Talk:Lebanese people in Denmark

Denmark Low‑importance

	Denmark portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DenmarkWikipedia:WikiProject DenmarkTemplate:WikiProject DenmarkDenmark articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lebanon Low‑importance

	Lebanon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lebanon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lebanon-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LebanonWikipedia:WikiProject LebanonTemplate:WikiProject LebanonLebanon articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 16 May 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 14:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

– Some diaspora articles follow really strange naming conventions. A lot of articles follow the "List of Lebanese people in Brazil" naming convention of mentioning a people in country. While the articles are intended to list Lebanese–Brazilians, this isn't very clear, as the title also seems imply any sort of Lebanese person in within the boundaries of Brazil could apply, and honestly listing every notable Lebanese person on vacation in Brazil seems frivolous. I moved a couple articles, such as the aforementioned List of Lebanese Brazilians, however when I noticed there was a couple dozen of these types of articles just within Lebanese diaspora I figured I should bring it up in a couple places before I moved anymore.

I've already left comments on WP:Lebanon, WP:Ethnic Groups, and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style but iits been a couple days without any responses so I figured opening a thread here would be a good idea.

Theres other diaspora that follow a similar style that should also be moved. Flalf^Talk 15:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:33, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You haven't caught them all. There are also subsidiary lists (e.g. List of Lebanese people in Denmark). Also, I am a little concerned about your last few examples are inconsistent in format with the first. If ethnicity is first and nationality is second (e.g. Lebanese Danes), then surely it should "Arab Austrians" rather than "Austrian Arabs"?

I haven't caught them all, and there seem to be more for other diaspora. Which ones did I miss in particular? They can be moved individually after the discussion. As for the second part you are correct. I tried to be consistent but I must have made some mistakes as I did them in bulk. Flalf^Talk 20:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also just made a merger proposal for List of Lebanese people in Australia into List of Lebanese Australians because they are basically the same article and are under this umbrella of work. Flalf^Talk 21:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are there no Lebanese passport holders in Denmark who are not Danish citizens? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@In ictu oculi: There are, but the primary purpose of these articles are to document permanent residents of Lebanese descent, dual citizens, and citizens of Lebanese descent. I don't think the current title makes sense in relation to the contents of this article and similar articles. I think its more comparable to articles on other diaspora, such as Irish Americans, German Brazilians, etc which is why I decided to suggest a move. The current title format seems like it could apply to anyone just visiting like tourists or diplomats, which the article is clearly not intended to document, and would make no sense to document. Flalf^Talk 18:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming Lebanese people in Israel into Lebanese Israelis may be highly controversial as I don't know whether Lebanese in Israel see themselves as Israelis (issue similar to Palestinian citizens of Israel and Arab citizens of Israel). An alternative could be "Lebanese in [country]". Similar to, for instance, Arabs in France. Such a title doesn't assume whether people are citizens or not and whether they identify as part of the country they live in. It could also include refugees, migrants, temporary workers, students, etc. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this pattern seems to be the norm:

Brazil, the US, Australia and Canada are the exception:

We should probably keep the current names. If it ain't broke, don't fix it? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A455bcd9: I agree that renaming articles like Lebanese people in Israel into Lebanese Israelis is probably a mistake, but part of the problem is that the naming convention wasn't consistent before. Are you proposing we move articles that were already in the format such as Lebanese Cypriots to Lebanese people in Cyprus? As for refugees, migrants, temporary workers, students, etc, those don't really seem like the purpose of the articles to document, so why not name the article in a way that represents the article's contents? Flalf^Talk 15:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Flalf There's no consistency for Germans, French, Italians, and Turks either, as I showed above (e.g., "Turks in North Macedonia" vs "Turkish Canadians"). So it doesn't seem to be a concern for other ethnic groups. I assume that current titles follow the terms most often used by reliable sources. So there's probably no reason to rename these articles? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A455bcd9: I'm not really happy with that conclusion. I feel like we should get some sort of consistent rule. We could have exceptions to that rule with enough sources but I think that wikipedia as an encyclopedia is more effective at its job if it has consistent article titles. I'm willing to move things the other way than I originally proposed (even though I feel like it is less descriptive) but I feel like leaving it inconsistent isn't a good solution. Flalf^Talk 15:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Flalf: I like consistency. But if we want to be consistent, we should do so with all "[Ethnicity] in [Country]" pages. Why only Lebanese people? What if contributors make a different decisions for Turks in the future? Also: by making "Lebanese people in [country]" consistent you may brake consistency of "[Other ethnicity] in [country]". For instance, for the US, Brazil, Australia, and Canada, all pages seem to follow the pattern "[Ethnicity adjective] [Host country adjective]" (e.g. Lebanese Americans). If we rename these pages into Lebanese in the US, Lebanese in Brazil, Lebanese in Australia, and Lebanese in Canada, we'll break the existing consistency (seen country-wise, and not ethnicity-wise).

So should we start a broader discussion on that topic somewhere else? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A455bcd9: Sorry if I wasn't very clear in my writing, I'm not an excellent communicator, but I intended to apply this not just to Lebanese diaspora but to all diaspora, I just noticed it first in the Lebanese diaspora and wanted to see if people would agree on that before making an even larger move. As for the second portion I was thinking that if we were to follow the "[Other ethnicity] in [country]" rule we could leave the US, Canada, and Brazil as exceptions as they're overwhelmingly referred to in sources the other way. I also agree we should open another discussion, I just don't know where though, as I have just come back from a long wikibreak. I tried opening some threads on a couple wikiprojects but they didn't really amount to anything. Flalf^Talk 16:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah OK. Don't be sorry, I only quickly skimmed through the previous messages before answering and probably missed some bits. So yes, I agree with "[Other ethnicity] in [country]" and leaving some countries aside (US, Canada, Brazil at least? Australia as well?). I don't know either where to suggest this change. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per A455bcd9. A lot of these articles cover mainly residents in X country who are Lebanese citizens. The proposal would significantly change the article scope. Also, the format "Lebanese Americans", etc. seems to be most common in Anglo-American countries perhaps due to different history and culture compared to many countries on the list. (t · c) buidhe 02:18, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: I feel like the article scope isn't entirely well represented by the titles as is. And if you oppose the move, do you suggest making diaspora articles consistently in the "[people] in [country]" format outside of the Americas? I think we should settle of some sort of consistent titling even if it has an exception in the Americas. Flalf^Talk 02:37, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would generally support "People in Country" format outside the Americas, but I don't think it needs to be 100% consistent. (t · c) buidhe 03:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean I don't think it has to be 100% consistent but I think for the most part it should be so its easier for readers and editors. Flalf^Talk 18:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose While the articles are intended to list Lebanese–Brazilians, this isn't very clear, as the title also seems imply any sort of Lebanese person in within the boundaries of Brazil could apply, and honestly listing every notable Lebanese person on vacation in Brazil seems frivolous. I absolutely disagree with that the scope of the article is unclear. Readers definitively know what article are they getting into. That someone would read this title and believe it means Lebanese people in holiday in Denmark is counterintuitive and I don't believe it. If such people exist they're a minority and we can never aim for 100% perfection.

Furthermore, this is the format applied to the states like the US or Canada, which originate from immigration. The concepts of ethnicity there are different and treated as such in Wikipedia. For nation states like Denmark and more or less Lebanon this is the format used in Wikipedia.

And I've always disagreed anyway with the proposed format. It implies all immigrants become integrated and members of the countries they move to, even putting the identity of this country prior to their original one. I am a Romanian in Spain but I am not a Spaniard of Romanian kind ("Romanian Spaniard"). And by the way, I am a permanent resident without Spanish citizenship. The existence of Lebanese passport holders in Denmark who are not Danish citizens is definitively possible and these should anyway be included in this article. Super Ψ Dro 14:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Super Dromaeosaurus: How do you feel like standardizing diaspora articles outside of the Americas with the "[ethnicity] in [country]" format per the discussion above? I think there needs to be some consistency no matter which way the move is settled. Flalf^Talk 03:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would favor the for example Canadians in the United States format. Super Ψ Dro 14:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Super Dromaeosaurus: I agree with that format for the most part (my mind has been changed by prior discussions), but I disagree with that example. In the United States and Canada, there is an overwhelming use by sources and people there supporting the use of the other format (likely because the majority of the citizens of those countries are descended from immigrants and it is used domestically as a form of distinguishing ancestry). Either way, I'd like to standardize, even if not in the direction I originally suggested in the proposal. Is it possible to open a discussion about standardization (with exceptions) somewhere on wiki? Flalf^Talk 16:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what would be the most appropriate place. But maybe standardization is not possible. We either adopt the format used for nation states or the one for multicultural states. Super Ψ Dro 17:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Absolutely not. Being "in Denmark" is very much different from identifying as "Danish", and one would need to check through and source each case if the scope were to be thus changed. Also, little evidence the above monikers are actually in use. Unlike "Irish Americans" or other well-known things, it is not automatic that an adjective exists describing all other combinations of countries you could conjour up. All in all, the current title is more accurate and descriptive. — Amakuru (talk) 13:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as many of the proposed titles would be neologisms, and the articles cover a broader group than citizens of the states concerned. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.