Category talk:People by nationality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Discussion

Nationality This seems to treat nationality as equivalent to country. There are

  • nationalities without corresponding countries:
    • Puerto Rican, Hawaiian, various pre-colonial ethnicities of North American mainland
    • Kurdish, Assyrian
    • Chechen (arguably), various Siberian ethnic groups, Tatar, Karelian, and probably others
    • Tibetan, Uyghur, & probably other non-Han ethnic groups of China
    • Sikhs (arguably not just a religion), Tamil, Ainu, Okinawan, Hmong, Shan
    • Basque, Breton, Catalan, Galician, Scottish, Welsh, Roma, Lapp, perhaps Frisian
  • and nationalities that substantially extend beyond the corresponding countries (to name a few, and leaving out those i could list simply because "New York has more than the capital city of the corresponding country")
    • Irish
    • Armenian
    • most of the ex-Soviet historically Muslim republics (many have minorities in at least Afghanistan)
    • several East-European nationalities
    • Russian (Baltic states, Georgia, Moldova, & at least Kazakhstan come to mind)
    • Korean (two Koreas & North America)
    • Cuban, Mexican (US)
    • Asian-derived nationalities with widespread diasporas:
    • Mongolians
    • Jews (not just a religion, and arguably Jews and/or non-Israeli Jews are a nationality)

--Jerzy(t) 04:57, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)

This is a complete misnomer if you are suggesting that you can be Irish and not born in Ireland. In this instance a person would be of Irish descent, but their nationality is determined by their place of birth. However, you can be Irish and move to another country. Your nationality/status would change, but you would, of course, be from Ireland. Your future children, if any, would not be Irish. This trend of assuming nationality based on descent seems more prevalant in America than anywhere else. --Gerald Davies 11:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Is there some categorization project with policy to categorize people by nativity? The articles on nation and nationality make clear that there are multiple meanings. (Even nativity isn't decisive.) --P64 18:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "People by nationality" vs "List of people by nationality"

Can anyone help me understand this? Two lists:

are not the same, eg: the first has Zimbabwean people but not Zambian people; the second has Zambians but not Zimbabweans. Both lists are partial -- presumably the lists are not generated automatically by the database?

--Mount Pleasant 16:58, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inuit

Someone forgot to add the "category:Inuit people" in the "category:People". --Eleassar777 22:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] People of Nation

I suggest we consider following what seems an emerging consensus on the Commons to use "(subject) of (name of place)" categorization, thus for example "People of Japan" rather than "Japanese people". -- Infrogmation 00:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd support that, categorizing by Nationality seems to have created disputes and problems since the very start. How would you guys feel changing this scheme to "Categorization by Country" scheme. Category:American people for example is confusing since it refers to citizens of the US and not entire America continents. Category:American people would become Category:People from the United States/Category:People of the United States for example. -- Cat chi? 09:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I would oppose it, for two reasons:
  1. Moving from an adjectival construct requires greater precision about the relationship between nationality and countries than is actually the case. There are many parts of the world where there is (or has recently been) a mismatch between the two: Eritrea and Slovenia are recently independent nations, Tibet and Taiwan are countries according to some definitions but not according to others. What about East Timor?
  2. We can live with a small anomaly. There is a linguistic problem in all sets of nationality-based "fooish stuff" categories in that some countries and nationalities do not have adjectives (e.g. Category:New Zealand). In those cases, we have a workable solution in some cases by the kludge of Cat:Noun people, e.g. Category:New Zealand people. The two other problematic other cases which I am aware of are the United States (where the commonly-used adjective "American" is widely used, as in Cat:American people, but is also imprecise) and the United Kingdom, where the term "British" is widely used but is also inaccurate (the country is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). However, I'm wary of resructuring the whole category on the basis of three anomalies where we already have a solution which works well in practice (namely, to either use a noun as an adjective or to use a widespread and well-understood adjective where available).
  3. It's not really true for Cool Cat to say that nationality-based categories "have created disputes and problems since the very start"; it would be more accurate to say that Cool Cat has had a long-running and highly disruptive one-person campaign to remove nationality-based categories, and to permit categorisation only by nation-state or subdivisions thereof, which all seems to be targeted towards his determination delete all or most "Kurdish" categories. For examples of this effort, see (inter alia): WP:ANI Archive102, History_of_Kurdistan|CfD Cat:History_of_Kurdistan, CfD Cat:Cities on the Great_Lakes, CfD Cat:Kurdish films, and CfD Cat:Films by culture.
    These and numerous other discussions show a long-standing effort to to remove Kurdish categories, partly by direct opposition, but also by trying to construct principles which would allow their deletion through manufactured precedent (the Great Lakes cities CfD is a particularly good example of the technique.
So although the status quo isn't perfect, it seems to me that every alternative would create more problems. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I was actually expecting something like this.
Defacto countries are fine. They can be categorized as a country since there is a verifiable claim that they claim to be a country. People born inside the "defacto" country can be tagged as being both from that defacto country and the dejure country based on where they were born at. Category:British people refers to citizens of the United Kingdom. A switch doesn't even feel controversial there.
This would not affect "countryless" people. An article about a Kurdish person can be tagged with both Category:Kurdish people (ethnicity) and Category:People from Turkey (citizenship) if the person carries Turkish citizenship. Categorizing a person from Turkey, Iran, Syria and Iraq under same category is unhelpful.
A lot of countries such as Turkey have citizenship and ethnicity represent the same thing. Anyone who has a Turkish citizenship is by default "Turkish" (Turkish citizen). However Turkish can also mean an ethnicity. So calling a Kurd "Turkish" is not a very good idea. You can verify this by going to Turkey's entry on CIA world factbook. The word "Turkish" appears twice: once under "Nationality" and once under "Ethnic groups").
-- Cat chi? 12:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Cool cat, I have read and re-read what you wrote and I'm not sure what the purpose is of all this, except to strengthen your determination to draw a rigid barrier between the concepts of nationality and statehood. Sure, there is a difference, but it's an imprecise and fluid one, and in human affairs there often isn't some neat and consistent formula such as may be found in engineering. Think for a moment about the consequences of this for Catalonia: if there are different formats for nationality and country, then one side or other of the Catalan nationalism debate will be offended. Why create such a conflict where none is needed?
The change would cause massive disruption: look at the number of subcats of the people by country categories, such as the occupational categories and the religion categories. To restructure as you suggest would involve renaming tens of thousands of categories. To what end? All, it seems, to satisfy your fixation on ensuring that wikipedia does not label Kurdistan in a way that might be seen as compatible with it being a country.
For the purpose of making useable categories which assist navigation, does it matter the "country" is a defacto state, a de jure state, a former state, a wannabe state, a former Ottoman province, an ethnic region or a fantasy region designed by a bunch of crazy terrorists? Apart from the nominator's suggestion of following the lead from the Commons, the only purpose that I can see of this proposed change is the same as that in your CFD for Category:Cities on the Great Lakes: to prioritise nation-states in categorisation to permit hte removal of the Kurdish categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
"Sure, there is a difference, but it's an imprecise and fluid one" is the basis on what I am trying to do. I want categorization should be based on solid criteria which is achievable. WP:CAT#Some general guidelines #7 and #8 suggest that categories should never have hazy inclusion criteria unless absolutely necessary. Remember, categorization is a navigation aid and it should not have any other purposes.
Catalonia claims to be an Autonomous Community in the Kingdom of Spain. It is a subcat of Spain which is both a verifiable and neutral claim since Catalonia is not disputing this. People from Catalonia are people with Spanish nationality/citizenship and also people with Catalonian nationality/ethnicity which is the basis of the confusion; they are however "from Spain". Categorizing people by citizenship would fix the confusion.
"Former country/former Ottoman provinces" categories would be much more useful than blanket nationality categories. You would be able to navigate among citizens of the now defunct country. Defacto/dejure country categorization can be conducted pretty easily. We categorize cities by country, I do not see why we can't do that by country. Non dejure/defacto states (wannabe states) should not be categorized to be a country as per WP:NOT#CB.
As for "ethnic regions or fantasy regions designed by a bunch of crazies" - they do not seem to fit our basic guidelines of categorization either by nationality or country.
-- Cat chi? 13:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)