Talk:Diaspora studies
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
Mess
[edit]This article is a mess...it's too vague and squishy. Also, the separate fields don't all belong on this page. --TheCunctator
Edits
[edit]C. -- looks like we were editing at the same time. Diaspora studies is a growing field, and I wanted to make sure it got a fair shake, even though I don't always agree with what its proponents say. Also, I replaced the German stuff, because it really is a case where the rules for diaspora vs. bunch of refugees may apply. I also took out the racial/nationalist stuff, because it could lead to oversimplification of motives...JHK
Race
[edit]Did you bother to look at the race and nationalism entries? I think you'll understand why I linked to them. It's generally a better idea to allow people to make connections than to hide them. But it's also better to put them into context than to simply list them, as well.
I have to say, I'm getting annoyed at the increasing propensity of certain people to simply delete content. That means you!
Yeah, we're overlapping. The Wikipedia backend problems are also making this more difficult. We need that ethnicity entry to be completed. It's on my todo list.
I'd assert that there isn't a line between diaspora studies and refugee studies; there's an overlap. Diaspora studies refer to ethnic populations; refugee studies refer to refugee populations; they overlap in ethnic refugees.
I'm going to merge our entries if that's all right, and move as much information as possible over to the diaspora entry as possible, so that diaspora studies will only refer to the academic field, as it should.
--TheCunctator
Reservations
[edit]makes sense, although I reserve the right to disagree after I see the result. I suppose you could say that almost all victims of Diaspora could be called refugees, but not all refugees are victims of Diaspora. By the way, I did look at the links, but think that they shouldn't be there without a better article on the main topic. By the way, I seldom delete huge chunks of anything, except when it's not NPOV'd or just wrong -- or when i'm restoring a version I think is better -- i've restored a couple of Paul Drye versions without a pang of guilt. thx for helping get this back on an even keel, and I'm sorry to be so cranky, this has just really been disillusioning.JHK
Edit, don't delete
[edit]You really need to stop deleting huge chunks of anything, even if (I might say especially if) it's not NPOV'd or if there's a better version; instead, you need to correct, contextualize, and contribute to fix what you see as wrong. If that's too much, then state your intentions in Talk first.
That said, I've moved over the discussion of diasporas to the diaspora entry. The diaspora studies entry should be about the academic field, not about the subject of the academic field. --TheCunctator
Propaganda
[edit]The material that JHK has been removing was being put all over any German/Prussian topic, in huge amounts, by one person intent on producing propaganda for his/her particular view. Most of it, from what I could see, was not fixable. JKH and Michael T. engaged this person in a very lengthy discussion about the problems with the material, but to no avail. Thus, JHK is, IMO, perfectly justified in his deletions. -- Stephen Gilbert
Wacko
[edit]Stephen: he also deleted large chunks of work which I did specific to these entries. It wasn't just the wacko. Get your facts straight. And I also think that just deleting wacko info will be detrimental to the health of Wikipedia in the long run (though my full position is more nuanced than this one sentence may imply). --TheCunctator
- She did give quite detaled reasons as to why the entire page should be deleted, but I saw no counterpoints given. As for your one sentence position, I must say that about two weeks ago I would have largely agreed with it. However, since then I've been trying to deal with an influx of "wacko info". For example, check the revision histories of Yaohushua and Yaohushuahim. I tried to engage Yaohushua in a reasonable dialogue about his material before making any changes, but he ignored any points made and simply continued to fill his pages and alter the Religion article, placing his cult on the same level as Judaism. His material was incorrect, outright propaganda, and simply not fixable. Thus, I soundly deleted it. So, in short, I say that sometimes material simply has to go. -- Stephen Gilbert
Reasons
[edit]Cunctator -- since IMO there is still no reason to have a page on the Heimatvertriebene, I think it needs a re-route. Also, you asked for justifications for my approach, and I gave them in detail -- if you think those reasons are bogus, you should address them. Right now, it seems that your major objection is that I deleted something you wrote. Also, I am a she. Thanks!
Nonsense
[edit]Cunctator -- Yes, there is a page for bad jokes and other deleted nonsense, but from the looks of it, the material that that one author was contributing was so abundant and so patently biased and misinformed that it would have required a page of its own.