Template talk:AfricansinUK

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Template contents

Recent edits have attempted to turn this template into a mixture of countries of birth and ethnicities. This is why many templates such as this have been deleted in the past. If anyone is interested in an ethnicity template for the UK, it is available at Template:UK census ethnic groups. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

African American and Afro-Caribbean

I think it's highly debatable and even offensive to suggest that these groups are not "African" particularly for those who value their roots. It doesn't matter if they haven't been to African. It they say they're African then they should be included here.--23prootie (talk) 00:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ghanian, etc. This too is common sense. Kindly do not revert the page again. Middayexpress (talk) 02:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
original research. Also, 23prootie, I could turn the argument round and say that it's offensive to African Americans to suggest that they're African rather than fully American. What about European Americans who value their roots? If the same logic were to be applied, we'd be adding them to the European migration to the UK template. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Let me clarify some points. As long as African Americans and Afro-Caribbeans say they're African or Afro, then they are African. Next. Ethiopian is not an ethnic group but British Ethiopian is, just like African is not an ethnic group but African American is. And. There's is not European America article so there is no necessity to categorize them.--23prootie (talk) 00:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what planet you are living on 23prootie, but there is no such
original research. Middayexpress (talk) 02:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
First of all I don't know what the fact are you talking about. Second we are not in the authority to say which groups is an ethnic group and which is not. Third, I think it is very shallow to define ethnicity and origin based on citizenship alone. Fourth, you said that "an ethnic group is "a
biological traits,[1] by the African Americans and the Afro-Caribbeans that they share with the rest of the African peoples make them "African". Please.--23prootie (talk) 08:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, it's clear you don't know what I am talking about since you keep bringing up irrelevant points. You are misinterpreting that quote above to mean something it does not.
biological traits,[1][4] real or presumed, as indicators of contrast to other groups."[7] This means that the recognition by others of a group's biological, linguistic, cultural, religious, etc. distinctiveness is enough to confer upon it "ethnic group" status, not recognition by the group's members themselves, as you have somehow misinterpreted. I'm asking you again to stop distorting facts and reverting the template. Middayexpress (talk) 10:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Before you continue your argument, I suggest you read first Tutsi and Hutu so that you will see that defining an ethnic group is murky and messy, and continuing to do so would be controversial.--23prootie (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's an absurd and irrelevant argument. The Tutsi and Hutu both constitute distinct ethnic groups, and neither has anything whatsoever to do with this template and thus with immigration from Africa to the UK. Middayexpress (talk) 01:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from
Black British
Article

More recently it has come to define a British resident with specifically Sub-Saharan African ancestral origins, who self-identifies, or is identified, as "Black", African or Afro-Caribbean. Black Britons also emigrate from other countries, such as Brazil (see Brazilian British) and the USA (see African American British).--23prootie (talk) 08:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that pointless unsourced quote that has absolutely nothing to do with this template. Or did you think Wikipedia itself was a
reliable source? Middayexpress (talk) 10:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Also, 23prootie, when you say "we are not in the authority to say which groups is an ethnic group and which is not", don't you realise that that's exactly what you're doing? Have you read
WP:Original research? I don't see you citing any source for your claims. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Since the discussion here is well developed, can I suggest that it becomes the central discussion for Template:OceanicsinUK, Template:EuropeansinUK, Template:AsiansinUK and Template:AmericansinUK. The consensus view should apply to all of these templates. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. Middayexpress (talk) 12:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just found these quotes in an Office for National Statistics guide to categorising ethnicity:
Country of birth
For many years, the only statistics regularly available in Britain were based on people’s country of birth. This was of limited reliability because, for example, a number of white people had been born in such countries as India when it was ruled by Britain. Country of birth has, in any case, become increasingly less relevant when used on its own to specify ethnicity, as second and third generation children have been born since the main periods of migration.
Nationality
Some destination countries use nationality as their primary criterion, implying that migrants cease to be minorities once they have qualified for citizenship. However, it is clear that many of the disadvantages and other experiences associated with minority status continue long after naturalisation has been completed. Also, the nationality laws associated with Britain’s former empire are far too complex for this to be a useful criterion on its own.
Cordless Larry (talk) 09:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if what you have written has any bearing on the article. The article is not about categorizing British immigrants based on national origins or ethnicity alone. It is about categorising them based on ancestry, so it doesn't matter if that is based on nationality, country of birth or ethnicity. And why should Black Britis be included in this template. Well, let me ask you this, where would a
Chinese American be included in the Asia template (along with the other Chinese) or in the Americas one.?--23prootie (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The article cannot contain a mixture of ethnicity and nationality for the simple reason that this creates ambiguity as to which groups are classified where. It also gives people the opportunity to personally classify groups as he or she sees fit rather than according to where they actually migrated from, which is the exact opposite of
NPOV. The Chinese American example you cite, moreover, is irrelevant since Chinese Americans don't migrate in great (if any) numbers to the UK let alone from Africa. You still have also been unable to refute that which has been presented above and consensus on this matter has been reached. I therefore strongly suggest you stop reverting the page. Middayexpress (talk) 01:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

The reason why

The reason why I prefer these templates to be mixed ethnicity + nationality is because there are some articles that would be lost and left uncategorised if the focus is nationality alone. For example

Maori in the United Kingdom. A considerable amount of articles would be left in the dust so unless you find a way that they get into a template that doesn't get deleted, they should stay right here.--23prootie (talk) 01:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Those articles that "will be left in the dust", as you say, can and indeed should be main-linked from their respective national articles. That's still no argument for this bizarre mish mash of ethnicity and nationality you and only you are advocating. Consensus on this matter has been reached; kindly respect it. Middayexpress (talk) 01:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts

  1. Everybody's ancestors came from Africa
  2. Genetically, African races differ more from each other than non-African races do from each other, & from some African races
  3. In America, the standard term is now African American; in Britain it's still black

131.111.164.110 (talk) 10:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, seem to have got accidentally logged out somehow. Peter jackson (talk) 10:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • 4 In Britain, African is used exclusive of West Indian
  • 5 Americans have had it so dinned into them that they must say African American, not black, that they sometimes unthinkingly say it in reference to people with no American connexion at all

Peter jackson (talk) 10:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Clarification

What i have been trying to say all along is that there are some articles in the templates that do not necessarily correspond to specific countries (ex.

African American British). If the template remains geography-exclusive then there would be articles that would excluded simply because they don't correspond to a specific country.--23prootie (talk) 23:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

That's an irrelevant point to this discussion, as this template features none of the aforementioned articles, nor do any of them apply to migrations of people from Africa to the UK. Middayexpress (talk) 04:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we are supposed to be discussing these templates in general, not just the African one (see above), but the point is that the templates shouldn't be a mish-mash of ethnicities and countries of birth. If that's the best we can do, there shouldn't be a template at all. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Middayexpress (talk) 23:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ a b c d e Smith 1987[page needed]
  2. ^ Marcus Banks, Ethnicity: Anthropological Constructions (1996), p. 151 "'ethnic groups' invariably stress common ancestry or endogamy".
  3. ^ a b "Anthropology. The study of ethnicity, minority groups, and identity," Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2007.
  4. ^ a b Statistics Canada Definition of Ethnicity
  5. ^ T.H. Eriksen, Small places, large issues. An introduction to social and cultural anthropology (second edition, London 2001), 261 ff.
  6. ^ Marcus Banks, Ethnicity: Anthropological Constructions (1996), p. 151 "'ethnic groups' invariably stress common ancestry or endogamy".
  7. ^ T.H. Eriksen, Small places, large issues. An introduction to social and cultural anthropology (second edition, London 2001), 261 ff.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:AfricansinUK&oldid=1139447462"