Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scandinavian diaspora


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

The result was KEEP. Notwithstanding any continuing disagreement over the use of the term "diaspora" in its broader sense (though even the nominator here seems at least somewhat won over by Sharktopus's helpful explanations below), sourcing has been provided establishing that this term has been used in reliable sources, and that it may refer singly or collectively to a number of different article topics. Whether construed as a disambiguation page or set index, none of the deletion arguments have substantively refuted its validity as a term, nor its usefulness as a pointer to the article topics listed therein. postdlf (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Scandinavian diaspora
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not sure how this page serves to disambiguate. It seems to have been created in an effort to legitimize the idea that all migrations are diasporas, when a contentious debate has prevailed on several of the sub articles about the use of the word diaspora. Avanu (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's nothing to disambiguate here because none of these articles have similar titles to each other, other than all using the word "diaspora". If people want to read about the Swedish diaspora or the Norwegian diaspora or the others listed here, they can go directly to those pages without going through this page which contains nothing but links to other articles. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Although I note that this page has changed since this AfD began, I don't think it has been improved enough to warrant keeping the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Standard disambiguation page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: "Disambiguation" presupposes that people are going to type in the same search query looking for different results. It is no more likely that someone will type that in instead of (say) Swedish diaspora than they would European diaspora in dealing with the various European nationalities.   Ravenswing  07:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete -given that the user who created this seems to have gone on to create List of Scandinavian diasporas (possibly in response to this AfD, but I don't know) there's really no reason for this article to stay. Yaksar (let's chat) 21:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Since Avanu has now also placed an AfD on List of Scandinavian diasporas, and the deletion discussion directs people to this page, I don't think your simple Delete vote is going to delete one and keep the other.  Sharktopus  talk  22:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are 35 book results for Scandinavian diaspora ; I haven't checked every one for reliability of publisher/author; but many of them look pretty reliable. The first one that shows up for me is from Oxford, Empires and barbarians: the fall of Rome and the birth of Europe By Peter Heather,, posing the question "Why did the Scandinavian diaspora occur when it did, and why did it take so many forms?" That by itself is enough to justify this page. Novickas (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - sorry to say but that undeniable reference you mentioned is talking about Vikings. Also notice the page headings, they say "Viking diasporas", which is multiple not singular.  This implies a different meaning than what is being pushed by this page.  RAN and others are pushing a view that *all* members of a class are a singular diaspora, which is contrary to how your source uses it. I would say the migration of AD 1872 was probably a completely different culture than the one in AD 972. -- Avanu (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We can probably agree there were multiple SDs. See for instance this book ref, published by Rodopi,, "The lack of interest in the Scandinavian diaspora, outside of that of the US and Canada...", apparently in reference to New Zealand, not Vikings I suppose. Fixing the individual articles that this disambig page points to, so that they reflect the various eras, is a separate issue. The disambig page should point us to the various peoples (current nations) over time that migrated in significant numbers, which are collectively referred to as Scandinavian diasporas, and it does. Novickas (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ack, a hornet's nest. If the individual WP articles go thru renaming procedures, and all end up without the word diaspora in their titles, this one could go away, I suppose; but at this time there is a set of diaspora articles, Swedish diaspora etc., about peoples we know as Scandinavian. Novickas (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Convert to set index seems like it is a WP:SETINDEX, so I'm going to boldly change the dab template to SIA. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 04:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as a set index -- or stubify as an article paragraph about the migrations and which are or aren't recognized in reliable sources as diaspora. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a useful disambiguation page if somebody does a search for "Scandinavian diaspora." What other page would we like them to end up on? We do not delete useful Wikipedia articles because we allege the creator had an unworthy motive. If anyone wants to argue against Wikipedia's widespread practice of using the word "diaspora" in its wider sense, a wider RfC on the term should be filed, tho IMO the consensus at a related CfD was to allow Wikipedians to use the word "diaspora" in a broad sense as if it meant "foo people living in not foo." Sharktopus  talk  16:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Why not an actual page for "Scandanavian Diaspora" if there is such a thing? A simple list of things that happen to be in Scandanavia doesn't seem to show that this is a noteworthy subject. If there actually is/was a Scandanavian Diaspora then let's do that, but as is, I see no reason to keep it except that it is another attempt to present diaspora as a preferred term.   Other note: the Category for Deletion discussion that Shark mentioned was not a vote on the use of 'diaspora' in Wikipedia, but a decision whether to rename a category.  -- Avanu (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment It is a disambiguation page. We have a lot of disambiguation pages and they are useful when people do a search for an term we don't have have an article about. Or when people do a search looking for answers that might be in one of several different Wikipedia articles. Other note, see my comment above for a link to my describing 11 strong opinions about the general use of "diaspora" voiced in that CfD, 8 of whom favored the broader definition.  Sharktopus  talk  19:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, it is rather disingenuous to continue misquoting the Category for Deletion.
 * A thorough review shows a much more diverse set of opinions that you present it to be. Yes, a few people 'favored' a wider definition, but most agreed that it had a specific and more narrow definition, they just didn't agree that it needed deletion as a category, and in fact, I might have voted to allow it on the same grounds if I were aware it then. But we need to be faithful to the outcome, not expand it as a referendum on all uses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_March_8#Category:Diasporas
 * -- Avanu (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to quote CfD participant (and one of the 3 !votes for a narrow definition) Dingo179: "Sharktopus' summaries of the discussion are about correct. I was surprised at how broad a definition people supported for "diaspora"." I am glad you linked to the whole CfD so that people can see for themselves that, while a wide range of comments were made on both sides, the number of users making those comments is much more relevant than the number of comments because a few users made a lot of comments. The word "disingenuous" implies dishonesty, it is my belief that you and I have an honest disagreement about the relevance and outcome of the CfD, and I have tried several times to clarify what I think and why I think it.   Sharktopus  talk  19:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Disingenuous" implies misleading, it doesn't have to be dishonest. (Strangely enough in the quote from Dingo1729 above, you leave out the first part of the sentence: "I still pretty much agree with Avanu, but on the other hand..."
 * The problem we keep seeing is that you're wanting to see these people as having agreed with you in total, when in fact there was only some degree of agreement, as even I myself agree with you partially, but the way you characterize things, almost everyone was in agreement and we just need to fall in line and agree also. The person you call out to quote (Dingo1729) went on to say "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." -- Avanu (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Dingo1729 was agreeing with you about the scope of the word "diaspora", not about the multiple different claims you have made about what the consensus was or wasn't on that CfD. That part of the sentence (which of course was perfectly clear in the diff I clearly linked to my quote) was not relevant to what I was talking about, the validity of your latest inaccurate claim that only a "few" (8 by my count out of 11 voicing a strong clear opinion) favored allowing a broad usage while "most" agreed that the word also had a narrower meaning. Of course, the word also has many narrower meanings! How would the existence of many narrower meanings for a word like "bug" entitle somebody to force other editors to restrict its usage in the article computer bug? I would welcome a broader referendum on usage if needed, but I strongly oppose what you have been doing, attacking broad use of the term by one single editor in just a few articles. Hundreds of articles already use the term in a broad sense--surely some kind of consensus is implied by that fact too, don't you think? Sharktopus  talk  22:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Essay.svg My what a long thread this is becoming. Let me try and explain more clearly.  I agree with you that diaspora can have a broad meaning.  And from what you have said, it sounds like you agree that it can also have a strict or narrow meaning.


 * I think the issue that is causing a debate here is *when* to use the word at all, or when one uses it, what meaning are they intending? Griswaldo was trying to make a point earlier in another article about how far can the expanded definition be taken before it loses any meaning.


 * For example, are we (all of humanity) part of "the African diaspora", "an African diaspora", or has it simply been too long for that to really to be a useful description in most situations?


 * When a cattle rancher lets the cows out into a 10,000 acre Texas ranch, is that a diaspora?


 * When a single person or their family escapes from Cuba to land in Florida, is that a diaspora?


 * In other words, the older and more strict definition had more clear limits. The 'new' expanded definition seems to be fashionable for academics to use, but it is a bit like a 9-year-old kid with a theasaurus -- their essay isn't great or even stupendous, its elephantine and behemothic.  You can tell when words are being used in a way they weren't intended.  It might be techincally accurate, but it just isn't quite on target.  That's what the more word-conservative crowd is trying to get across here.  Its ok to expand our lexicon and use words in creative and new ways, in fact I love that; its part of what makes language more fun, but we're trying to create an encyclopedia here.  This isn't creative writing class.  And article titles in Wikipedia have some degree of restriction in order to make things easy for people to find.  So any critique of this choice isn't based on a critique that we don't like the word -- its based on a need to keep things clear for the audience.  So while we argue over the minutiae of where a hyphen goes or what a word means, people are looking for knowledge, and we're here working hard to make sure they get it.  I hope this helps, and I hope it clears up my 2 cents on things. -- Avanu (talk) 00:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Essay.svg Let me clarify my two cents. When I say I support a broad usage of "diaspora" I mean only that Wikipedians have a right to use the word as it is used in WP:RS. Wikipedia has many articles with titles about ethnic groups foo with titles such as "Foo emigration",  "Foo emigrants", "Foo Americans", etc. The purpose of using "diaspora" in an article title is to cover those cases where one article combines a pretty broad swathe of some combination of these related categories. WP:TITLE recommends uniformity, recognizability, and brevity in article titles. "Norwegian diaspora" is one of many similar articles that describe generally foo-emigrants-and-their-descendants. See for example French diaspora, which states "The French diaspora consists of French emigrants and their descendants in countries such as the United States, Canada and Latin America." That article has had the same lead sentence since its creation in June 2009. Basque diaspora begins "The Basque diaspora is the name given to describe people of Basque origin living outside their traditional homeland on the borders between Spain and France." That article has had the same lead sentence since at least 2007. We are not talking about a contentious, audacious, new use of the word "diaspora" to title an article that is about foo emigrants and their descendants.
 * If the Norwegian diaspora article states very clearly in its lead that its topic is Norwegian emigrants and their descendants, how is it going to confuse readers if the article then provides information about Norwegian emigrants and their descendants? Where in Norwegian diaspora can you see anybody claiming that a diaspora is one Norwegian moving his cows or any other absurdity? The only uses of the word diaspora, outside the title and the lead sentence explaining the article scope, are in direct quotes from several cited WP:RS usages.
 * Using diaspora to mean "emigrants and their descendants" does not require that we allow people to use "diaspora" as if it meant "a glass of orange juice." If your claim is that Wikipedia should not use diaspora to mean "emigrants and their descendants," please explain why we should change a long-standing usage that is a multiply evident usage in WP:RS as well as in here. And don't you think you should seek a wider consensus before embarking on an ambitious refactoring of many long-established pages? Sharktopus  talk  01:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Essay.svg OK, I like your descriptions above, very apt and to the point.  I'm glad see that you also see a need for some level of restraint in the use of the word.  I have to say that makes me super happy.  As long as we're in that level of agreement, even if there is still some room for leeway, I feel that you will be a good caretaker for these sorts of articles.  In other words, that minor level of restraint is enough to win me over. -- Avanu (talk) 05:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Essay.svg Thank you, I am glad you suggested writing essays, since we ended up understanding each other better. I agree with you that Wikipedia articles are no place for creative inventors of new usages, but now I see that's what it sounded like to you when I talked about "broad usage." We need to get our information and tools from WP:RS.  Sharktopus  talk  11:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. I like the way it has been changed to a set index. The title phrase does look like something that a personn would type in and be curious about, even though there wouldn't be an article about it per se. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 04:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment someone has converted the article away from being an SIA into an article... I think it should be reverted to being a set index again. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 09:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

List guidelines
Since this article was created, it was modified to become a Set-Index Article/list. As such, I have gone back to look up the guidelines for Set-Index Articles and lists in Wikipedia. (Avanu (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC))

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SIA#Set_index_articles 
 * A set index article is a list article about a set of items of a specific type that share the same (or similar) name. For example, Dodge Charger describes a set of cars, List of peaks named Signal Mountain describes a set of mountain peaks, and USS Enterprise describes a set of ships.
 * A set index article is not a disambiguation page: A disambiguation page is a list of different types of things that share the same (or similar) name. A set index need not follow the formatting rules for disambiguation pages; however many do by convention....
 * Fundamentally, a set index article is a type of list article. The criteria for creating, adding to, or deleting a set index article should be the same as for a stand-alone list. The style of a set index article should follow the style guidelines at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. A set index article can be tagged with.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists 
 * Stand-alone lists are Wikipedia articles; thus, they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view.
 * The potential for creating lists is infinite. The number of possible lists is limited only by our collective imagination. To keep the system of lists useful, we must limit the number of lists. Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value.... Lists that are too specific are also a problem.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Listcruft 
 * In general, a "list of X" should only be created if X itself is a legitimate encyclopedic topic that already has its own article. The list should originate as a section within that article, and should not be broken out into a separate article until it becomes so long as to be disproportionate to the rest of the article.

Diaspora and "Semantic shift"
My how things can come into a confluence...

I was looking at the front page of Wikipedia a moment ago and the "Did you know..." section had this to say:


 * ... that although Shishman, a medieval ruler of Vidin, Bulgaria (pictured), was hailed by his contemporaries as a prince, king and even emperor, his only official title was that of despot?

This intrigued me, so I went to the article and discovered that 'despot' has undergone a 'semantic shift'. It was once a positive title analogous to 'lord'. So after discovering this, I plugged "diaspora and 'semantic shift'" into Google. This led me to Highland homecomings: genealogy and heritage tourism in the Scottish diaspora by Paul Basu. I'll quote (and I realize this is a lot):


 * Homeland and diaspora


 * This brings us to a second metaphor of modern identity, one which embraces the 'dual consciousness' of stasis/movement, past/present, home/away: the notion of 'diaspora'. 'Diaspora cultures', suggests James Clifford, 'mediate, in a lived tension, the experiences of separation and entanglement, of living here and remembering/desiring another place' (1997: 255).


 * Indeed, I would argue that diaspora should be considered as only one half of a twin trope with that 'other landscape', the 'homeland'. Like the global and the local, these are relative terms, each constituted in the other, such that there can be no diaspora without an implied place of origin (real or imagined), no homeland without an implied sense of displacement.


 * In recent years, diaspora has become something of a buzzword across the social sciences, used to describe almost any dispersed population regardless of the circumstances of its dispersal: 'where once were dispersions', bemoans Khachig Tölöyan, 'there now is diaspora' (1996: 30).


 * Tölöyan maintains that, despite its more neutral etymological roots, a semantic stability had prevailed around the term from the second century CE until the late 1960s, based on what he describes as the 'Jewish paradigm' (1996: 13). This 'paradigmatic diaspora' is characterized primarily by the coercive nature of the forces resulting in the uprooting and resettlement of a population outside the boundaries of its established homeland.


 * Diaspora, thus defined, may therefore be 'juxtaposed to the voluntary and cumulative emigration of individuals or small groups, which can also result in the formation of dispersion and enclaves in host countries' (ibid.: 12). Accordingly, Tölöyan argues, as well as the Jewish Diaspora, one can legitimately identify, for example, African and Armenian diasporas by the unequivocality of their respective cultural traumas, whereas to contemplate an Indian diaspora, for instance, formed by the migration of indentured labourers, or a British diaspora, formed by colonisation and voluntary emigration, requires a fundamental semantic shift -- a problemative shift in which the meaning and power of the word itself becomes diffuse.


 * Despite Tölöyan's protestations, it appears that diaspora has indeed become a 'promiscuously capacious category' (1996: 8). 'For better or worse', writes Clifford, 'diaspora discourse is being widely appropriated' and 'is loose in the world' (1997: 249), where it joins an 'unruly crowd of descriptive/interpretive terms [that] now jostle and converse in an effort to characterize the contact zones of nations, cultures and regions' (ibid.: 245). -- Avanu (talk) 04:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * By the way, the author also posts a list of 'Common features of a diaspora', which might help in future diaspora debates. -- Avanu (talk) 04:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion guidelines
There is a list of appropriate reasons to delete at WP:DEL.

Consider also the following advice from WP:JNN: "Simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable. This behavior straddles both 'Just unencyclopedic' and 'Just pointing at a policy or guideline'. Instead of just saying, 'Non-notable,' consider instead saying, 'No reliable sources found to verify notability', or 'The sources are not independent, and so cannot establish that the subject passes our standards on notability', or 'The sources do not provide the significant coverage required by the notability standard.' Providing specific reasons why the subject may not be notable gives other editors an opportunity to research and supply sources that may establish or confirm the subject's notability." We also have a list of policies to cite in deletion debates here: WP:PGL. Sharktopus talk  16:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 'Scandinavian diaspora' is original research unless we have sources to back it up, and if we have sources for 'Scandinavian diaspora', then it seems that it should have a real article, not simply a list (which is also the recommended practice for SIA/Lists). -- Avanu (talk) 04:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Diaspora definitions
Diaspora Scholarship
 * http://www.rhetoricalens.info/index.cfm?fuseaction=feature.display&feature_id=31

"Diaspora communities are characterized—perhaps uniquely—by their movement."

"The movement which gives a diaspora its genesis can be understood by the degree of autonomy a community of individuals exercises in the choice of when and where to move,[3] the acuteness of the break, and the sense of urgency attached to return to the ancestral home. A narrative created through conquest, slavery, or genocide will sound and feel quite different from a narrative of displacement (i.e., the social construction of a home away from home[4]) in which the pull toward the new is greater than the push from the old. Regardless, the “idealized image of home as a paradise they were forced to flee” guides both narratives, engendering feelings of solitude, estrangement, loss and longing."

"Diaspora groups ... must carefully manage their communicative negotiations of their ethnic and national identities in relationship to the homeland as well as the place of settlement. That is, they must present themselves as authentic diasporic and national subjects by creatively connecting their politics in both places so that they are not perceived as disloyal or inauthentic to either."

I would think in articles that have 'diaspora' in the title, there would need to be some adherence to these types of definitions or they would not be valid diasporas. -- Avanu (talk) 01:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is, if nothing else, a plausible search term for the tremendously notable Viking expansion, and so should be at absolute minimum a redirect to that page, even if there's insufficient consensus for the set index approach.  There's an alternative to turning this article into a redlink and therefore WP:ATD applies.  I also think that arguing about the exact definition of a diaspora is a red herring, because when considering whether to redirect, we need to consider what's plausible that a searcher might type in a search box, rather than what's the exact correct title for the article.— S Marshall  T/C 22:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.