concludes that they are indeed both needed, explain a distinction between the two that doesn't make one or other seem largely redundant.

As it is, most of the (few) people in Category:Anglo-Burmans have names that don't suggest any "Burmese ethnicity" as I'd understand the term. Names are unreliable indicators, of course, and "ethnicity" is very ambiguous; I'm open to a different interpretation of "ethnicity" but I think it should be more clearly specified. -- Hoary (talk) 05:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the use of Anglo-Burman here is similar to Anglo-Indian, which is distinct in meaning from British Indian? Cordless Larry (talk) 09:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Anglo-Burmese people article may clear it up for your if you read it. Basically Anglo-Burmese people and their descendants are linked to the British occupation of Burma when many British people and locals came together, it could be compared to the Portuguese Burghers. Just like they are not Portuguese people of Sri Lankan descent, Anglo-Burmese are not the same as British people of Burmese descent. Anglo-Burmese can live anywhere in the world, and although it is likely some live in the UK and would therefore make up the countires proportion of individuals of Burmese origin, the two differences should be distinguished. Does this help? Stevvvv4444 (talk) 13:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the replies, which I think I understand.

I had already categorized Chris Steele-Perkins as "British people of Burmese descent" when (back in May) some IP added the category "Anglo-Burmans". His mother was Burmese and his father was British and he was born in Burma, but he was brought up in Britain and as far as I know (and as far as I can stretch the term "ethnicity") he's not of "Burmese ethnicity". So while Anglo-Burman as described above might fit, I don't believe that Anglo-Burman as described on the category page would. And if it did fit, then since Anglo-Burman is itself a subcat of British people of Burmese descent then he'd only need to be in the former.

If I understand "Anglo-Burman" correctly from the above, then for a start it should not be a subcat of "British people of Burmese descent".

I took a look at a few other people. Beckinsale was a dimly familiar surname, and interestingly three of them are listed, again in both categories. One of the three (pops) is one quarter Burmese. Two (the gals) are merely one-eighth Burmese; although yes, they are indeed of Burmese descent, such a claim sounds to me rather desperate, akin to the way various very "anglo" north Americans like to talk of their trace of Indian "blood". But OK, of Burmese descent they are. But I've no idea of how they are Anglo-Burman. Even pops Beckinsale was born in Nottinghamshire, Blighty (or so the article says). There's not a hint anywhere in the articles that he or the kids were/are even slightly Burmese in any sense other than ancestry.

So I think all three Beckinsales, and likely various other people, should be removed from "Anglo-Burman".

Or am I failing to grasp something? -- Hoary (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the category appears to have been applied incorrectly in some instances. We also need to bear in mind WP:CATEGRS and think about whether these people should be categorised by ethnicity at all. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is that worry too. I'm quite willing to "be bold", but this whole business of classing people by ancestry or ethnic identity or both is not one that makes me enthusiastic. (Even if some actor were indisputably to have said in an interview or three that she was one eighth Burman, Karen, Shan, Burmese, Colombian or Sioux, I'd tend to think this was no more significant than her current hairstyle.) Plus I'm unfamiliar with the intricacies of how such categories generally work hereabouts. I don't want to be bold and soon thereafter be forced to re-timidify my work. -- Hoary (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Above, Stevvvv4444 refers me (or anyone) to Anglo-Burmese people for a clarification of the meaning of the term and thus the scope of this category. However, after talking about a "community" and stuff of mostly (exclusively?) historical interest, the article talks about the present day and explicitly labels these British people of a small amount of Burmese ancestry (a) as Anglo-Burmans/Burmese (b). So whereas the category structure has (a) subsuming (b), the article has (b) subsuming (a).

This category seems largely populated by British slebs who, it's claimed, have a Burmese parent, grandparent, or great-grandparent. Further examples? Ben Cullum has such a background, we're told (with no detail or source), but actually he's the brother of Jamie Cullum, about whom: "His mother, Yvonne, is a secretary of Anglo-Burmese origin" (again, no detail or source).

Please see Talk:Anglo-Burmese people: "So just who in 2010 is 'Anglo-Burmese' (or 'Anglo-Burman')?" -- Hoary (talk) 02:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)