Talk:Diaspora politics in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, an attempt to improve, organise and standardise Wikipedia's articles in the area of politics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
||
| Mid | This article is on a subject of Mid-importance in Politics. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
 |
This article is part of WikiProject African diaspora. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles related to topics concerning persons of African descent and their cultures. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora for more information. (See: Category:WikiProject African diaspora for more pages in this project.) |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-Importance within African diaspora. |
[edit] Americo-centric
The article as it stands deals mainly with ethnic diasporas in the United States, and the quoted theory is visibly derived from US case studies. The 'homeland' cases are those which are important for US foreign policy, again reflecting a bias in US diaspora studies. In addition, the article takes terms such as diaspora and homeland at face value, whne in fact they are politically disputed enities. A comparison with the Vertriebene would illustrate how little fact there is in such terminology, and how much politics.Paul111 19:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- A solution may be to rename this article "Diaspora politics in the United States" and then start another article on the more general case.
Seems a reasonable option.Paul111 11:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Biased
The article is written from the POV of just one scholar, Yossi Shain. There are other problems with it, though. For example, the section on conflicting loyalties focuses entirely on the Jewish community, as if for other diasporas, this is not an issue. Furthermore, the widely discredited paper by Mearsheimer and Watt is presented uncontested, even though this pseudoscholarship has no place on Wikipedia outside the article about itself. Beit Or 07:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- I am going to replace the "POV" tag with a "more sources" as that better captures your complaint. --70.48.69.25 16:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Tone is un-encyclopedic at times
Folks, the tone of this article seems to me to be one more suited for a textbook or magazine article:
- "To understand a diaspora's politics, one must first understand its historical context and attachments: "
- "Diasporas are thus understood as transnational political entities"
- "Thus, from the perspective of the diaspora, the homeland's "political and territorial fate has profound implications."
- "it is assumed that a state, in order to act coherently in the international system, must . . ."
Also, as noted above, this article seems to be primarily a regurgitation of the work of Yossi Shain and does not present a comprehensive viewpoint. Madman 16:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how to add more sources, but this seems important: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/07/22/weekinreview/22luo.graphic.ready.html
