Talk:List of people by nationality

move from user talk:MyRedDice

I can see your aiming for some kind of consistency with the 'list of people' pages. So, why have you decided to suffix some of them with people and others not. Mintguy

Only because the name of an inhabitant of Poland is "a Pole", but there is no equivalent name for an inhabitant of England. One could have:

• list of Englishmen -- politically incorrect.
• list of English -- grammatically incorrect because English is an adjective, not a noun
• list of Englishpersons -- politically correct but hideous
• list of the English -- would mean a list owned by the English people/tribe rather than a list of members of the English people.

It's the same problem that gives us list of poets but list of transgendered people, for example. OTOH, I'm sure there are some names for nationalities that I don't know - please correct such lapses. Martin

Ok, that was a bad example, because transgendered folks are at Famous transgendered people... Martin

Sure, I understand, what I meant was - if you're going to aim for consistency, which seems to be the reason you're making all the moves and redirects in the first place, you could have List of English people and List of Polish people etc.. As for list of poets, it falls into the same catergory as list of architects, list of physicists and list of footballers (maybe football players?) where it's a profession and not a nationality Mintguy

Hmm, I can see your point. I guess I was aiming for consistency amongst all lists, standardising on "list of PLURAL" - if I'd considered only consistency amongst lists of nationals, then it would be different. Plus, this way the article names are shorter, and I'm always in favour of that. Martin

Oh, footballers are at List of famous football players, while architects are at List of notable architects. Which kind of validates my desire for consistency! This will all have to be fixed if/when I or someone else gets round to making list of people by occupation ... Martin

See also: Talk:List of people

I disagree with the claim that Quebec is not a nation. It isn't a state or a country, but they are different to a nation. They have a shared language, culture, sense of identity, etc, which is what defines a nation. Is this a list of people by country or by nation? BTW, I am not advocating the independence of Quebec or anything, before someone accuses me of that. But state is not the same as nation, and you can have a country or state that contains multiple nations in it (eg. the Great Britain has the Scottish, English and Welsh nations in it.

I agree with whoever wrote this... Quebecois is a nationality, even if Quebec isn't a state :) Martin

Is Quebec in the United Nations? What other nations does it have diplomatic relations with? How do you distinguish it from "The Aboriginal Nation of Quebec"? Didn't the referendum to form a new nation fail?

More... How is Quebecois more of a nationality than Vermonter or Bostonian?

A nation is a group of people who share a combined culture, language, identity and/or ethic origin. Where ia nation corresponds with a state, it is called a nation state, eg, France, Italy. Many states consist of several nations, eg, Canada, the United Kingdom. So Quebecois is a nation, which is part of the state of Canada. Similarly Scotland is a nation but it is not a state, hence it is not part of the UN, the state it belongs to, the UK, is. Ireland is a nation-state, but before 1922 it was a stateless nation that was part of the UK. But that did not make it less of a nation. The referendum was not about the nationhood of Quebec, it was about the statehood of Quebec, and the desire of many people that the Quebec nation should become a nation-state. It is not a nation-state but remains as it has always been, a nation within a larger state. Stop misunderstanding the difference between nation and state.

Also - there is no such thing as an American nation. America is a vast landlass that includes many nations. The United States is a nation-state on the landmass of America. Please get your facts right. JTD 19:42 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

No, Jay, Im afraid your wrong; as wrong as an "objectivist" or some such..

"I disagree with the claim that Quebec is not a nation. It isn't a state or a country, but they are different to a nation. They have a shared language, culture, sense of identity, etc, which is what defines a nation."

LOL - According to this logic, We Californians are separate nations (north and south - the water issue) and the rest of the USA is divided up into its own ethnic sections! The ethnocentrism of some people, in this case the Quebekians never ceases to amaze me.. Nationality as well as nationalism is cheezy way of seeing the world, and falls along boundaries of Nation status... A nation state, a nation, a state - in the international sense, they are all the same... I'd suggest deferring to the UN designations on this matter. -'Vert

So if the European Union turned into a 'united states of Europe', are you saying the German nation, Italian nation, French nation, Danish nation, Irish nation etc would all cease to exist? Of course not! There was a german nation long before an all-german state came into being. An Italian nation long before there was a state called Italy. An Irish nation long before a state called Ireland. State and nation are not the same. Sometimes they cover the same territory, producing a nation-state. That indeed was the central demand of Woodrow Wilson after WWI, that state boundaries should match nations, hence the (arguably disastrous) decision to replace the Austro-Hungarian Empire by smaller nation-states.

But many larger states involve multiple 'nations'. In no way is California a nation: there is no unique language, no unique culture, the sense of identity that exists is linked far more to the United States than to local definition. In contrast, Scotland sees its association in the UK as secondary behind the Scottish identity, where there is a shared culture, shared heritage, sense of language, etc. Put simply, most people in the US define themselves as US citizens who live in California, Vermont, etc. Someone from Scotland sees themselves as a Scot in the United Kingdom. And if (though it is exceptionally unlikely) a United States of Europe ever came into being, people would define themselves as German/French/Irish or whereever in Europe, not Europeans who live in Ireland, France, Germany, etc. Nation is the equivalent of family, the basic unit by which we define ourselves, and which has a unique impact on how we see ourselves, how we define ourselves and what shapes our view on everyone else.

The UN has no view whatsoever on nations. It is exclusively an entity concerned with states, whether they be nation-states, multi-nation states, or sub nation states. Quebec is no different to Scotland, Wales, etc; it is an area peopled by people who share a unique culture, sense of identity, language and perspective. Personally I think they would be foolish to leave Canada; nation-states aren't all they are cracked up to be. But it IS a nation, just as Scotland is, Wales is, the Basque region is, etc. If this list covered people by state, then there should be no mention of Quebecois, any more than there should be separate mention of Scotland or Wales. But it is a list by nation. That is fundamentally different. JTD 20:44 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

I think listing people by 'nation' (a.k.a. cultural identity) is very problematic and arbitrary.

To use the Quebec example, there we have a multi-national (a-national would probably be more correct) country, containing a nation-province (at least in name) which contains a sizeable minority or people who do not identify as Quebecois. Would someone like Mordecai Richler be considered a Quebecois? a Quebecker? a Canadian? an English-Canadian? an Anglo-Quebecker, a Jewish-Quebecker, an Israelite? Etc.

Oh god, this is another fringe political movement we've stepped in, i.e. people who think Quebec is a nation. Well, fringe is probably a bit strong, since there is a strong movement in Quebec that wants to secede from Canada. Nonetheless, this whole "Quebec is a nation" topic is a hot button for a bunch of people, some serious and some wacko. For purposes of wikipedia, this has already been settled over at Quebec which reads "Quebec ... is a Canadian province..." and "At this point, the national question is still not resolved. For some the fight for Quebec independence is still very important to this day."

I think we're much better sticking with political boundaries (countries, states, provinces, prefectures, etc.) than trying to pigeonhole people by ethnicity - especially in a country like Canada where many people have a varied ancestry and may identify with several nationalities, or none at all. - stewacide 21:27 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

It is a fair point. Of course the problem is that within any 'nation' there will be people who do not identify with it. For example, there is a small 'Unionist Party of Ireland' which wants Ireland to re-join the UK and does not identify with the 'Irish nation' in the sense of its defining characteristics. So should its members be defined as 'Irish' if they don't accept that definition? What about Northern Ireland, where approximately 45% of the population define themselves as 'Irish', and 55% define themselves as British? Or the small minority (mainly Conservative Party supporters) in Scotland who define their Scottish identity behind a sense of being British? Because of this, do you drop a reference to Scottish and just use British? Do you just use Canadian? If so, how will people who regard themselves as Quebecois react? No matter what you do, some minority somewhere will insist that 'they' don't accept how 'they' are defined. JTD 21:40 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

Cutting in...:Quoting JTD: "In no way is California a nation: there is no unique language, no unique culture, the sense of identity that exists is linked far more to the United States than to local definition." - LOL - Wrong on nearly all counts, Bub... Culturally, were about as far away from much of the rest of the country, it seems, as can be... Its problematic, granted... and also, given the phenomenon of rapid ethnoconvergence, and dual-nationality these lines become blurred more and moreso... carrying your analogy further, Jay... If Germany joins a "UES" and over the course of a couple centuries, German gives way to English... (with some resistance, Quebec-style of course) and its borders are dissolved, and the "UES" has a sole governing body... etc... what is Germany? Strip away the details that belong to the broad category; "ethnicity"... Whats left? Scotland, is an interesting case, though, and the suggestion by any Englishman that Scotland is a mere "state" might draw swords... but that's essentially what it is... after all what do you call the UK? A State of nations? or a Nation of states - like the US. No doubt the distinction is reflective of tumultuous changes in thinking about the ever-morphing concepts of statehood and nation... hence, you may be right to be liberal in including quebec... but where is the line, and by whom is such line defined? -'Vert

If Quebec is a nation, then by any meaningful sense so was the Confederacy. Yet we have bent over backwards to deny the Confederacy was ever a nation at all and instead call it a "government" in the currect version of that page. Our litmus test for the confederacy was that it had never been recognized by another nation. What nations have diplomatic relations with Quebec?

If Bush was a wikipedian, he'd make a "state of the nation of states (politics)" speech... Martin

It is an extremely complicated issue, Sv, and I don't mean to demean Californians or anything like that. Maybe I didn't express it clearly. Most societies have groups in geographic areas have shared identities, but a 'nation' is more than just some shared identities, political culture, etc. It involves a sense of unique identity, often defined by centuries of history, by linguistics (even if today not everyone speaks the original language, it still will impact. Ireland, for example, doesn't speak British-english (let alone American-english) but something called Hiberno-english, which in grammatical structure is based to some extent on old Irish (gaelic) and elizabethan english (that's why Ireland is awash with foreign students who come here rather than the UK to learn english, because they find our version more grammatically correct, more free-flowing, and less full of regional variations than in the UK). Often nations share a common religious heritage which impacts on their society even where they themselves are not religious. (eg, I'm not a practising Catholic but through the experience of cultural catholicism I have a 'feel' for the religion that allows me to spot factual errors about catholicism on Wiki & correct them.) Quebec does have a society that is impacted far more by its linguistic differences, its catholicism, its links with France, etc than anywhere else in Canada. Had the Californian Republic remained separate for far longer and developed a 'unique' cultural cohesion, it could have evolved into a nation. But its complex structure and society mean there is not a standard 'Californian' - after all Ronald Reagan was governor of the state, but hardly represented liberal California. There is a far stronger communal identity in Quebec than in California, a product of its long history of shared symbols, values and culture.

Even if a United States of Europe emerged (and for historic reasons, I suspect there is more likelihood of Iraq becoming the 51st US state than that happening) the sense of nationhood would still exist in its member states; after all Belgium is one state but two (if not more) nations, the Flems and the Walloons, co-existing uneasily. (It used to be said that the late King Baudouin was the only Belgian; everyone else was something else.) Just because there isn't a state with borders doesn't end a sense of national identity. In fact that is the very reason why a USE is unlikely to happen. The European Community/Union worked because it allowed a balance between the expression of identity through the nation state and and shared number of European-wide institutions. But tip the balance in favour of a federalised Europe, and you risk creating a nationalist backlash, among people who say 'hold on, I'm Irish/British/French/whoever. I'm not some common-denominator European'. To put it simply, as long as people can define themselves in Europe through their nationality first, they will toterate and work through the EU. But put that 'Europeanism' before their identity, and you could generate a backlash - with people saying 'I want to be Irish/German/Italian in Europe, not a European who lives in Ireland/Germany/Italy.' The key thing to remember is that 'nation' and 'nationalism' can exist separate from a state, but the more separate it is, the greater the degree of sensitivity required to avoid a backlash and demands of a separate nation-state. In the case of Quebec and Scotland, the question is, can a multi-nation state show sufficient sensitivity to all sides to keep the state together, or will the sense of national identity lead to a demand for separation and the development of their own state that corresponds to their own nation, ie a nation-state?

re the above statement about the confederacy - yes it was the nearest thing the US has ever had to a separate nation with it (not counting native american nations, of course) but it still was not a nation in the literal sense. (Though had it developed, it might have evolved a sense of separate identity.) But, anonymous user (BTW, any chance you might sign your contributions? 3 '~'s or 4, if you want the time and date stated) you still seem fixated on nation = state, hence your comment on diplomatic representation. IT IS UTTERLY IRRELEVANT. How many states are diplomatically represented to Scotland? None! Is it a nation? Yes. There is diplomatic representation to the UN and the EU. Are they nations? NO! Get over your fixation. Is its utterly irrelevant whether Quebec is a state or not, in terms of this argumment. Does it have a separate culture, policy, sense of identity, language, shared history, emotional sense of itself? Yes. Which is why Quebec, like Scotland, like Wales, like Ireland before 1922, Italy before 1870, Germany before 1871, were all nations. You don't have to have a state to be a nation. Being a state does not make you a nation. Please please grasp that. JTD 22:26 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

Ok JTD, answer these (seriously):

Q1: Is Palestine a nation? THERE IS NO PLACE CALLED PALESTINE, BUT YES THE PALESTINIANS ARE A NATION

Q2: Was the Confederacy a nation? NO

Q3: Is Kurdistan a nation? YES

Q4: Is Celine Dion's nationality Canadian or Quebecois? DEPENDS ON HOW SHE WANTS TO CALL HERSELF. EITHER COULD BE USED

Q5: Is Pierre Elliot Trudeau's nationality Canadian or Quebecois? DEPENDS ON HOW HE CHOSE TO CALL HIMSELF. EITHER COULD BE USED JTD 23:00 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

Ok, interesting. In Q1 you say "NO PLACE CALLED PALESTINE, BUT YES THE PALESTINIANS ARE A NATION" - would you say that Quebec is not a nation but that the Quebecois are? That is, you appear to be saying that the PEOPLE are the nation and not the place.

In Q2 you deny the confederacy nationhood. On what basis would you say that the Confederacy was not a nation? Do you consider the United States a nation?

I think your clarification on Q1 and Q2 will clarify your position on Q3.

On Q4 and Q5 you say "either could be used". Do you mean that either could be used by the individual to refer to themselves, or do you mean that either could be used by an observer to describe the person in question.

On the surface, your conception of nationality appears to be what is described at Ethnicity.

I always learned that a nation was simply a group of people who share ethnic, religious, cultural, linguistic, geographic or political bonds -- it isn't a nice, neat definition, but it generally works. By this standard, the Confederacy was a nation and southern Americans are still a nation (which is not to say that USians are not also a nation, including both northerners and southerners). And I think it is the people and not the place -- the Jews, even prior to Israel, were still a nation, spread out across the globe. Tuf-Kat

I would regard the people of the Confederacy as borderline. Of course in that case, there are racial issues to be borne in mind, in so far as slaves of the old confederacy in the 1860s would have had a different concept of what the confederacy was about to slave-owners. TK's definition of a 'nation' is pretty much as I have always understood it too, and as we were taught in college lectures. Re the above answers, it is patently obvious that there is a 'Palestinian nation', just as it is patently obvious that there is a Kurdish nation. And yes the US is a nation, with sub-national characteristics. Re Celine Dion and Pierre Trudeau, the same is true with Gordon Brown, the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer. His passport says he belongs to the state of the United Kingdom. I don't know whether he regards himself as British or Scottish; the issue about multi-nation states is that they can interlocked definitions of nationhood. Some Scots see themselves as Scots and British, others purely Scots or British, (or English and British, versus English or British). Some people in Quebec see themselves as Quebecois and Canadian, others Quebecois or Canadians, just as before 1922, some people saw themselves as Irish and British (some Northern Ireland continue to do so, wanting to remain part of the UK while supporting the Irish rugby team and members of the Church of Ireland); others saw themselves as Irish or British. On this sort of list, Dion and Trudeau could be put on either list, as Quebecois or Canadian. That's the nature of 'nationhood'. It is complicated and not bound by borders. As in the case of the Palestinians, you don't even need a territory to share ethnic, cultural, linguistic & religious bonds, and so be a nation. JTD

Fair enough, tokerboy, but that makes anything that attempts to be a list of nations or nationalities fraught with peril. We either need to agree on a definition of nationality, or move this page to another title (see MyRedDice below) or come up with some elaborate scheme of disclaimers and redirects. Another can of worms that this definition will open up is people argueing over where to place famous and infamous people. Determining what "nation-state" they belonged to is usually simple, decideing what "cultural, religious, and linguistic" group they self-identified with is going to be quite contentious.

---

What if I made this page list of people by area or list of people by place or list of people by location ? Would that solve people's concerns? Or make things worse? Martin

I'd go for {region}, {state} because region often would describe a sense of nationhood where that nation isn't a state, eg, Quebec, the Basque country, Scotland, etc. Of course there would have to be some flexibility where someone is 'inter-state', eg, the Palestinians, many of whom would not like to be called 'Israeli' even if they live in 'Israel', given that they regard Israel as an entity that 'stole' their land. (Even as I wrote that, I had images of RK suddenly appearing to begin his 'inevitable' defence of Israel!!) And while Gerry Adams would hate to be called Northern Irish, from the United Kingdom, the Rev. Ian Paisley would go ballistic if called 'Irish'. Bet you are sorry you started this page now, eh! <G>. JTD 23:41 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

(or list of people by ethnicity?)

How about two pages: people by place (e.g. list of Chinese people) and people by nationality (e.g. list of Chinese people (ethnicity))?

This would give primacy to the geographical definition (which is right IMHO, considering how arbitrary 'ethnicity' is), but still allows people to make such pages if they want to. - stewacide 04:57 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

On second thought, how about list of people by citizenship? (e.g. list of Chinese citizens, list of Hawaiian citizens, etc.).

1. Completely unambiguous (you're either a citizen or your not)
2. It actually works for the US and UK (e.g. list of United States citizens, list of United Kingdom citizens)

As things currently stand we have the worst of everything: there's no clear distinction between citizenship and ethnicity (ethnicity could be covered by something like list of people of Chinese ethnicity), and the current standard form doesn't work for some countries/regions (e.g. list of Albanians vs. list of United States people) - stewacide 07:03 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)

---

Given that there is now more space on List of people, I'd like to suggest removing List of people by nationality and adding to List of people, after the secion "By date":

By nationality, residence, ethnicity, language

African-Americans Albanians Argentines Australians Austrians Belgians Brazilians Britons Canadians Catalans Chinese people Colombians Cubans Czechs Danes Dominicans Dutch people

English people Finns French people Germans Greeks Hungarians Iranians Irish people Italian-Americans Italians Japanese people Kazakh historical figures Koreans Mexicans Monegasque people New Zealanders Peruvians

Poles Portuguese people Puerto Ricans Quebecois Russians Sardinians Scots Slavs Slovenes South Africans Spaniards Swedes Swiss people Ukrainians United States people Venezuelans Welsh people

Regards Docu 06:36 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

Ooh, that's quite nice and compact :) Martin

Sorting by continent

Nothing removed, nothing added. I think it's easier to navigate. What do others think? Udzu 00:00, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As the location factor has various incidents on the lists, I prefer the previous format. -- User:Docu

You're probably right. I've reverted it to a single list. Udzu

Turkish

Where are the Turks!?!?!?!?

Fixed, thanks. --Joy [shallot] 11:38, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)