Talk:Stateless nation

(Untitled)
The "List of Stateless Ethnic Groups" link shouldn't link to List of active autonomist and secessionist movements. The Roma are stateless, but they aren't a secessionist group.

Tamil-related sentences
Please review WP:OR policy and avoid original research. We can only summarize what is in one or more reliable published sources. The Languages of the World: An Introduction by Asya Pereltsvaig source states nothing about Dravidian state/nationalism, nor does the Minahan source conclude "the Tamil people are one of the largest stateless nation" (refer to this edit of yours). I have no issue summarizing Tamil or Dravidian or whoever in this "Stateless nation" article, but a reliable source must state so. since you have interacted with @Vatasura, your WP:3O would be appreciated. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I think it whould by WP:OR, if it claim Tamils are the largest stateless nation, but the edit claim Tamils are one of the largest stateless nation, this is a big diffrent. Comparing with the population of the other stateless nations, it is safe to say that Tamils have one of the largest population. This edit never claim that Dravidian are a nation or such things, it says only that Tamils belong to Dravidian linguistic group (a language family) who dont make up majority in any country in South Asia.


 * India (Hindi, Indo-Aryan)
 * Sri Lanka (Sinhala, Indo-Aryan)
 * Maladives (Dhivehi, Indo-Aryan)
 * Pakistan (Urdu, Indo-Aryan)
 * Bangladesh (Bengali, Indo-Aryan)
 * Nepal (Nepali, Indo-Aryan)
 * Buthan (Dzongkha, Tibeto-Burman)
 * Afganistan (Pashto, Iranian)
 * What is wrong to mention the truth, that there is no sovereign state in South Asia with a Dravidian speaking majority?
 * As already mentioned, it is only an example to show that stateness nations can also have a large population. Vatasura (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * You ask, "What is wrong to mention the truth, that there is no sovereign state in South Asia with a Dravidian speaking majority?" Wikipedia is not the place for WP:ADVOCACY or WP:SOAP. Nor is this article a place for random factoids such as "Pluto is far far away" or "there is no sovereign state for women in South Asia" or "there is no sovereign state for people who are taller than 5 feet or less than 180 lbs in South Asia" or "there is no sovereign state for [pick one of zillion language or ethnic groups] in this or that country or continent". All this is WP:OR. Please also see WP:FORUM and WP:TALK. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Your comparison is absurd and shows a certain degree of ignorance toward the subject.Vatasura (talk) 01:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I would like to hear some notable names who are demanding separate Tamil nation or those who talk about Tamils being stateless. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 06:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There is a long-term consensus not to add Tamils. They are not stateless. Capitals00 (talk) 14:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Capitals00 Can you point me to that consensus please? It's certainly not in this section. — kashmīrī  TALK  14:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is actually clear why Tamils should not be added here. It has been restored by those who havent even checked the sources that were assessed right above. Capitals00 (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Capitals00 This is not any sort of consensus, please do not misrepresent. This is a discussion of TWO editors who disagreed with each other about quoting a source. Please read WP:CONSENSUS to get an idea of what it means on Wikipedia. Additionally, you've deleted the entry for Tamils at least 10 times in the last year or so, and you were reverted each time by different editors. If you continue edit warring in this article, you might end up being dragged to a noticeboard I'm afraid. — kashmīrī  TALK  14:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I read it as one experienced editor refuting the bad edits made by another editor who had nothing other than assuming bad faith. That is how consensus was formed not to restore the same bad addition.
 * Yes a lot of drive-by editors are going to try their ways to impose their POV on this article but that is not enough for us to tolerate bad edits.
 * I have reverted you since you have been already told that none of these sources support the claim of being "stateless". If you continue restoring this misleading content then you will surely end up at an appropriate noticeboard. Capitals00 (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The discussion above was not at all about having Tamils in or out. It was about language-related claim. — kashmīrī  TALK  15:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Even if you are correct, the fact remains that Tamils are not qualified for this list. To make it more comfortable for you, I would remind you that nearly all other listed names have been recognized by at least one UN agency to be stateless, but that is not the case with the Tamils. I read it as one experienced editor refuting the bad edits made by another editor who had nothing other than assuming bad faith. Capitals00 (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Check out the links in the last column that you keep deleting. — kashmīrī  TALK  17:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That means you agree with what I told. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 12:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ? — kashmīrī  TALK  13:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Forgotten European Stateless Nations
There is a large number of Stateless Nations that I propose can be added based on these two books, both of which have many sources within them to back up each entry.

(https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OLKKVXgEpkoC&lpg=PP1&dq=stateless%20nations&pg=PR5#v=onepage&q=stateless%20nations&f=false) and (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=NwvoM-ZFoAgC&pg=PA1&dq=abazin+nation&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiWh4DQzdvcAhWwx4UKHWP-B-EQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=abazin%20nation&f=false)

These are the first five additions I would propose. If those two sources are not enough then I can send more to back up these peoples being called 'Stateless nations'.

Abkhazians

Abazins

Gagauz people

Kalmyks

Cantabrian people

About Cantonese, Hongkongers and Macanese
1. There are only few sources defining them as nations. And none of these sources are by well-known authors. There are many more sources describing these three as branches of Han Chinese.

2. Guangdong independence movement and Macao independence movement are both pseudopropositions that have no real influence at all.

3. Conflicting with the content of Cantonese, Hongkongers, Macanese.

射命丸 (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * 1. These are indeed sources, regardless of number, branches can be interprated as an identity forming the basis for a nation. To say otherwise would be to take a stand explicitely in favour of one side, when there are increasingly people questionning this vision of themselves.
 * 2. is a personal opinion of yours. If they have a page here, they have passed the relevency test. The job of this page, like all things on Wikipedia, is to catalogize things and let you make your own mind about them.
 * 3. I fail to see where it conflicts with the content, they are peoples distinct enough to have their own page.
 * 4. In all cases, it's not a reason to wipe the floor clean and erase swathes of what you don't agree with. They've checked the criteria of having relevant pages able to fill all spots of the template. 142.170.60.247 (talk) 05:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 1. The number of sources represents the degree of recognition and authority of the viewpoints. If any cited information can be added to Wikipedia, then adding "Taiwan is part of the People's Republic of China" to the page Taiwan is also okay. Because numerous books published in the People's Republic of China hold this view. However this is obviously not true.
 * 2. This does not mean that the content has passed the relevant test. These contents were recently added by Kinginkingspark and caused controversy as soon as they were added into the page.
 * 3. Several notable examples: Are the Hakkas in Guangdong considered Cantonese? Are Tewchow people in Guangdong considered Cantonese? The page Hongkongers defines Hongkongers as the resident of Hong Kong, so does a person who obtains Hong Kong status due to studying or working abroad belong to the so-called Hongkongers nation? What's more, the page mentions "Hong Kong is home to a number of people of different racial and ethnic origins" instead of defining all Hong Kong people as a nation.
 * 4. I am not the one who deleted the content for no reason. After I started this topic on the discussion page, Kinginkingspark still did not reply and insisted on adding the contents instead of discussing here. Regardless, I welcome contributions to the discussion.射命丸 (talk) 07:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 1 Has an obvious solution that has been discussed plenty in the guidelines of Wikipedia : if there are sources with conflicting viewpoints, you add parts for one and the other, in order of proportion, so that it encyclopedically gives a emotionally-detached presentation of the subject. Sources are everything here. If some say they are a stateless nation, it is a sourced view, and thus that page must categorize it for the interest of the subject. Do people have to agree with it? No. I don't agree with some here too, but that's not my place to remove them based on what I feel (especially not with big delete swathes that help no one), if sources say they are, I must respect that and anyone should too. Doesn't mean it is condoned or condemned, it simply is a fact some have those views and so we should talk about it.
 * 2 Pages on wikipedia must be assumed to have passed the relevancy test. If they don't, they are deleted. So if they're not, they're relevant. That's how things go here. I don't agree with the choices always, but I must respect it and all should too, regardless of how we feel about them, else go make a deletion request for those pages. Until then, they are. With all due respect, you were pretty much the sole one who found controversy in them. Tons of users and IP adresses came and went and saw no problem in them by not touching it.
 * 3 Some people inside a potential stateless nation think they do, others don't. Doesn't change the fact some people think Cantonese are a nation (see how it's not a question of if it is or not, just how far its limits go), your exemples are controversies about how far the definition of "Cantonese" goes, not about if the Cantonese nation exist or not. Nations by nature are about identity, and thus sociocultural, extending to all identifying with it, so yes, an Hongkonger abroad would, like a Kurd (some countries, like Turkey, deny their very existence as a nation by calling them mountain turks) or a Québécois also on the page, be a Hongkonger. There is a reason why it's an entry on multiple censuses. See "Cultural identity" part of the page and Opinion polling on Hong Kong identity. Hong Kong nationalism is a thing, sources say its a thing, quite explicitely (like "The internationalism of stateless nations : The case of Hong Kong" from Justin Chun-ting Ho). Cantonese nationalism is also a thing and where there is nationalism, there is a nation to be nationalistic about. So the argument doesn't work.
 * 4 Yes you did, just not the same ones being erased from existence despite everything working in their favour to say "hey, some people say they are". That inclusion was made far before Kingpin arrived here, up to months before. There wasn't a consensus not to have it here either, to repeat number 2 point, you are pretty much the sole user to object to it here. No one help by just removing swathes of the page (would be the same thing if it were me), have the consensus to remove them, then remove it, not beforehand else it's calling for edit wars. --142.170.60.247 (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Firstly there are two false arguments:
 * 1. "Pages on wikipedia must be assumed to have passed the relevancy test" constitutes a circular argument with your previous discussion. According to your point, everything added to Wikipedia must be assumed to have passed the relevance test so nothing should be removed from Wikipedia.
 * 2. I don't understand how you came to the conclusion that I am the only one who has objections and I hope you will check the editing record again.
 * About the content of the article itself:
 * 1. The first point you mentioned is correct in general articles, but this is a list article and only includes content that reaches consensus.
 * 2. If a group of people do not consider themselves to belong to the Cantonese nation, then no one has any reason to count their population figures into the so-called Cantonese nation like Kinginkingspark did.
 * 3. The survey you provided can only show the respondents' recognition of the identity of "Hongkonger" but does not represent their recognition of whether "Hongkonger" is a nation. Just like in Taiwan, the vast majority of people identify themselves as Taiwanese rather than Chinese, but this does not mean that they do not identify themselves as Han Chinese.
 * 4. Citizens of Macau, when polled by the University of Hong Kong's Public Opinion Programme, identified significantly more strongly as "Chinese", let alone people in Guangdong Province.
 * 射命丸 (talk) 06:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * First of all, the point of the relevancy test is not a circular argument, since I explicitely said that this does NOT mean that nothing gets to be removed, just that it is relevant until a deletion request is successful, THEN it lose that relevency. IE it happens not when one just single-handly removes what they don't agree with, but out of a discussion that ended up with the conclusion it didn't reach enough relevency to warrant a page in the first place. So it is removed...in the right way and according to Wikipedia guidelines. You rearranged what I said while conveniantly ignoring what I also said to make it say what I didn't say. Just like my first point, conveniantly ignored.
 * Secondly, I fail to see the difference between a general article and a list article, especially on how the founding principles of Wikipedia suddenly don't apply if it's a list in a general article.
 * Thirdly, identities are not mutually exclusive. One can identify with being Hungarian and Turanian at the same time, Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar, Danish and Scandinavian, Bavarian German and European (being a pro-EU Bavarian nationalist that doesn't believe in a Bavarian nation-state for exemple), Hawaiian and American. The "significantly more strongly" is irrelevant to the whole point : is it AN identity people identify with regardless. Even your own third point says so that your fourth point is not relevant to the discussion at hand. If there was a Macanese nationalism page or a Macanese independantism page (ie things stateless nations are at a stage of fighting for), or multiple sources indicating it is a stateless nation (so an exemple to categorize on a list listing exemples of peoples deemed stateless nations) it would be fitting here. There weren't, so on the Macao one, out of principle, I must agree with you, but the Hong Kong and Cantonese ones do, so I demand you please bring them back in for they check all the marks, marks that would be unchecked by the same logic if those pages weren't there. You can't be nationalistic if there is no potential nation to be nationalistic about, even if currently fringe like all nationalist movements and national conceptions were at some point without exception in history, does that make them illegitimate if Wikipedia existed back then? The Cantonese case is mainly in the diaspora due to the policies of the PRC that doesn't allow such discussions to even be made in Guangdong without crackdown. Regardless, there is a nation if there is nationalism, and it is recognized by the multiple sources accompanying these you deleted, so please revert those. To reiterate, you won on Macao, but any possible objective logic for why we have for the other members of the list (and again, it's not out of personal approval or lack thereof, it must be exterior to that) apply here as well, giving you Macao but giving us Cantonese and Hongkongers. They also respect the criteria given all above the talk page.
 * Fourthly, yes, I've checked and unless I missed something, you and one other user with chinese symbols who only contributed to this one page screaming "Cantonese isn't nation!" nothing added more, did. 142.170.60.247 (talk) 00:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's talk about the sources.
 * The sources cited for Cantonese, two books named 粵江流域人民史 and 泰族僮族粵族考, do not discuss the current Cantonese people, but the people who lived in Guangdong about 2000 years ago. These two books only use the word "Cantonese" and have nothing to do with Cantonese people today. There is also sentences like this in the book: "古百粤族與今日的僮族与泰族不過是名称上的區別. " ("The difference between the ancient Cantonese people and today's Zhuang and Dai people is just in name.") This is just disguised replacement of concept.
 * And among the 100 million people in Guangdong, the proportion of people who identify themselves as Chinese is even much higher than that of Macau. So Cantonese is even more should be removed from this list.
 * About Hongkonger, I admit that I confused the concepts of nation and Minzu. From the concept of nation, I think it does make sense for Hongkonger to exist in this list.--射命丸 (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * PS. Do Londoners as a nation need a state? Do we need to emphasize that Hongkongers, Macanese, and Cantonese need a state? Or are some people trying to create issues to encourage implementation in the real world - to promote the creation of so-called independent national states in a region? Are the above three concepts just 'the residents living there (whose existence is related to the larger national culture)', or is it a very unique 'nation' that can be completely separated from other parallel things like 'nation'? --Cwek (talk) 08:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The current complexity of this issue lies in the fact that some real people or organizations try to whitewash the unique culture or lifestyle of a small number of residents living in that area, calling them an independent 'nation', shaping or exaggerating their differences with the up 'nation', thereby promoting the issue of real world: establishing an independent nation-state to separate it from its up nation-state. That is why there are issues that advocate support for "Hong Kong independence", "Macau independence", and even "Canton independence": the influence. --Cwek (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Is there a London nationalism page? No. So it's not here. Non-argument. The rest of your argument goes the other way too, people removing relevant independance and nationalism movements to STOP implementation in the real world. The Hong Kong independence has IMMENSELY been covered during the 2018 protests. The position to explicitely erase for political gain their existence that an encyclopedic article on relevant subjects must talk about due to the nature is to explicitely take an immensely pro-CCP position on the question, violating all values of Wikipedia about being an encyclopedia documenting things that have existed while leaving users to make their own decisions. This is just pro-obscurantism at this poin t. 142.170.60.247 (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)