Talk:Diaspora/Archive 1

Pacific Diaspora

i think that the pacific diaspora is an interesting topic that had a lot to do with the Colombian Exchange and the Atlantic Slave Trade. Right now, i am studying the Atlantic Slave TRade in World Studies class and we just had an exam on it. This is a very interesting topic.

Cuban Diaspora

Do not delete on the basis of "poor sources". The sources are Scholastic and a video (primary source) of Fidel Castro admitting that he is a Marxist. It is beyond dispute that (1) over 1 million Cubans have left Cuba since 1959 due to an event generally recognized as being called a "Cuban Revolution". So either (1) The Cuban Revolution never happened; (2) the video of Castro is edited or the milliions who remember his statements are wrong or (3) the editors who keep removing this are biased.

That Castro "admits" he is a Marxist does not mean that the political and economic policies of Cuba can be so described. Only in propaganda are countries labelled Marxist when they would be more properly labelled ""Communist. Pinkville (talk) 14:06, 29 December 2009. (UTC)

Muslim Diaspora

"The presence of the Muslim Diaspora in has been a source of anxiety in some western circles, since the spread of international terrorism."

I think this either needs to be much expanded to explain the reasons behind it, etc, maintaining a NPOV; or removed. As it stands it implies that muslims are solely responsible for international terrorism - and while this is a view held by some, it isn't NPOV. Thryduulf 16:32, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Australian Diaspora

"Almost 5% of the present day Australian population lives outside of Australia for a variety of reasons. This phenomenon, until recently not widely discussed in Australian political debate, has become known as the Australian Diaspora." This issue is largely due to our (Australia's) steady Western-style economy where the people have much political, social and economical freedom. Therefore have the choice and ability to migrate to wherever he or she may choose to. My whole point is to say that the quote above is rather missleading and many, as it says "not widely discussed", where is the evidence that it is not widely discussed? Did an outsider of Australia write this? As it does not represent what the majority of the Australian public percieve as a "political debate". And where was this "Almost 5%" statistic taken from? As acurate as it is, it's credibility is little to nothing as the party who wrote the above comment has made little attempt to back there obvious point-of-view.

Get rid of it. I've never heard the term. It doesn't fit. There has been no obligation for people from Australia to migrate, and most return to Australia. Enzedbrit 21:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Who has put this back in?! This is nonsense! It is a British diaspora in the Mediterranean caused by holiday makers and retirees in search of the sun? There is no definition in this article that justifies an 'Australian' diaspora! The double irony is that many of these Australians themselves would probably already refer to themselves as part of an ethnic group that itself has wound up in Australia as part of a diaspora. Stop watering down this term! Enzedbrit 06:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Could not agree more (speaking as an Australian). Diaspora must have a strong element of compulsion if it is to mean anything, and no Aussie ever feels compelled to leave Australia (far less being compelled to do so) for anything other that personal, even intimate, reasons.

72 or 135 AD/CE

The Roman expulsion of Jews from Jerusalem is the date being disputed. The 72 date may come from Josephus. The 135 date refers to the last revolt under the Romans led by Simon bar Kokhba. This is probably correct, although sources are not as handy. I will restore the 135 date as I believe this is correct. Any further clarifications or information is welcome. DJ Silverfish 21:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

72 is the desctruction of the Temple, 135 is the Bar Kokhba revolt. The expulsion from Israel was after 135. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:19, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, theTemple was destroyed in 70, 72 was the fall of Masada, Bar Kochba was 132-135, and there was no expulsion from the land. Peoplesimply migrated. The fact is that the Tannaim and many of the Amoraim still lived there. There were flourishing communities in Yavneh, Susiah, and the Galilee. Danny 21:23, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back Danny. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Simon bar Kokhba article mentions expulsion from Jerusalem proper. This may have been symbolic. DJ Silverfish 01:10, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, Jerusalem was razed and Jews were denied entry. However, we know that for the next several hundred years, they could go at least up to the walls on the anniversary of the destruction of the Temple. At the time of Julian, there was even a brief attempt to rebuild the Temple, but this was stopped by an earthquake and Julian's death. However, it indicates that for the next 200 years, Jews lived in the immediate vicinity if not in Jerusalem/Aelia Capitolina proper. Danny 01:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Hispanic diaspora

I've never heard this term to describe Hispanic immigration to the US. I suppose because the Spanish were in the southwestern U.S. before English-speaking Americans were (though nearly all of the Hispanic immigrants to the US today aren't descended from those few Spanish/Mexican residents of the pre-1846 U.S. Southwest). It just seems odd to call it a diaspora. Why isn't all European immigration to the U.S. called a diaspora here too? Also, Hispanics aren't being forced (although I do understand that economic circumstances compel them, it's different than being forced off land by government edict) to leave Mexico, etc. - to the contrary. Moreover (the more I think abou this entry the more I want to remove it), the population of Hispanics (30-some million) in the U.S. is given in this article as evidence of this diaspora. Yet some of these Hispanics are descended from people who have been here longer than any European-descended settlers. Why are they being counted? Resolved:I'm taking it out. If someone wants to re-include it, put your justification here. Why this "diaspora" and not the "Irish diaspora" of the 1840s? Why not the "Italian diaspora" to the U.S. in the 1890s etc etc. You're using "diaspora" too loosely. Moncrief 18:08, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Agree, except Spaniards are Europeans, so you should really refer to “…descended from people who have been here longer than any OTHER European-descended settlers.”

American Diaspora?

A recent editor has added text suggesting that the widescale evacuations as a result of Hurricane Katrina are an example of an 'american diaspora'. I reverted the change once, but the editor put it back, so I'd like to gauge consensus here before acting on it again. It's my understanding that the term is meant to suggest a widescale 'spreading to the winds' of sort, where an entire culture is essentially uprooted and dispersed worldwide. Examples include the jewish diasporas, where they essentially picked up everything and left over a period of years. I don't think that the evacuation of New Orleans meets the spirit of the term, but I might be wrong. Any thoughts? - CHAIRBOY 16:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it's an insult to all those who have actually suffered. Dmn € Դմն 17:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Bold textI don't think it is any insult to the victims of New Orleans but a fact. That was an American diaspora. Many victims have migrated to other neighboring countries eg Canada. The perception that the US is invincible or cannot be labeled as other people of other nationalities is totally wrong. That was an american diaspora.

The anon ip user has added it a couple more times after it's been taken out by others. I've left a request on their talk page (if they see it) asking them to come to talk so we can get a better understanding of why they think that an evacuation = diaspora. - CHAIRBOY 14:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I've moved it here for discussion, as the proper way to deal with it. I agree that it's a far-fetched use of the term. Pollinator 14:37, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

* The flight of refugees from New Orleans represents an American Diaspora.

I received the following email, presumably from the anon user making the change:

carlton yates <carlton.yates@gmail.com> to ben

I think this is a Diasopra and so do others.

http://news.google.com/news?q=katrina%20diaspora&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&safe=off&sa=N&tab=wn

I will continue to edit and correct this document as long as I live. Please let this stand.

I read 'as long as I live' to possibly mean 'without regard to consensus', but I may be mistaken. I hope the user will join us here to hash this out. - CHAIRBOY 15:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

carlton yates  to ben 
 More options   10:40 am (0 minutes ago) 

Why is the news media using the term? How about showing the victims of this disaster the proper respect. Language is one tool we have. This is a diaspora. People are widely scattered and will most likely remain so. How do you account for the usage of the diaspora at the BBC to depict this event? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4203360.stm

Maybe the "growing consensus" is not well read. Why would you even make this an issue? It is very sad. Help give these Diasporans some dignity and stop erasing their presence from the wiki page. Out of site outta mind I guess.

• Unsigned comment by 70.112.219.163

There need not be a "consensus" yet, because as a New Orleanean born and raised, now renting a house in Birmingham, AL and trying to locate many, many friends, colleagues, partners, vendors, customers, employees and family scattered all over, I can assure you that history will record this as a diaspora, a natural event which reshaped the population centers in the South and Southwest, and a true scattering of the unique culture of a unique locale. Unsigned comment 63.211.98.2 04:51, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Completely absurd use of the term. Disrespectful to genuine victims of diaspora, such as African slaves. There is no such thing as "natural diasporas", diasporas are man-made, period. --MateoP 01:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I would argue that although the hurricane was not man-made, the actual movement of people was a manmade event. If man were not involved, we would have a higher death toll.

The BBC and the New York Times don't think that the use of the term is "absurd". Please do your home work and read the external links. (Carlton Yates)

When did BBC and the New York Times become in charge with definitions of terms? Completely irrelevant. Diasporas are caused by some man-made problem, whether economic or forced movement. Not temporary (even if some chose not to return) inconvenience. --MateoP 02:01, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

MateoP why do you want to censor this? Here are 242 Google news hits for Katrina and Diaspora. http://news.google.com/news?q=%22diaspora%22%20and%20%20%22katrina%22&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&safe=off&sa=N&tab=wn The usage has entered the discussion. Please stop trying to remove it. (Carlton Yates)

A search for "Bush behind 9/11" receives 13,000,000 hits. Feel free to edit that in the 9/11 page if you want. Google hits don't determine definitions of well known terms. Talk about the Katrina disasters on a page where it's relevant. --MateoP 02:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I guess this is the same sad logic that compels you to censorship. Do your homework-there are many diasporas that are created by natural disasters.(Carlton Yates)

I'm willing to compromise. I'll put it at the very bottom and write it so that it is stated as being controversial. --MateoP 03:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Good call. It's being used in the media, but no idea whether it will stick yet. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Distortion "Bush behind 9/11" receives 13,000,000 hits.- Correction "Bush behind 9/11" receives 756 hits. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Bush+behind+9%2F11%22&btnG=Google+Search Facts are easily checked. Try it some time before going public. (Carlton Yates)

Try removing the / and you'll get your 13,000,000 hits genius.

Not so genius-When you remove the /you get 219 hits and when you remove the quotes you capture all references to 9/11. Your claim was made in quotes and /with a specific hit count. Clearly a distortion. How can you even consider editing this wiki when you make such elementary mistakes? (Carlton Yates)

Please review WP:AGF, and consider creating an account so you can sign your messages with ~~~~ and keep close track of activity in pages you're interested in. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Done-Never thought that I would find myself fighting an edit war over something so obvious. Carlton Yates

Listen troll, the point is that google hits do not determine whether or not phrases or different words belong together. Nor does the media calling the evacuations a diaspora make it a diaspora. What you're arguing actually is a logical fallacy, a false appeal to authority because the media nor google are authorities on what is and what isn't diasporas. Come back at me with a substantial amount of sociologists calling the evacuations a diaspora and we'll consider it. Otherwise it's not going in this article. Wikipedia is not a weblog; it's not your forum to make arguments on the way diaspora should be defined. Go to blogger.com if that's what you're looking for. If you continue to edit this while consensus is against it, then we're just going to have to go to a moderator to lock up the page until a vote can be held. I'm not allowing you to use Wikipedia as your own personal POV forum. --MateoP 19:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Put it to a vote. If the community thinks this is not a diaspora then I can accept that. Carlton Yates 21:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Please see WP:INAD. That said, we can poll for consensus, but the wikipedia isn't served by hitting you over the head. Discussion towards consensus about this should be our goal. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:01, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

What I don't really understand is the tendency toward censorship. If you disagree with something fine, then dispute it. Who is served by removing a voice in the conversation. Clearly viewing the results of Katrina as a Diaspora is not a fringe idea. The impulse to remove this perspective from the wiki page is sad. Life is full of things that we don't like--get over it. Dispute it but censoring it makes the wiki an Orwellian group think exercise. Carlton Yates 22:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

You keep adding it in over and over. You don't add in controversial information until after consensus has been reached that it belongs. The neutral status is that it doesn't belong. You have to make the pro-inclusion argument first instead of just adding it everytime I take it out. This shows to me that you are nothing more than a troll attempting to use Wikipedia as your own personal POV forum. It's not. Make the argument that it should be included. It's already been determined that google and news are not authorities on sociological ideas, so please come up with some other argument. Finding sociologists who cite the evacuations as an example of diaspora would be a good argument in favor of inclusion. --MateoP 22:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Dictionary says: "diaspora- A dispersion of a people from their original homeland." Katrina meets this definition. You can edit this out in the short term but history will record this as a diaspora. The edit war continues...Carlton Yates 22:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Poor definition. You again go to an invalid authority. Dictionaries give nominal definitions, definitions of how words are commonly used. True defintions go way beyond that. You have to do better than trying to fit the evacuations into a 1 sentence definition. Go to actual authorities in the field of sociology and come back when you have something. And I will highlight the fact that you continue to edit this into the article when clearly consensus has not be reached. Until consensus is reached then the neutral position is to not include the information in the article. By putting it in there (especially the way you worded it), you are proving my accusation that you are inserting POV material into a wiki article, which is designed to be from a neutral POV. I think anyone observing this debate can see your trollish nature. --MateoP 23:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Sociologist a week out- "You could call it a mini-diaspora. The people in New Orleans, the people along the Gulf really had a culture. In many ways, they have been thrown out of the Garden of Eden, if you will. It's a diaspora brought on for people with no resources." - Joanne Nigg, a sociology professor at the Disaster Research Center at the University of Delaware. Carlton Yates 23:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

From the first paragraph of this article: "The term diaspora (Ancient Greek διασπορά, a scattering or sowing of seeds) is used (without capitalization) to refer to any people or ethnic population forced or induced to leave their traditional ethnic homelands, being dispersed throughout other parts of the world, and the ensuing developments in their dispersal and culture." Now, I feel that the contents of this article should reflect the definition used at the start of this article. To determine whether the refugees from Katrina contribute a disapora or not we need to evaluate the facts against the definition:

• The inhabitants of the region, at least imho, fit the definition of "any people or ethnic population". Ethnically they might not be a united group, but my understanding of the region (I'm British and the closest I've ever been to New Orleans is Arizona) is that it is culturally different to other areas of the United States.
• They certainly have been forced to leive their homes, and with the current mandatory evacuation order a case could easily be made for them having been induced to leave as well. I don't know that it could be classed as their "traditional ethnic homeland", but it certainly is homeland of the culture.
• They are being dispersed throughout other parts of the United States - at least as far away as Florida and Missouri. If this scale of movement and distribution were to be overlayed on a more densely countried area it would be accepted as throught the region/world without question. For example if it were centred on Isreal then the scale would inlcude most of the middle east and significant parts of eastern/south-eastern Europe.
• It is too early to tell what the impact on the culture will be, but I don't think it will be unaffected. We also don't know yet how many of those that are currently displaced will return.

In summary, imho it has the potential to become a disapora of a major or minor scale, but it is too early too tell. so I propose a wording along the lines of "The displacement of large numbers of people as a result of Hurricane Katrina has the potential to become a large-scale American disapora.". I wont add this in unless there is consus for it though. Thryduulf 00:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

"MateoP why do you want to censor this? Here are 242 Google news hits for Katrina and Diaspora. http://news.google.com/news?q=%22diaspora%22%20and%20%20%22katrina%22&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&safe=off&sa=N&tab=wn The usage has entered the discussion. Please stop trying to remove it. (Carlton Yates)"

Not that it matters, but as at today there are only seven (7) google hits on the link quoted above.SeventhHell (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

"The flight of refugees from New Orleans represents an American Diaspora"

Does this really deserve to be the top example under List of notable diasporas? Does it deserve to be here at all? Owen× ☎ 01:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

You may have a point. A million people scattered across the country practically overnight may not be "notable" or "deserve to be here". Guess we will let history be the judge unless a consensus emerges here. (wasn't logged in) Carlton Yates 02:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

My mistake--concensus has already been reached here, Mr. Yates. Owen× ☎ 02:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

"But first things first. We must feed, clothe and house the New Orleans diaspora."-Jewish Weekly News http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/26946/format/html/displaystory.html Carlton Yates 02:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

So you figure that a million people from Louisiana forced to move temporarily to, say, Texas is more notable than 20 million Europeans forced to permanently move out of Europe during WW2? Or is it just the fact that you know more people in Alabama than in Poland, Russia or China that make this worthy of the top spot on the list? Owen× ☎ 02:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

---

He's a troll Owen, trying to insert his POV into articles. You are completely right, this has the potential to be a diaspora, but once New Orleans is cleaned up and everyone goes back to where they live (or at least most people), then it's obviously not a diaspora. Otherwise any time there is a flood anywhere and people are forced to move out of town for a while, which happens hundreds of times every year, then that's a diaspora too. And you render the term meaningless, as diaspora is a long term progress of cultural shifting. This isn't a diaspora, and the fact that he continually places it at the top of the list shows that he's just a troll looking to insert his POV. Something that is obviously controversial, as he's the only person to come on here and defend it being here at all, shouldn't be placed in an article until consensus has been reached for it. If he continues with this it'll have to be reported as vandalism, as that's what it is. --MateoP 02:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

And here he goes continuing to use media sources as experts on sociological issues. The false appeal to authority fallacy. The fact that he continues to use bunk arguments, and inserts the text into the article even though the neutral position would be to leave it out until consensus has been reached, proves his trollish intentions. I say from now on this gets regarded as vandalism. --MateoP 02:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Agree. I've placed a 3RR warning on both his accounts. Owen× ☎ 02:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

MateoP- Calling me a troll (ad hominem attack) does nothing to advance this discussion. You ask me to quote an authority and when I do you call it "false fallacy" (sounds like a double negative-but hey I will give you the benefit of the doubt.) I think that when this wiki discussion broadens out, the position that this event will be recorded as a example of an american diaspora will carry the day. Carlton Yates 02:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

"Hurricane Katrina has produced a diaspora of historic proportions. Not since the Dust Bowl of the 1930's or the end of the Civil War in the 1860's have so many Americans been on the move from a single event." New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/11/national/nationalspecial/11diaspora.html?hp&ex=1126411200&en=2220d96bc8d92b18&ei=5094&partner=homepage Carlton Yates 03:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Improvement Drive

Roma people has been nominated to be improved on the Improvement Drive. Support this article with your vote and help us improve it to featured status!--Fenice 10:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Diaspora

And all this time I thought a diaspora was a Helsinki tram on line 10. =) JIP | Talk 12:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

About the information of Diaspora of Jewish people from Judea only is a measleading information. This is a twist of the History in order to rewright the History. In the time of King David and further on time it was Israel. Israel land exsist as the land for the Israelits since king David concord Jerusalem as a capital of aIl Israel and located in Judea. Since than Hebrew and Israely people are caled Jewish. Forfather Jacov was caled Israel and since his time Israely people become a folk. Wich their land is Israel. Israel was never a land of Palestinian. The Palestinian of today adopted the name of an ancient group of people which was called "plistim" which is known today as Gaza. Plistim vanish in the time of King David. (Story of David and Goliat). So Palestina of today the are not a folk and acendent from the anciant Plistim. Palestina is a name that British use when they ruled Israel.When Jewish start to come back from the exile to the homeland Israel they bring back the original name of these land and established the state of Israel that now will selebrate 70. years of independence. "The name Israel in Hebrew is a combination from the forfathers of Jewish people. I ICHAK AND JAKOV S SARA R RIFKA RAHEL A AVRAHAM L LEA Avigail the reincarnation of wife of kingetting David

  Heihealing (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

"Balkan" diaspora...

I thought it would be a pretty griveious omission to not at least mention the large number of Slavs from the former Yugoslavia region who have migrated, mostly to Europe, and North America. By that I mean Croats, Serbs, Kosovars, Macedonians, and especially Bosnians. I think it might suffice to mention it and link to the article(s) on the wars in the region, unless more concrete statements can be made. I'll see if I can dig up some numbers.

Picky

I don't understand this paragraph in the intro:

"The academic field of diaspora studies was established in the late twentieth century, in regard to the expanded meaning of 'diaspora'. Jacob Riis, a profound writer,concluded that diaspora was established in the mid twentieth century but it was a confirmed fact that the expanded meaning of diaspora was thouroughly researched in the late twentieth century."

A profound writer? That isn't NPOV and this paragraph needs to be touched up (by somebody who knows what they are talking about, not me)

I am also confused about Riis... wiki pedia says that he died in early 1900's yet in this paragraph he is said to confirm something in mid 20th century.... something is not adding up.... nrl2@students.uwf.edu

A Humble Question about the "African Diaspora"

I wonder if I can take a moment of your time to ask what I hope will be an easily answered question about the African Diaspora. I am new to this article, so I don't know if the question I want to ask has been discussed before.

I want to first make one thing clear about myself: I am a white American, with a minority of native American blood. But I am Haitian by marriage. As such, I consider myself to be ethnically half-Haitian, i.e. a Haitian-American.

As a Haitian-American, I am in frequent contact with large numbers of first- and second-generation Haitian emigrants (Haitians who were born in Haiti, and their children.) Of those with whom I have had occasion to discuss the subject, I have found not one who doesn't know of "le Diaspora" which means specifically "the Haitian diaspora", and not one who doesn't consider themself a member thereof. I have never asked them if they were part of the African diaspora. While you may think this to be a natural question, for me it wasn't because, though our culture, and genealogy, is descended mostly from Yoruban tribes, it has also borrowed extensively from France, nearby Latin countries, the United States, and gee, let's not forget the native Americans who were there first and who remain there today. Additionally, it has been over 200 years since any but the smallest minority of Haitians have had any contact at all with anyone from Africa.

Haitian culture is, therefore, extremely, EXREMELY unique (yes, I'm aware of the redundancy in the term "extremely unique", but you'd have to spend some time in the Haitian community to really comprehend what I am saying) and is the object of unequalled pride in our eyes. Yes, most Haitians are, racially, Africans, and I am sure that most Haitians, if asked, would agree that we are part of a greater "African diaspora". The problem, my friends, is that Haitians in Haiti consider their homeland to be Haiti -- while Haitians outside Haiti consider themselves to be dispersed from ... Haiti. In other words, Haitian emigrants, by and large, don't look to Africa for ethnic identification any more than they look to the country of their current residence. In relating to others, they consider themselves to be of Haitian nationality and ethnicity -- cousins of the Africans, certainly, but not ethnically African themselves.

Contrast this with Jamaica, or certain parts of the black American community. In both of these places, there is a current of pan-Africanism. I have visited Haiti twice and have also spent much time among Haitian emigrants, and have witnessed precious little of that among Haitians -- and what I have witnessed has often been apparently borrowed from the communities I just mentioned. I do not mean to say that pan-Africanism, or blacks identifying themselves as ethnically or nationally African, is wrong; simply that it doesn't hold the interest of the average Haitian, who like most people, tends to be more interested in the cultural elements he has inherited from his immediate progenitors.

Don't worry, I'm coming to my question.

In the list of "notable diaspora" of the world, there is no mention of the Haitian one, which I conservatively estimate to number between 2 and 2.5 million, and the vast majority of them either first- or second-generation emigrants with strong cultural ties to Haiti. (The current population of Haitians in Haiti is about 8 million, meaning that by my estimate, at least 25% of ALL LIVING HAITIANS are living abroad.)

The description of the African diaspora assigns it jurisdiction over all dispersed "indigenous peoples of Africa", by which it appears to mean "black people".

The same list divides the white dispersed world into the following diaspora to enable a very detailed, thorough -- some might say respectful, distinguished -- study of the lives of those dispersed white people: Acadian, Armenian, Basque, Chechen, Colombian, Crimean Tatar, Cuban, French Canadian, Galician, Greek, Heimatvertriebene, Irish, Jewish, Latvian, Lithuanian, Macedonian, Peruvian, Polish, Romanian, Romany/Roma people, South African, Ukrainian, Venezuelan and Welsh. In short, there is a "diaspora" for every nation or ethnicity that has experienced dispersal.

While many of these cultures have things in common, including in some cases a healthly level of cooperation and cultural exchange, I am not aware of any attempt to argue that these commonalities make them part of the same diaspora. Presumably, this would be asserted if there were any perceived benefit to the groups in doing so; but in that case, it is likely that the groups would accept both identifications simultaneously, meaning that they still would expect the more specific one to be acknowledged by the outside world, and studied in its own right.

Yet the description of the African diaspora stubbornly insists that it comprises all dispersed indigenous Africans, "wherever they are in the world beyond [Africa]." That last quoted phrase, in its repetition of what has already been stated, seems almost desperate to discourage people from identifying another diaspora of blacks.

My question is a two-parter:

1. There isn't the slightest whiff of racism in all this ... is there?
2. If there is, then does anyone know of any academic support for listing a Haitian diaspora and, er, uh, gosh how do I say this, AMENDING the language under "African diaspora"?

There, I said it. I am now going to take evasive action from the bullets which will come from about three different directions. If anyone needs me, I will have fled to Haiti for the purpose of self-preservation. You can look me up under "White, European-American, Floridian, German, English, Irish, Cherokee, Haitian-American, African-oops-wait-that's-not-for-me Diaspora".

Fowler Pierre 19:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you make great points. I see no problem with identifying a "Haitian Diaspora" --The African Diaspora is a monstrously huge category. The *real* stories are often of the smaller movements of people within the greater diaspora. At least that's how I see it. For example as an American Black person with southern roots. I really identify with the great migration from the south. I don't feel any strong ties to Africa either... It makes sense and I don't think one diaspora makes the other one less important.

futurebird 05:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There no doubt are studies of the Haitian diaspora, especially of the concentrated communities in NY and other places in the US. Many of the studies that first defined the African diaspora were trying to grapple with the reality of those huge shifts in population over a couple of centuries. Of course people have been looking at other movements since then. Every group that has migrated in number to the US will probably have its own studies. Add your piece with sources, please.--Parkwells (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The New York Public Library (NYPL) was a website prepared from an important exhibit by the NYPL's Schomburg Center for Research of Black Culture, called "In Motion: African American Migration Experience". It identifies numerous migrations, including internal migrations within the US, such as forced migration due to slave trade in the 19th c., and the Great Migrations of the first half into the 1960s, of the 20th c., PLUS it has the relatively recent ones of Haitians and separately (as I recall) of West Indians to the US. It's excellent.--Parkwells (talk) 12:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Jacob Riis

I've removed the input from an obviously faulty February edit about Jacob Riis which places him in the wrong century. It does sound vaguely plausible, though, that Riss might have been among the first to write of "diasporas" in the modern sense, so I'll leave that for others to research; a little googling on my part turned up nothing.--Pharos 09:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

British/English diaspora

This doesn't seem to be mentioned at all here despite the fact that a large number of Americans, canadians, Australians, South Africans, and quite possibly South Americans are of English descent. Also, there are large expatriate communities in Spain, France, North America, and Australia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.10.78.57 (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

• This is partly covered under Anglosphere, but that's a cultural concept, not an ethnic one. Also, the "diaspora" concept isn't usually applied to direct colonizations by empires (for example, one rarely hears of a "Hispanic diaspora"). Modern "expat" groups from wealthy countries aren't usually considered "diasporas" because they rarely form distinct communities.--Pharos 07:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the explanation in the article of the reasons for the supposed Irish diaspora are point of view, "harsh British imperial policies" etc. Many British emigrants from the island of Great Britain, emigrated for the same, largely economic, reasons as emigrants from the island of Ireland, the potato famine emigrants being the exception to that, but in general the difference between the British Empire and all other European empires is the vast numbers of the home population that were encouraged to settle in the acquired territories. This was voluntary as well as forced, and the use of the term "harsh" misleads the reader.

In reply to Pharos above, I would claim that British or English emigrants to the USA do form a distinct commmunity, they are the community in the USA who do not hyphenate their identity and have been running the state ever since independence, more or less —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.71.118 (talk) 09:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The general emigration of British people to USA, the Empire / Commonwealth etc. doesn't seem to fit "diaspora" per se, but the Highland Clearances certainly do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.124.206 (talk) 20:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Irish Famine? Diaspora. Highland Clearances? Diaspora. English Enclosures? Not diaspora. Hmmmm.

Incidentally, who has estimated that 'between 45% and 85% of Ireland's population emigrated' during the Great Famine? It's usually said that an eighth (one million) died and slightly more than an eighth emigrated. 80.229.219.189 (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

what constitutes a diaspora?

what exactly constitutes a diaspora? is a forced dispersion of a people from there historic homeland or is in a large scale migration of any kind (voluntary and involuntary) since there is reference to Irish and Italian Diaspora which mirgration in such of a better life, Greek diaspora the remnant of an ancient empire, and Jewish Diaspora the force dispersal of the jews from Israel. is a diapora solely ethnic or can it also be cultural? JD

The term "diaspora" basically has an ethnic meaning; it refers to a dispersal of people rather than ideas. The examples you give have all been widely considered diasporas.--Pharos 07:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You have three kinds of diasporas in today's world. Ancient diasporas like the Jews, Greeks, Basques, Tatars and Celtic peoples such as the Irish; immigrant diasporas like the Dutch from the Low countries, Sicilians from Italy, Desis from India, Armenians from the Caucasus and the Poles of Polonia; and minority groups like African-Americans, Puerto Ricans, the Chinese, the Nisei (Japanese-Americans) and Samoans in the US. The term can describe any ethnic community or section of a city kept its ethnic distinction for a few generations, while a diaspora is best described for an ethnic group with a longing for a homeland or return to their homeland of origin. The article's description of what makes a diaspora are one group's retaining a language (French Canadians and Mexican-Americans), or a religious identity (Muslim North Africans in France and Turks in Germany) and a sense of nationhood for one group thought to never assimilated (Northern Ireland between Ulster Scots Protestants and anti-British Irish Catholics), or a sociocultural emphasis on clannishness, kinship and identity facing the problems of overcoming struggles in their newly-adapted country or under occupation by another government imposed on them. + 71.102.3.86 (talk) 06:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Jamaican diaspora

I hear lots of claims for diaspora, Haitian, Australian, etc. on the talk page. However none of these matches the Jamaican diaspora (which is actually more significant than many in the actual article), where over 1/3 of the population lives abroad. The numbers are similar across the Caribbean. The Jamaican/Caribbean diaspora should be included, and it should be separated from the African diaspora, as it is distinct chronologically, politically, culturally, and linguistically.Firenze419 22:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

As someone from the Caribbean I totally understand and respect the claim for recognizing a Jamaican or Caribbean diaspora. It would be foolish to ignore the unique historical and cultural attributes of the Caribbean. However, I find it equally foolish to separate Caribbean history and culture from the African Diaspora. The Caribbean is a branch of the Arican Diaspora; it cannot stand alone. Our politics, culture, language and the chronology thereof are so inextricably intertwined with Africa and the repercussions of being forefully removed from the continet that it makes it impossible to accurately and adequately study or describe the Caribbean out of that context. (Tanisha) - April 13 2009 [Howard University] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.252.202 (talk) 06:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Given the overall summary nature of the Diaspora page, I do not think that the Jamaican diaspora should be folded into it. Perhaps a short summary paragraph could be added -- either to the section on "Migration diasporas: A subject of debate" or as a new section on the Americas within "The 20th century and beyond" -- but I believe that the Jamaican diaspora should remain as a separate page, with the existing reference at the bottom for "See also." Molly-in-md (talk) 17:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it should be mentioned here, but keep its separate page.BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

on Haitian diaspora

I don't know if this would be a good suggestion for a pop culture entry but Wyclef Jean had a song titled "Jaspora" on the 1997 album the Carnival, which a) sounds awesome b) gives an artists impression of the sociological impressions of blah blah blah an American moved from Haiti by his parents- parents that are African Diasporic. How to define Diaspora? I hear it everytime I listen to this song.Jawz101 (talk) 02:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)jawz101

[lyrics]http://www.songmeanings.net/lyric.php?lid=3530822107858532432link Jaspora lyrics —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jawz101 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Greek term

"In the beginning, the term Diaspora (capitalized) was used by the Ancient Greeks ..." -- I don't think the ancient Greeks had lower case letters, did they? "The original meaning was cut off from the present meaning when the Old Testament was translated to Greek ..." -- is there substantiation for this? Probably both meanings coexisted side by side for a while. Actually though, both "meanings" seem to be pretty close, so it doesn't seem right to say the old meaning was "cut off". "The term was assimilated from Greek into English in the late 20th century." -- Only in the late 20th Century? I find that very hard to believe. Also, why not word it as "borrowed" rather than "assimilated" -- the word didn't really go through any changes (which would be implied by "assimilated"), other than slight pronunciation changes. 71.82.214.160

Diasphoras and base ethnic /racial genetic ancestry

Should it be noted the mixed admixture if Diasporas and how the admixtures within each diaspora over lap with one another? Relir 11:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Arab Diasphora

Would this not include people of mixed Arabic ancestry resulting from the Moorish Empire and the Muslim slave trade?

Spanish Diaspora

Would this not include populations colonized by Spain who are mixed with ethnic Spanish ancestry, culture and linguistic roots?

Wasn't that just migration? Every migration of peoples is not a diaspora; they went to the colonies to settle in a new land, not to return to their old one.--Parkwells (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the wording from "Galicia, North of Spain" to "Galicia in northern Spain" - to me, the former is ambiguous and might be interpreted as meaning that Galicia is outside of Spain and to the north of it, rather than being an area within Spain. I hope this is fine with people - if not, I'm happy to discuss. Dom Kaos (talk) 01:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Indian Diaspora

Are West Indians of Indo-Asian descent part of the Indian Diaspora?

Lithuanian Diaspora

In the head article reference is made to the Lithuanian World Community (the article on the Lithuanian diaspora) due to the Russian occupation past WWII. In fact it is the second diaspora that took place in Lithuania. The first being the downfall of the GDL in responce to the "Great Northern War" in the early 18th century. The various battles and the famine that resulted in the region were a major force for many to flee towards Western Europe (esp. to Germany and the Netherlands). - signed by anon IP

drs. M.R. Niekus —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.4.150.79 (talk) 01:52, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Germanic Alemanni from Siberia?

This is in the current text of the article:

"Thus the modern population of Germany do not feel that they belong in the Siberian steppes that the Alemanni left 16 centuries ago..."

Can someone please explain what that is supposed to mean? Thanks. Aryaman (☼) 02:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There was a lack of a sense in necessity for early Germanic tribes to return into Central Asia or the Anglo-Saxons settled Celto-Roman Britain enough on the tribal kingdoms taken hold on England instead of returning to the historical Anhalt-Saxony or Schleswig-Holstein. The majority of nomadic tribes migrated from one place to another to expand, conquer and find new grounds to permanently settle, although a tragic event like a war, famine and climate change can create massive evacuation of a tribe, nation or empire to resulted in a diasporic population of several new tribes sharing a common ethnic or linguistic bond. + 71.102.3.86 (talk) 06:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

For those interested...20th Century

I have untangled the 20th Century section from the mishmash of chronology and geography that was here, without changing much. I did add the Palestinian diaspora, which is the only one noted that is currently associated with a high level of violence, and has been such for the last 60 years. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 04:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I untangled it further by adding subheadings (since the refugee flows have occurred in waves), and added Mizrahim. The headings should be ok., but I am open to finetuningLamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews

It's not accurate to say that Jewish people in Europe were not assimilated by choice and discrimination. Sephardic Jews were an integral part of Spain and Portugal before their expulsion; even though they kept their own religion, that does not mean they intended to return to Palestine. Similarly, it's not clear that most Ashkenazi Jews would have left Germany, Russia or Poland without pressure from those populations against them. That's an oversimplification to say they did not assimilate. In the late 19th c. German Jews were well assimilated.--Parkwells (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Meaning of diaspora

People have latched on to diaspora to label every migration of people due to economic reasons, war, and oppression. What meaning does it have after that? Why not just call it migration - every major war produced major migrations of people and many refugees. The fact that we have just noticed, does not mean that migrations before the 19th and 20th c. didn't happen, but after you label everythign as diaspora, what do you have? Most immigrants in the early centuries to the American colonies never expected to return to their homelands; yes, they carried their culture with them, and it became something else in combination with other cultures here.--Parkwells (talk) 16:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You're dealing here with a couple common misapprehensions. It's reasonable to say that a majority of people believe dictionaries have the absolute meanings of words, rather than them being a reflection of how words, in the real world, are actually used. These people believe that by opening a dictionary, the "right and wrong" usage can be immediately established. (There's a certain fascination in pulling out the complete Oxford English Dictionary, and watching the horror on people's faces. Are they more interested in the truth or in being the person who was "right"?)

It's true that if one labels everything as "diaspora", then a particular sense of the word becomes diluted. However dilution does not equal "bad". Vague words are sometimes the most appropriate.

Politics are a component of some word changes. With "diaspora" we have a word which is used by (some) groups wishing to dignify themselves or their subject. Whether their claims are more or less valid are things that special interest groups will argue on a case-by-case basis. Such political battles aren't for the purpose of keeping the language lucid, they are for political self-interest. Changes in word meaning are often political, rather than academic linguistic discussions.

Rather than fixating on a specific meaning of a single word "diaspora", it's more appropriate -- for those who wish to continue to using the word -- to qualify its usage. All sorts of combinations come to mind "gradual diaspora", "panicked diaspora", "economically-drive diaspora", "conscious diaspora", "unintentional diaspora". Concepts as complex as movements of large populations cannot be fit into a single word.

67.180.48.127 (talk) 06:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I had to leave my hotel room last night due to a fire alarm and would like to be mentioned in the article as a tempro-micro-diaspora. I would like to receive some consensus before making a major change, but if there are no objections, I will include this in the first paragraph.65.217.34.162 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Capitalisations and Plurals

Collins Concise Dictionary (1999) gives:

Diaspora 1a the dispersion of the Jews after the Babylonian and Roman conquests of Palestine. 1b the Jewish people and communities outside Israel. 2 (often not cap.) a dispersion, as of people originally belonging to one nation.

I think this is right. The term should be capitalised when referring to the Diaspora (meaning the Jewish Diaspora); and, optionally, when referring to a particular identified diaspora, eg "the African Diaspora".

But the "often not cap" of the dictionary's sense 2 indicates, I think, that the term has become no longer necessarily a capitalised proper noun, but has been assimilated into English beyond this, as a common noun; so that one can now write "a diaspora", without capitalisation, when used in sense 2; or, "the various diasporas" (plural).

On this basis I'm backing out some of the changes recently made by Meieimatai (talk · contribs) [1].

I don't think there's any need to insist that the plural is "Diaspora", and it makes the article much harder to read to do so. Jheald (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I can show you the sources which state that "diasporas" is a recent introduction into English from German, but for not this is not important. In any case, when referring to specific populations, they can only logically be referred to as having a single Diaspora, at least on this planet.

I would appreciate if you discussed your edits that largely reverse mine. The section Origins and development is chronologically structured, and since Greek written history begins in the 8th Century BCE, it can not be claimed that their use of the term pre-dates the concept of expulsion found in the Jewish text. I'll be happy to discuss any qualms you have with the current edits--Meieimatai 00:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"Native American Diaspora" and Sally Larsen

In a series of edits on 8 August 2008, 76.254.27.198 and User:Solo Zone added a section titled "Native American Diaspora" between "Origins and development" and "European diaspora" (i.e. above the section on any more or less specific diaspora). Solo Zone was a new contributor and both because of this and because of the sparse sourcing of the following sections in this article (hardly a problem, as most are summaries of longer, sourced articles), I don't blame her for the fact that this section is unsourced, although the lack of sourcing is regrettable and should be fixed.

What is odd, though, is the final sentence, which (after link stripping) reads Project DNA: Diaspora of Native America (see Sally Larsen) proposes to use genetic testing to consolidate the diaspora of Native Americans as a self-defined entity. I must confess I'd never heard of Sally Larsen (whose article was written by Solo Zone, who appears to be Larsen) until I saw her linked from an article (created by Solo Zone) then titled German Photography in America (subsequently renamed). She's not a legislator, an anthropologist or a geneticist; instead, she's an artist. Artists have as much right to make proposals as anybody else, but this particular artist is not a particularly prominent one and the article about her cites no coverage in any political or academic publication for, or any mass media coverage of, this proposal.

Until this proposal is clearly noteworthy, mention of it in this article seems superfluous, as does a link to the Larsen article. I'm therefore removing it. -- Hoary (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The article was repeatedly restored and deleted, therefore the issue of whether to include the Native American diaspora (of North America) experience on the article would conclude with the similar results. Most Native American tribal groups were migratory for thousands of years, merged with other tribal groups over time, and are nomadic without a permanent homeland, nor cannot recollect the exact origin of theirs. Most of the so-called "Native American diasporas" occurred after first contact with Europeans, which resulted in forced tribal removals (i.e. the Trail of Tears of the Cherokee in the 1830's and the Navajo internment known as the Long walk into US military prison camps in the 1860's) and detribalization policies dislocated most members of a given Native American tribe across North America. + 71.102.3.86 (talk) 01:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

the value of Indians

I read:

Overseas Indians have made significant contributions to the economy of the country of residence and have added in considerable measure to knowledge and innovation.

I completely agree. But the same thing could be said of overseas Chinese, overseas Jews, overseas Palestinians, and various other peoples. In fact I think it's true of all the peoples mentioned in the article. I therefore cut it. -- Hoary (talk) 20:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Armenian genocide

The Turkish government is established to have committed genocide against the Armenian people. Please stop deleting mention of this fact, or face sanctions. Thanks. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Acadian Diaspora

In the Great Expulsion of 1755, around 11,000 Acadians were deported from Acadia under the direction of British colonial officers and New England legislators and militia; many later settled in Louisiana, where they became known as Cajuns. Still others settled in Northern Maine and nearby states. Acadians were exiled by the British from Nova Scotia, Fort Louisbourg [Ile Breton] and Ile-St-Jean [Prince Edward Island]. [Note: Some had actually been expelled from Fort Louisbourg in 1748 but France regained Fort Louisbourg in 1752 so these aren't officially part of the Acadian Exile.]Their deportation was a form of genocide and most definitely a diaspora.

source: http://www.thecajuns.com/exile.htm

also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acadian for more extensive information

PROCLAMATION of Acadian Deportation - Given at Grand-Pre, 2nd September, 1755 John Winslow

   With less than twenty-four hours notice the Acadians appeared at Grand Pré from 

all the villages of Minas. Four hundred and eighteen men entered the church to hear

His Majesty's final resolution to the Acadians:

   "To the inhabitants of the district of Grand Pré, Minas, River Canard and 

places adjacent, as well ancients as young men and lads.

Gentlemen, I have received from his Excellency, Governor Lawrence, the

King's Commission which I have in my hand, and by whose orders you are conveyed

together, to Manifest to you His Majesty's final resolution to the French

inhabitants of this his Province of Nova Scotia, who for almost half a century have

had more Indulgence Granted them than any of his Subjects in any part of his

Dominions. Whatuse you have made of them you yourself Best Know. The Part of Duty I

am now upon is what though Necessary is Very Disagreeable to my natural make and

temper, as I Know it Must be Grievous to you who are of the Same Species. But it is

not my business to annimadvert, but to obey Such orders as I receive, and therefore

without Hesitation Shall Deliver you his Majesty's orders and Instructions, Vist:-

   "That your Land & Tennements, Cattle of all Kinds and Livestocks of all Sorts 

are forfeited to the Crown with all other your effects Savings your money and

Household Goods, and you yourselves to be removed from this Province.

   "Thus it is Peremptorily his Majesty's orders That the whole French Inhabitants 

of these Districts be removed, and I am Through his Majesty's Goodness Directed to

allow you Liberty to Carry of your money and Household Goods as Many as you Can

without Discommoding the Vessels you Go in. I shall do Every thing in my Power that

all those Goods be Secured to you and that you are not Molested in Carrying of them

off, and also that whole Families Shall go in the Same Vessel, and make this

remove, which I am Sensible must give you a great Deal of Trouble, as Easy as his

Majesty's Service will admit, and hope that in what Ever part of the world you may

Fall you may be Faithful Subjects, a reasonable & happy People."

   They were then declared to be prisoners of the King. This was just the 

beginning of great suffering for the Acadians. The British would pursue and deport

any and all Acadians they could find for the next 11 years. This was not a one time

happening. Many ancestors died on the ships at sea and suffered great

hardships in the lands to which they were exiled.

   During the 18th century, England legally excluded Roman Catholics from public 

office. The religion of the King of England was the religion that all English must

follow and this religion was Anglican. According to Naomi Griffiths in The Contexts

of Acadian History 1688-1784: "The particular combination of the specific language and

religious beliefs of the Acadians with the political geography of the colony was

about to demand flexibility of mind and vision from its new administrators, for the

Acadians were on the British imperial territory and linked to another power in that

area by language and religion."

Vegansingin (talk) 08:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Definition of Diaspora

This has been discussed before - above in 'What constitutes a Diaspora?' and 'Meaning of Diaspora' - but not resolved. Surely there must be some element of force, fear, or social unrest in order for a mass migration to constitute a 'diaspora'? And proportion as suggested above, otherwise this article should get deleted or anything useful in it merged to migration. I started trawling through the edit history to find the origin of the 'diaspora' definition for this article, (in particular to find who entered the word "voluntarily", and in what context) but I eventually gave up - there was no reference to begin with when the article started in 2002, and there is still no reference for the definition. "..forced or induced to leave their homeland..." was edited in at 22:03, 24 January 2003, we need a decent definition if this article is going to make sense. Anybody who knows their stuff about diasporas?

Not only was there a sentence here/in list of diasporas on an 'Australian diaspora', there is (or was) a whole Australian diaspora article, which I have proposed for deletion - it is written almost entirely by one author, it references only a newspaper article and a government report, saying that a million (or elsewhere 5%, though the maths doesn't add up ) of Australians are "living" overseas - most of them are probably on working holidays, that's not a diaspora! Far more than 5% of any country's population are probably o/s at any one time. If we stick with the definition we have, so diluted as to be meaningless, we are laden with a bad article, which is bound to give rise to such dross. So I am going to delete the line on the Australian diaspora in 'list of diasporas', I am an Australian who has lived overseas and it was no diaspora. I note that there was an editing war in Sept 2005 on whether the dispersion of people following Hurricane Katrina constituted a diaspora, so I think this is a far less controversial deletion, Australia has not even had a natural disaster on that scale, let alone human movement on the scale seen during Katrina. Most of the other diasporas here and in the list of diasporas seem genuine, they mostly involve some elements of either force, fear or unrest. To my mind, colonisation of the original Diaspora and similar genuine diaporas is somewhere in the league of Holocaust denial. What do others think? SeventhHell (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• A "diaspora" as noted in the very opening of the article, is by virtue of its origin in Greek, a spreading or dispersal of a population outwardly from its original locale. "To scatter apart" or "scatter about" - what we have abbreviated in English usage as "dispersed"... It is however, not simply a relocation of a population from one place to another, unless that population dispersal entails a scattering of its population... It is a specific word with a specific meaning and should not be used as an umbrella for all population relocations. As has been noted above quite effectively by several contributors, there are other encyclopedic entries that cover migrations, expatriation or expulsions which are not particularly applicable to this article... Stevenmitchell (talk) 05:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree this has not been settled satisfactorily yet. The article lead also has: "In all cases, the term diaspora carries a sense of displacement; that is, the population so described finds itself for whatever reason separated from its national territory; and usually its people have a hope, or at least a desire, to return to their homeland at some point...", but clearly describes people, such as contemporary educated Indians living and working abroad by choice for economic and job reasons as part of a diaspora going back to the transportation of indentured servants. These are hardly in the same class, and there is no cite for saying contemporary emigres long to return to their homeland. I too think diaspora should be related to war, natural disasters or huge economic problems to qualify; otherwise the discussion becomes meaningless (and is close to that already, given the ubiquity of war and migrations through prehistoric (note Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel) and historic times.--Parkwells (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed edit by falcon8785 (sp?): Various, yet a few Native american tribes and peoples have diaspora legends, stories and identity, but this applies only after contact with Europeans and removal of entire tribal peoples by post-colonial white European goverments from the 16th to 19th centuries. + 71.102.7.77 (talk) 05:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

What about the Jews?

Looking at this article there are sections on several groups, but none on the group for which this term was first coined? What's up with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.80.253.212 (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Starts with the third sentence in the article. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

What about the Jews? Everything is about the Jews, everything! It is so like that, that this is not Wikipedia anymore, but Jewishpedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.49.122.91 (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Did one of Jehovah's Witnesses write that the Jews were dispersed from Jerusalem in 607BCE?

Historians, unless I'm getting confused, date this event to 587BCE. Mandmelon (talk) 08:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

This article has only just come to my attention. I have restored the correct year. It is disappointing that the incorrect year was left in place for over a year. (For unfamiliar editors, 607 is used by Jehovah's Witnesses for the fall of Jerusalem in support of their 'unique' numerological beliefs. All secular works date the event to within a year of 587BCE.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Protesting the definition

I would like to protest the properties given to the word "diaspora." Specifically,When capitalized, the Diaspora refers to the exile of the Jewish people and Jews living outside ancient or modern day Israel. That is totally, misinformed, biased and racist. No one people have a right to monopolize a word - be it capitalized or otherwise. You can mention "Diaspora (with a capital D) also refers to the exile of the Jewish people and Jews living outside ancient or modern day Israel." Look at all the people participating in this discussion.African Diaspora; Indian Diaspora; Lithuanian Diaspora; Muslim Diaspora. Are they all confused? Are they referencing the African Jews, the Indian Jews or the Muslims Jews? It's not even a Jewish word for God's sake!!!! Please, make the appropriate corrections and do not let nationalistic (and misinformed individuals) hijack the meaning of a word. --Dardanella (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

See also above section "capitalization and plurals".BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Migration diasporas

The migration diasporas section is confused, confusing, barely referenced. I removed the following, as it is about global migration and not diaspora: "The International Organization for Migration said there are more than 200 million migrants around the world today. Europe hosts the largest number of immigrants, with 70.6 million people in 2005, the latest year for which figures are available. North America is second with over 45.1 million immigrants, followed by Asia, which hosts nearly 25.3 million. Most of today's migrant workers come from Asia." I think the section should be further trimmed.BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

References

Definition of the word

• It current reads A diaspora (from Greek διασπορά, "scattering, dispersion"[1]) is a mass-migration away from an ancestral homeland, resulting in ex-patriate communities.. I don't see anything about ex-patriate communities in the dictionary though. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/diaspora Could you call it a diaspora without there being an ex-patriate community? What sources existed where it is defined as having to have that requirement? This is causing some confusion in two diaspora articles currently at AFD. Dream Focus 00:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I have changed it to "This sometimes results in ex-patriate communities." Dream Focus 00:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Preface" in Encyclopedia of Diasporas: Immigrant and Refugee Cultures Around the World. Volume I: Overviews and Topics; Volume II: Diaspora Communities Melvin Ember, Carol R. Ember, Ian Skoggard (eds.)p. xiii·Maunus·ƛ· 00:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Just because the book has the word "Encyclopedia" in its title, doesn't mean it is one. You added that part recently [2], it never there before. Does anyone consider this "encyclopedia" more reliable than all the dictionaries out there? Also, doesn't the article mention diasporas that didn't have ex-patriate communities? Dream Focus 00:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is an encycloipedia and since wikipedia is not a dictionary, but an encyclopedia that relies on reliable tertiary sources to define its topics I think it would require more than a few tentiously read quotes fromn a dictionary to challenge this source.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Also your reading skills really need polishing - the merriam webster definition that you quote clearly states that a diaspora is: either the movement away from a place (i.e migration) or the community of people settled far away from their homelands. Unless the word is used with a preposition that describes the direction of the movement then it makes no sense to take the first reading and the only logical reading is that of an ex-patriate community.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It can mean more than one thing. "Or" not "And." And the Merriam Webster dictionary is a reliable source. Is the book you are quoting from? It has no article. Are there any book reviews? Anyone using it in colleges? Dream Focus 00:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you for real? Do you think Yale and Springer Press collaborate on a 1200 page encyclopedia without it going through review, or making sure that it is of sufficient quality for academics to use? Good heavens, this requires more than normal assumption of good faith to put up with. And yes when a dicrtionary gives to senses that usually implies an "or", just like I said.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• I found what it says exactly. [3] Diaspora. A people dispersed by whatever cause to more than one location. The people dispersed to different lands may harbor thoughts of return, may not fully assimilate to their host countries, and may maintain relationships with other communities in the diaspora. It does not say they have to be in ex-partiated communities. Dream Focus 01:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Then what on earth do you understand "a people dispersed to different lands who do not assimilate to their host countries and harbors thoughts of return" to mean? This is astounding!

• It says "may". It isn't a definite. Dream Focus 01:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The addition of may does not make it any less of a "people outside of their homeland" which is of course what "ex-patriate community" means.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the word homeland used in that definition. And no, not everyone outside of their homeland are in an ex-patriate community. Dream Focus 01:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Note, in the article I just eliminated the part about them having to be in ex-patriated communities.[4] Judging by the edit summaries, there was some confusion there. Dream Focus 01:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The definition of the term is under dispute. I have three times attempted to insert material from WP:RS into the lede concerning the definition; my edits were reverted once by Maunus and twice by Griswaldo. Now I have been admonished about edit-warring by Griswaldo and urged to discuss here. The word "diaspora" has a wide range of meanings. The lede should make clear that it is no longer a special term reserved for a few emigrant groups but is in fact being widely used to refer to any and every emigrant community. Usage shows this -- but my effort to add an example of usage was deleted as OR. Dictionaries show this -- but the dictionary definitions I added to show this were also deleted. What is the appropriate technique to get accurate information into the lede of an article about a word whose usage is under dispute? Sharktopus^talk 17:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

We do not source Wikipedia entries with dictionary definitions. Sorry we just don't. The only time it is relevant to mention differing dictionary definitions is when there is a notable discussion in the literature about the problem of defining a concept. And even then, we need to follow these secondary or tertiary discussion and not make something seem notable or important based on our own reading of three dictionaries. There is a vast literature on diaspora. Why don't you have a look at it instead trying to cram your favorite dictionary definitions into the entry repeatedly.Griswaldo (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)\

Also, please note that we don't write entries on words, but on the subjects those words refer to. If you found conceptual discrepancies in the literature on diaspora that would be in interesting thing to explore here. But the point is that we should define the term the way it is defined in mainstream reliable sources that actually treat the subject with some depth, and not dictionaries. Again, should there be usage discrepancies between such sources that's a different story. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no rule against using anything that is considered a reliable source, and the dictionary is a reliable source. The diaspora articles in Wikipedia, and even the examples in this article, show it refers to any emigrant group. Many books support this also. Dream Focus 17:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

How about this: "Diaspora's original connotations of dispersion and exile now also encompass a larger semantic field; the term is sometimes used to refer to a range of ethnic communities and to a variety of categories of people, like political and war refugees, im/migrants, ethnic and racial minorities, etc. This 'ease with which diaspora is used as a synonym for related phenomena'3 simultaneously empowers the term and causes conceptual problems, according to scholars like Khachig Tololyan.""What is Diaspora?" I see no reason for Wikipedia to freeze the meaning of diaspora to "what diaspora studies covers" when a broader usage of the term is very common and would be useful to our readers. Sharktopus^talk 17:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• It currently reads: Originally the word referred exclusively to the Jewish diaspora after the Babylonian exile, but recently the word has also come to refer to other historical mass-dispersions of people with common roots, often particularly movements of an involuntary nature, such as the forced removal of Turkish Armenians and the African Trans-Atlantic slave trade, or the century long exile of the Messenians under Spartan rule. The word recently should be changed of course. And how often does it refer to movements of an involuntary nature? Many reliable sources use the word for those who willfully moved to other areas. We need to list everything it covers, and not suggest that is usually, or often refers to just one type of diaspora. Dream Focus 17:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Ember's book should be the definition in the lede, we should have the dictionary definition. Griswaldo is inserting the definition from a source that agrees with him, then using it to shape the debate for the articles he is trying to delete. Someone at AFD is already quoting the changes in this article as the final world on the debate. Multiple definitions can be in the lede and sourced to the original reference work. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Funny, I didn't see those words bolded.

Dream Focus and Richard Norton, your attitude towards editing WP is frankly unencyclopedic and unconstructive. An encyclopedia provides a condensed account of expert knowledge on different topics. This is very different from a dictionary, which is a guide to popular spelling, pronunciation, and usage. There is a great deal of scholarly work on diasporic peoples, including a major peer-reviewed journal. Our articles on diasporals should be consistent with this research.

If people want a dictionary definition they can pick up a dictionary. Alas, researching an encyclopedia article is not so easy. if you are not willing to do real research, I hope you have other pass-times you enjoy doing. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm, when defining a word for an encyclopedia, should I quote a dictionary, or my favorite book on the topic? Which would be the more reliable source. Lets all welcome Slrubenstein, friend of Maunus from the Evolutionary psychology article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

More importantly Slr is a person who is well read in social sciences and knows what he talks about -in obvious contrast to you and your friends from the anti-deletion squadron. ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, now you are regressing back to the Essjay defense again, that carries no weight in Wikipedia. Everyone has their favorite book and favorite, but the dictionary is the ultimate arbiter for defining anything in the English language. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Bold to make it easier to spot them. They weren't indented either, I adding that as well in case there was some confusion. And we have both worked on many encyclopedic topics before. The article isn't just giving a definition of the word. A definition is necessary however so people know what the article is about. All articles have a lead which defines them. Dream Focus 18:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

<--Up until Maunus started editing this article on February 12, this was the entire lede of this article: "A diaspora (from Greek διασπορά, "scattering, dispersion"[1]) is the movement or migration of a group of people, such as those sharing a national and/or ethnic identity, away from an established or ancestral homeland." But this did not agree with the project to delete articles using "diaspora" in EXACTLY this way, so this article's lede was unilaterally changed by Maunus on Feb 12 into essentially the narrow, prescriptive definition we see now presented to us as the "established" usage Wikipedia articles must honor. Sharktopus^talk 18:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

This is going nowhere fast. I've posted neutral messages at three wikiprojects for outside input. Hopefully this helps. I'm sure no one will object to such notices at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology, Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthropology, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups. I'm going to try to stay away from this for a while myself. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't really have a view on what the wording should be, but just to note that this book provides an interesting discussion of the changing definition of "diaspora". It surveys use of the term and suggests that it is increasingly used to refer to "almost any population on the move". Cordless Larry (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

This is also a good source. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

PS: I should disclose that I took part in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norwegian diaspora. However, my contributions did not concern the defintion of diaspora used but rather the use of statistics in the article. I found the current discussion via Griswaldo's post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm also here per Griswaldo's request for input. However, the specifics of the dispute are unclear. Would someone care to summarize?--Carwil (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not really sure, something to do with the word "ex-patriate" here and whether a definition in a book trumps and should replace the dictionary definition. The larger debate is at Norwegian diaspora and whether the Norwegians ever experienced a diaspora since the exact term "Norwegian diaspora" isn't used that often in books and scholarly articles. The counterargument is that the Wikipedia article isn't about the word, but the concept, whichever synonym is used by authors. Words such as "emigration" or "migration". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Kudos to Cordless Larry for his research, great articles. I read them each twice. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster.com have no mention of any desire to return. It's just the scatterring of people from the ancestrial homeland. (and also the meaning from the Greek) 65.93.15.125 (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

<--The dispute is or was that this article Diaspora had in its lede on February 11 a general description of how the term is in fact used, "the movement or migration of a group of people, such as those sharing a national and/or ethnic identity, away from an established or ancestral homeland." On February 13, the lede had been changed to a much more restrictive description and the claim has been made in connection with newly-filed AfDs that one can not use "diaspora" as a general term for emigrant communities but must restrict it to nationalities "foo" where the emigrant community has been repeatedly denoted by the exact phrase "foo diaspora" in scholarly journals. The claim is also that any use of "diaspora" with its now-common meaning of emigration or emigrant/expatriate communities is a neologism forbidden by WP:NEO.

The counter-claim is that emigration and emigrant communities are quite commonly described as "diasporas", with dictionaries, usage, and even recent scholarly work reflecting the wider definition. The counter-claim is that if it was once a neologism to use "diaspora" in the general sense, it is a neologism no longer new, as per British diaspora and Dutch diaspora, which have had those titles since 2008 and 2007 respectively. So, in my opinion,the dispute is whether or not this article's lede should define "diaspora" to enlighten our readers about current usage of the term or whether it should define the word to exclude and marginalize some emigrant communities while enshrining others. Sharktopus^talk 23:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

No that is not the dispute, but rather a tendentious misrepresentation of it. The dispute is whether wikipedia should base its definitions on scholarly sources and academic definitions of complex concepts, or by watered-down layman definitions and every day common language use. And in extension whether the word diaspora should be generically applied to all cases of transnational migration or only to those cases where it is well established as a diaspora under the relevant academic definition of the word. The argument here has been that the layman definition of Merriam Webster trumps the definition given by the Encyclopedia of Diasporas, a 1200 page academic encyclopedia pubvlished in collaboration between Yale and Springer Press and written by experts in diaspora studies. I and a group of other editors think that wikipedia should reflect academic usage and not function as a simple dictionary. This would also mean that we cannot define just any and all migration as forming diasporas, but only those that are actually commonly described as diasporas in the relevant literature - such as the the Jewish diaspora, the African Diaspora, the Irish diaspora etc.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:JARGON -- use the layman's definition. The more specific defition and issues with the laymen's defition can be spelt out in the intro paragraph. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 06:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• I do not see any support for the claim that the meaning of "diaspora" has been set in stone and applies only to favored groups in this scholarly definition and consideration of what the definition should be: "The classic definition of diaspora rests basically on Sheffer's (1986) three proposed criteria: the dispersed group must hold a distinctive collective identity of its own; the group in dispersion must have some internal organization of its own; the group in dispersion must keep ties with the homeland, be it symbolic or real. Adjustment to changing realities allowed for modifications of this understanding of diaspora, first, by introducing a notion of voluntary migration as in the case of Sheffer's ethno-national diasporas )19995: 9) or Cohen's diasporic communities (1997); and second by easing the requirement of internal organization, as propsed by Cohen, for whom it is a collective identity that keeps diasporas together in contemporary times...Recently, however, a growing body of literature succeeded in reformulating the definition, framing diaspora as almost any population on the move and no longer referring to the specific context of their existence (see Schnapper 1999, Vertovec & Cohen 1999, Castles and Miller 2003)." Diaspora and Transnationalism: Concepts, Theories and Methods By Rainer Bauböck, Thomas Faist (Amsterdam University Press) p. 75 Sharktopus^talk 02:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

RFC

Since this discussion has become split between here and Swedish diaspora and Norwegian diaspora, I have three questions that have been posed at: RFC:Use of the word diaspora in Wikipedia --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

There is also discussion underway at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FNorwegian_diaspora_.282nd_nomination.29 concerning the usage or not of "diaspora" in article titles. Sharktopus^talk 23:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Lede

Why do we have two very similar definitions in the lede? "the movement, migration, or scattering of a people away from an established or ancestral homeland". and 'In academic contexts it has been defined as "a people dispersed by whatever cause to more than one location"'. Why is one academic and the other not? They are almost identical and having two similar worded definitions is confusing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

because dreamfocus Sharktopus took half of the academic definition and moved it to another place in the article where it better fitted his POV.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't me. The last time I edited this article [5] it wasn't like that at all. And will you stop your personal attacks already? You didn't get your way, get over yourself. The disapora articles you tried to have deleted ended in keep. Dream Focus 09:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Maunus was the one adding that. [6] I think that bit should be removed. Dream Focus 09:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry dreamfocus, I remebered it was you but it was Sharktopus who in this edit[7] removed the part of the sentence that made it meaningful, namely "[which] may harbor thoughts of return, may not fully assimilate to their host countries, and may maintain relationships with other communities in the diaspora.".·Maunus·ƛ· 12:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

<--That qualification I moved was NOT part of the sentence it had been added to. It was part of a second, subordinate sentence. Here is the definition in full: "Diaspora. A people dispersed by whatever cause to more than one location. The people dispersed to different lands may harbor thoughts of return, may not fully assimilate to their host countries, and may maintain relationships with other communities in the diaspora." The first sentence defines what the author means by diaspora. The second lists some things that MAY (not must) be true of a diaspora. In the edit following the diff you cite, I re-added the information from the second sentence to a more appropriate place in the lede. Sharktopus^talk 00:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The book spends an entire page giving a definition - this was a condensed version of that detailed and informative definition - written in the respectful way that scholars approach complex topics without trying to make simplistic one-line definitions. ·Maunus·ƛ· 02:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Since the lede needs a concise definition, it is fortunate that the scholars themselves condensed that page into something shorter. What they did NOT do, which our lede did before I changed it, was to merge the defining first sentence with the also-possible-elements second sentence. Sharktopus^talk 04:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Diaspora tourism

In addition to the use of "diaspora" in trade names such as the Facebook rival [[Diaspora (software)] and "Digital Diaspora," there seems to be an established use of "diasporas" as a marketing opportunity that countries are urged to exploit:

• "Identity, Nostalgia and Diaspora Tourism"
• "Marketing to the Welsh diaspora: The appeal to hiraeth and homecoming"
• Journeys of Expressions VI: Diaspora Community Festivals and Tourism
• "MPI Report: Mobilizing Diaspora Entrepreneurship for Development"

It seems that these references are using "diaspora" for arbitrary emigrant/exile/expatriate/hyphenated-nationality groups, with no regard for scholarly distinctions regarding which groups should be regarded as "true" diasporas. Sharktopus^talk 18:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The two first clearly tie in with topic of continued identification with and nostalgic longing for and and wishies of coming home to the place thatis left that is exactly characterizing for that which characterizes a diaspora from a simple migration.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

If nostalgia and identification are the only requirements, how do you rule out for example "Swiss diaspora"? Judging from the size of the "English food" section in my local supermarket, and from the anglophilia of my friends British and otherwise, that would make the English diasporic too. I thought the only requirement was having been discussed extensively by diaspora studies scholars who used and reused the exact phrase "foo diaspora." 01:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharktopus (talk • contribs)

Countability

According to the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary,[8] diaspora is uncountable. Is it documented in other linguistic sources that diasporas has become accepted in mainstream English usage? If not, Category:Diasporas will need to be renamed. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Irish Diaspora

Why is there nothing about the potato famine and Irish diaspora around the world? St. Patrick's day is a celebration of those who have emigrated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.36.108.63 (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

International Adoption of South Korean children within 20th Century diaspora examples

I suggest that this wikipedia article be linked and expanded upon. Such a large proportion of this country's children were displaced for economic expediency for S. Korea and for the expediency of affluent American and European families wishing to adopt infants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Momlettinggo (talk • contribs) 21:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)