This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities 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.
Is it WP:original research or WP:synthesis to define "Swedish diaspora" by using the dictionary definition of a diaspora and applying it to Swedes. The Merriam-Webster dictionary definition is: "the movement, migration, or scattering of a people away from an established or ancestral homeland" and "people settled far from their ancestral homelands". The same dictionary describes a Norwegian as: "a native or inhabitant of Norway" and "a person of Norwegian descent". So if I use the transitive property to combine them the way we learned in junior high school logic class ... is that WP:original research or WP:synthesis? I want to remove the "verification" tag on the definition and be able to apply the same definition in multiple articles. See Norwegian diaspora as another example. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
The loanword diaspora (from Greek) has a specific connotation of being 'scattered'. In fact, if I type the word 'scatter' in Google Translate to Greek, I get διασποράς.
Generally (but not always), things are scattered by an outside force. In the case of the best-known diaspora, the Jewish one, you have the Assyrians and Babylonians being the ones *scattering* the Jewish people. However, the earlier movement of the Jews from Egypt into the Land of Canaan is not generally called a diaspora because it was not a scattering, but simply a movement of the entire group from one place to another.
So to answer your question, I would say that, first, it probably needs to be a forced scattering by an influence from outside the people involved. The specific type of influence might need some debate (could be famine, could be religious intolerance, etc). Second, it should generally be called a diaspora (by academics, the public, etc). If it isn't, then it probably shouldn't be just arbitrarily named diaspora because it would lead to confusion since it isn't a common name.
Despite being a word known for its Jewish connotations, I am not personally certain whether diaspora is a term used in most situations by people. We use it in English because we borrowed it from Greek. I'm not certain whether people of other languages would borrow the Greek to describe their circumstances, or if they would choose a word from their own language, or borrow from a language besides Greek. We can invent any term we like in English, but without some general acceptance, it wouldn't necessarily contribute to comprehension, which is the whole point of language, yes?
So, that's some of my initial thoughts on the question posed. -- Avanu (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I think it is either WP:original research or WP:synthesis if there are no reliable sources that refer to a Swedish diaspora. Otherwise couldn't you just link any two concepts? Best of luck resolving this! Watchedsuddenurn (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment: I think it's quite fair to say that while some "disaporas" were forced upon a population, the term can and often has been used in a more general sense of voluntary emigration and scattering, according to the literal meaning of the word. Off the top of my head, I can't cite any sources to back up what I just claimed, and it's not worth my time to do so. However, any concern about WP:OR would be easily avoided if Richard would simply cite some scholarly sources that do use the term "Swedish diaspora" - and I see by doing a very quick search of Google Books, that there seem to be 30 or 40 such sources dating as far back as the year 1900, some of them written by Swedes in Sweden itself. So there you go. Textorus (talk) 03:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Using the logic of the original question there would then be no thing as "<nationalityX> diaspora" for any X, since the term <nationalityX> in one definition only applies to people living in countryX. (So could you please remove "Swedish" from the Swedish Chef?) Therefore, the issue seems to be with most or all of Category:Diasporas. As a non-native speaker of English, and given that the literal term "diaspora" is seldom used in Swedish for Swedish emigration, I don't want to argue what the correct term should be. However, this seems to be the wrong place to argue about a a term which is (right or wrong) used for an entire category tree. Tomas e (talk) 12:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)