Talk:Creole peoples

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

Spanish Filipino numbers[edit]

I'm from Philippines and whoever get this statistics has no actual proof? I work in Real Academia in Manila and we have database of Spanish Filipinos. 17,000 and 0.1% is just very inaccurate.

Brazilian mestiços or Brazilian crioulos?[edit]

In Brazil, a very different process occured, independence was granted without war (only an internal problem in the northern regions that did not accepted independence, that was fastly erased), and the relation between non-mixed Portuguese (now Brazilians) and mixed natives and Portuguese kept peacefull. Unlike in Spanish America, a Brazilian monarchy directly connected with the Portuguese was established. Portuguese borned in Portugal were named Galegos, this name was especially given to northern Portuguese but it was also used to the southern ones.
People of mixed Portuguese and Native ancestry that the Portuguese had contact with since the 15th century but who didn't speak a Portuguese creole are known as mulatos, mestiços, caboclos and pardos.
Angolan mulato or mestiço
Mozambican mulato or mestiço
Brazilian mulato, mestiço, caboclo or pardo

Seems to me that these two excerpts don't have anything to do with the article. Would anyone tell me why they should stay?--Paraiba 05:03, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What's wrong with them? Is anything incorrect? It is in the same level has in Spanish America. In fact, the entire article focus few on creole people. -Pedro 09:28, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, I was a bit rash. No, there's nothing incorrect. It's just that, as far as I know, the word "crioulo" has always been a derogative term for black people in Brazil. I've never seen any Brazilian historian refer to these people as "crioulos". I think there should be a little clarification on this.--Paraiba 03:28, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Paraiba's first comment, that text is not appropriate. The topic of this article is "meaning of 'Creole' and its equivalents in various languages when applied to people". Therefore, for Brazil, the subject should be the people which are called crioulo. I rewrote that section accordingly. Jorge Stolfi 06:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed Languages[edit]

What are the differences between mixed languages, creoles and pidgins? They are three different families at Ethnologue.

See Creole languages. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A mixed language is a result of a combination of two or more languages, a pidgin isn't so much a language as a jargon between people who speak two different languages and Creole is the name of several dialects of a French patois that developped in several of Frances former colonies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.10.198.128 (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reunion and Mauritian creoles[edit]

hey, in reunion creoles is a more inclusive term it still has the sense of all those born on the island are creoles. but ethnically its all the mixed and cafres(blacks). 

In Mauritius, creoles are an ethnic group, but we still differentiate

with mulatres, ti creoles(blacks), blanc fess noires( whiter than mulattos but not considered white). thanks any questions (doms_bakk@hotmail.com)

Similar to Haiti every Haitian is creole but there are different terms for those of us with different skin tones:
  • Noir (nwa/nwé) - Black, dark skinned
  • Marron (mawon) - Brown skinned
  • Mulâtre (milat) / mulâtresse (milatrès) - light skinned with straight or loosely coiled hair.
  • Grimaud (grimo) / Grimelle (grimèl) - any light skinned person
  • Marabou - mixed black and native indian, typically dark or brown skinned with straight, wavy or loosely coiled hair.
  • blanc (blan) - white (a minority in Haiti and even the whitest Haitian may have some african blood in them just as even the darkest Haitian may have some français in his/her blood)

other terms like: rose, jaune & brun exist as well.

  • Créole natif natal, in Haiti, means someone born and or raised in Haiti
  • Créole authentique means authentic(ally) creole, this refers to food, music etc.

P.s. the part in the article about the term in Haiti excluding whites is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.102.101 (talk) 02:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

say, would anyone want to help writing a larger article on this? I must add that creoles are majority christians and the church forms an important part of mauritian creole lives.a key part of this is the annual pilgrimage to Pere Laval's(missionary who initiated the conversion of the slaves) grave... not forgetting the small Rastafari community who i think, like in Jamaica, want to be closer to Africa. They are also very involved in the annual Le Morne(a mountain where slaves jumped to their death from whites trying to chase them) trip.Domsta333 12:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Section on Creole Development[edit]

I've added a new section on creole development, since a discussion on the pidgin-creole-language process seemed to be non-existent in the article. If anyone can add on to this section or help cite some sources for it, that would be great. Most of this information in the section has been obtained from books like "The Power of Babel," but I don't know what the correct format is on Wikipedia for citing literary sources. Please help!--Ikiroid 17:04, 8 November 2005

I'm moving the development section to "creole language", since it's more about language than ethnicities--Ikiroid 15:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese Creole replaced by Portuguese Africa Creole[edit]

I removed most of the "Portuguese Creole" section (below) since the article is about "meanings of the word 'Creole' and cognates in various languages when applied to peoples" and not about "creole languages' or "mixed European-Native peoples" or "people who spoke a creole language". For Portuguese, that fits only the Kriolu of cape Verde, the Kriol(?) of Guinea-Bissau and the Kriol(?) of ST&P.

People of mixed Portuguese and native ancestry that Portuguese had contact since the 15th century, and who spoke a Portuguese Creole language.

  • São Tomé e Príncipe: Forros ("Freed slaves")
  • Ziguinchor: Fijus di Terra ("Children of the Land"), Fijus di Fidalgu ("Children of Noblemen"), Portuguis ("Portuguese")

Mixed Portuguese and Asian ancestry.

People of mixed Portuguese and Native ancestry that the Portuguese had contact with since the 15th century but who didn't speak a Portuguese creole are known as mulatos, mestiços, caboclos and pardos.

See also: Portuguese-based creole languages

The entries for Angola, Mozambique and Brazil should go to mestizo if they are not already there. Jorge Stolfi 05:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole part about "crioulo" in Lusophone Africa is sub-standard. There is a pervasive ambiguity about the use of the term as social and/or linguistic category. The social history is presented as similar in all five territories, while this is decidedly not the case. The use of "ethnic" defies the one it has in state-of-the-art anthropology/sociology. Etc., etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.189.1 (talk) 21:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article is incomplete[edit]

The article as it stands seems very incomplete. There are many languages with autonyms "Creole" or cognates. Are the respective speakers also called by that name? For example, there are the Miskito Creole, Cólon Creole, Belizean Kriol language, Upper Guinea Kriol language, Krio language, Liberian Kreyol language, Seychelles Kreyol language, etc. Jorge Stolfi 08:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These issues now pertain to creole languages. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alaskan Creole[edit]

Are the mixed people called Creole or something of the sort? If not, the section should be removed. (It is incomplete anyway.) Jorge Stolfi 08:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename this page[edit]

To avoid confusion with "creole language", this article should be renamed "Creole peoples". Jorge Stolfi 08:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was renamed quite some time ago. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell??? what is the confusion, creoles speak creole that's where it got its name!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.104.54 (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Est ça! I second that one; and wouldn't it be Creole people without the 's'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.10.198.128 (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really a disambiguation?[edit]

I'm confused. First I should disambiguate: my comments are about the page called Creole, not Creole Peoples. Why does the discussion of Creole redirect to Creole Peoples?

The article called Creole is a disambiguation... But it also has a large chunk of content that shouldn't be in a disambiguation page, I would think. The content of those paragraphs is fairly haphazardly organized, but it seems like parts should be in Creole Peoples, and parts in Creole Languages. Perhaps there should be Patois page --- and I see there is, so any content here should be there instead, with perhaps a see also from the Creole Language page.

--sbump 03:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree... I'm no expert on the subject but perhaps someone could suggest a merge; it seems like parts of this need to be merged into several different articles. Srose (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that these problems have been resolved by now. Creole and Criollo are a proper disambs; Creole peoples is about the ethnic/social/racial/national meanings of "Creole" and cognate words; Creole languages is about the languages that were born from a combination of two or more languages; Criollo people is spcifically about the criollo caste of Spanish colonial society. Other specific Creole/Criollo peoples have their own articles. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article is POV[edit]

This article is so POV it hurts. ive changed it a bit anyway.

  • This unsigned and undated comment is hopefully irrelevant by now. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remove everything below the disambiguation[edit]

The section entitled Creole vs. Patois lacks research, sourices and neutrality. It seems as if it was written by people who assume their limited knowledge was all encompassing. Furthermore it has little to do with the article. It should be removed and perhaps there should be an individual article about Creole versus Patois and nother article defining what Creole means in different societies.

  • The issues raised by this unsigned and unadted comment are hopefully resolved by now. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pidgins, patois, creoles, lingua francas - defined[edit]

This section was moved to Talk:Creole language as it dealt with that subject exclusively. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Olive-skinned?[edit]

That statement is ridiculous. Are all white Creoles olive-skinned? Where do they obtain their olive tone? Some white Creoles are just French, therefore Alpine not Mediterranean. If they were mostly French mixed with German as in the case of my great-grandmother, they would likely have fair skin and possibly blonde hair and blue eyes.And if they were mixed with Spanish that is not indicative of olive skin either, seeing as there are many fair Spaniards. So the term "olive-skinned" needs to be deleted as it's not scientific.jeanne (talk) 12:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article is not a hoax[edit]

This article has recently been tagged as "hoax", "original research", and many other epiteths. Those labels are unwarranted. Most of the contents was gathered from many sources that are at least moderately trustworthy, filtered by prudence and good sense. It probably contains errors, but that is true of almost any WP article. The article lacks references simply because most of it was written well before WP started to require (or allow) references. References are surely needed, but they are easy to find by googling around. Please help by adding them, or at least by pointing out *specific* parts that you suspect are wrong. Merely tagging the whole article as "hoax" helps neither the editors nor the readers. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy of Brazil section challenged[edit]

A tag has been affixed to the "Brazil" section claiming that its factual accuracy is disputed. However there seems to be no explanation of that claim in this talk page. Would the person who added the tag please explain what he thinks is wrong in that section? Thanks, and all the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unwarranted tag[edit]

An anonymous editor has replaced the simple "unreferened" tag by a multi-issue tag, but apparently did not bother to explain his concerns. Consider that:

  1. The tag is an ugly smudge that takes up a huge amount of screen space. It makes the article much uglier and is an annoyance for the reader. So, by itself, it is a negative contribution to WP; a vandalism of sorts. What does it contribute in return? Does it tell the readers anything that they would not notice otherwise? Does it help other editors improve the article?
  2. It relies largely or entirely upon a single source. The more references the better, but the minimum is to have one reference for each claim. If there happens to be one reference that covers the entire article, that is quite enough.
  3. It needs sources or references that appear in third-party publications. The cited reference is third-party.
  4. It may contain original research or unverifiable claims. If you have reason to doubt any part of the article, please flag *that part* and explain why in this talk page. Or, better, if you see any claim that looks suspicious, please google around for references. If they confirm the claim, add the references to the article. If they contradict the claim, fix the article and add the references. If you can't find any references, move the claim to this talk page, with a note sayong so.
  5. Its factual accuracy is disputed. Same as above.

All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 06:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of "crioulo" in Colonial Brazil[edit]

Someone changed this text

In Brazil, the word crioulo came to denote a "dark skinned person", that is, a person of predominantly African ancestry.

to this

In Brazil, the word crioulo initially denoted persons of Portuguese parentage born in Brazil (as distinct from colonists that migrated from Portugal). It eventually came to denote a "dark skinned person", that is, a person of predominantly African ancestry.

This new wording implies that, in Colonial times, "crioulo" was used only for Portuguese descendants but not for Africans. But the sources I have seen say that "crioulo" was a generic qualifier that meant simply "born and raised in the place" irrespectively of the nation of origin; and therefore evenin Colonial times one would say Africano crioulo. This is also consisitent with "crioulo" in time becoming attached to blacks. Is there any source that supports the new wording (that excludes Africano crioulo in Colonial times)? All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since when does créole mean white in martinique???[edit]

Someone has their facts wrong. The people of the French speaking Caribbean use the actual definition of the term and it means the same to all. It is a term directed towards culture not race. Therefore in Haiti a black person is créole, a white person is créole, a mixed person is créole, an asian, middle eastern etc. is créole and to put it plainly a Haitian is a créole and its the same for all of the french west indies. Créole equals = native to the French speaking West Indies! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.104.54 (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bajan???[edit]

Who ever posts this stuff about creoles needs help because first of all Bajan is an English patois. All of a sudden because wikipedia and foreign linguists say so people are posting idiotic things like jamaican creole, barbadian creole. and there is no language category called a creole language. They are patois' Haitian Creole is a French patois (as it was once called), It is called creole because the people are creole duh???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.104.54 (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch Creole[edit]

Wouldn't the inhabitants of The Antilles and Aruba be considered Dutch Creole? There is a Dutch Creole language so wouldn't there be people considered that too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.119.120.35 (talk) 20:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Need primary evidence of the term "Creole" being used in the Chesapeake Area[edit]

One part of the article claims that "Creole" was used to refer to the inhabitants of the Chesapeake. What is a primary source from that time period which states that outside of a historians definition of what they were? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsam1979 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missouri French Creole[edit]

There's a whole class of Creoles missing from the United States section. Many people don't realize that there is a distinct Creole culture in east central Missouri, especially in the Old Mines, Missouri, and St Genevieve, Missouri, areas. (See the wiki article on "Missouri French".) Technically, the people of this region are Creoles because they immigrated from Quebec and settled Upper Louisiana (modern Missouri) nearly 80 years before the Louisiana Purchase. Their language and culture are slightly different than the Creoles to the south in Louisiana. It would be nice to see a small section about them along with links to the other wiki articles that already exist.

French is Latin based there for the verb is CREO[edit]

http://ablemedia.com/ctcweb/showcase/wordsonline.html WORDS Latin-to-English cre.o V 1 1 PRES ACTIVE IND 1 S creo, creare, creavi, creatus V TRANS [XXXBO] create/bring into being/make; procreate; beget/sire; give birth to; produce/bear fruit; bring about; cause to grow; elect, appoint, invest; institute; conjure up; (PASS) be born/spring from; be home/native of;

There is no meaning in any language that is Latin based that means of MIXED RACE or blood. Also you can not put a 20th century meaning on a word that meant something different in the 17th century. Take the word GAY if you asked a person born in the 21st century they would not say it means of gaiety they would tell you it means a homosexual. Get the point - in the 16th century the term was used in the context of the last meaning in the sense that people born in the "NEW WORLD," were NATIVE/Creole to the "NEW WORLD."

An outdated term..?[edit]

"Creole" is moreorless an outdated term. The majority of peoples who still refer to themselves as such are the creoles from Louisana which reminds them of their cultural French and Spanish past. Places of where creoles would live are now national socieities today and refer to themselves after their respective countries. The term is archaic and to continue to use it modernly is a fallacy. 75% of these creole articles are either unreferenced or solely refer to a specific group (usually blacks) which would also be incorrect since it would refer to all those "born in the colonies." However, "there are NO longer any colonies." Let's shift over to 20--16 please. Would we call Usain Bolt a "Creole" or simply "Jamaican?" It's screaming WP:POV. Think about it. It is an absolute abdurdity. Savvyjack23 (talk) 05:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to some extent. In many areas of Latin America the term Creole became irrelevant after independence from Spain. However, in some areas such as Louisiana, the term became even more entrenched and used after Louisiana was acquired by the United States. But in some areas (well beyond Louisiana) the term Creole is part of contemporary daily discourse and one can find pan-Creole festivals, organizations, and magazines. In other areas, Creole is somewhat of a colonial artifact that can really only be discussed in the past tense. But historical discussions of the concept of Creole and the context(s) where it originated are valuable for understanding the present. So, I think that it is unwise to simply dismiss the term in general as outdated.2600:1009:B158:5ABB:C075:20E0:D006:DC1 (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Creole peoples. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Creole peoples. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested Rework.[edit]

"Creole people are ethnic groups which originated during the colonial era from racial mixing mainly involving West Africans as well as some other people born in colonies, such as French, Spanish, and Indigenous American peoples" Suggestion to remove the emboldened words; Creoles are not necessarily byproducts of "racial mixing", though the term is typically associated with that process. It would be better to say that "Creole peoples are ethnic groups typically associated with European colonial settlers, in particular when those Europeans and their descendants mixed with West/Central Africans, Indigenous American peoples, or other Europeans of different backgrounds(?). This properly accounts for instances where "creole" was used to refer to individuals of other, "non-mixed" backgrounds (IE Spanish creoles in the New World). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.21.201 (talk) 22:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agreed. Many so-called Creole societies were less about racial mixing and more about associations with European colonists based on cultural, religious and linguistic similarities. The amount of actual race-mixing is usually insignificant compared to the size of the group that identifies as "Creole". Inamo11 (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Short description[edit]

I tried to shorten the description to match the guidelines but the description was changed again. The current short description is now far too long. How about Ethnic groups formed from diverse ancestry? — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 10:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is Creoles are not necessarily racially or ethnically mixed, and the article explains that. I think Inamo11's current short description, which is slightly longer than yours, works well. ABF992 (talk) 02:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ABF992: Exactly. It seems to me that people are deliberately confusing "mulatto" with Creole by demanding that "Creole", according to the Spanish (and only them), refers to the (racial) descendants of Europeans, but in those colonies the non-European descendants were called mulatto or mestizo not Creole. Nobody uses "Criollo" to mean "Creole peoples" anymore in Latin America. Furthermore if we are talking about an "ethnicity" we should primarily focus on the anthropological definition and not historical or sociological ideas. So we are now left with people describing what Creoles look like instead of defining what Creoles actually are. I think this sentiment comes from the racially-charged societies of North America who equally do not understand that ethnicities such as "Arab" of "Jew" are not racial (phenotypic) categories but are based on religious, linguistic and cultural identity. I also pointed out that there are several Afro-European clans in Africa that are not "Creole" but I think there is a concerted effort here to equate Creole with Mulatto. This is disrespectful to Creole peoples.

Inamo11 (talk) 12:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inamo11,GhostInTheMachine can we think of ways to shorten the description to around 40 characters and still have an accurate description of the topic, as per the guidelines? How about 'non-indigenous ethnic groups'? ABF992 (talk) 23:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Gullah people be included in this page?[edit]

Part of the top section of the Gullah article states "Because of a period of relative isolation from whites while working on large plantations in rural areas, the Africans, enslaved from a variety of Central and West African ethnic groups, developed a creole culture that has preserved much of their African linguistic and cultural heritage from various peoples; in addition, they absorbed new influences from the region. The Gullah people speak an English-based creole language containing many African loanwords and influenced by African languages in grammar and sentence structure. Sometimes referred to as "Sea Island Creole" by linguists and scholars, the Gullah language is sometimes considered as being similar to Bahamian Creole, Barbadian Creole, Guyanese Creole, Belizean Creole, Jamaican Patois and the Sierra Leone Krio language of West Africa. Gullah crafts, farming and fishing traditions, folk beliefs, music, rice-based cuisine and story-telling traditions all exhibit strong influences from Central and West African cultures"

Is there any chance that they would qualify as a relevant inclusion within this article? Sorry not to prototype any changes myself, but I'm very new to interacting with Wikipedia and I'd rather not mess anything up on an important and well discussed article like this one. 217.180.192.169 (talk) 01:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Gullah are Atlantic Creoles so if you wish, you can include them in Section 2: United States, where the Subsection title (on Gullah) should read 'Lowcountry and Sea Islands since the various Creole groups in the U.S. are listed based on geographic location. Inamo11 (talk) 10:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The IPv6's lede and sources[edit]

As it's clear he is unwilling/unable to do so, I am going to take it upon myself to criticise the sourcing and text of the content that the IPv6 user has spent two days trying to edit-war into the lede section of the article. To put it plainly, I am not impressed with what he's offering.

For reference, I am basing my critiques off of this diff.

  • The French men were often known as Cajun although many confuse Creole and Cajun.[1] - The cited reference supports both halves of the claim, albeit barely for the latter.
  • Many Creole peoples were fathered by Cajun French men and also Spanish men as is seen in many genealogy records, documents including historical documents and in DNA. - Source? You cannot make a claim like this without providing good sources to back them up.
  • This mix was especially in the south in Louisiana and Texas areas where French and Spanish men procreated with Indigenous American-negro women later known as Black Women.[2] - I will flatly note that I am incredibly sceptical of the usability of sources published under a role byline, such as this is. In my experience, and barring extenuating circumstances, a source under a role byline is almost always exempt from an outlet's editorial processes. While the source does support the claim made, I do not trust that it was written by Kreol's staff. (While they do list an editor, Georgina Dhillon, I cannot be certain that she wrote this because the source is almost 8 years old at time of writing.)
  • The result of the mixture of Indigenous American women who were also reclassified in reclassification to negro, who mixed with French and Spanish men and later other Europeans such as English, German, and other European men was the creole, negro means black in Spanish. - This passage cites three sources, all in the middle of this. The first is a PDF; I am unwilling to assess it (Firefox forces a download) and so I will not speak to its usability. The second source is citing a periodical of some sort, and doing it incredibly poorly; this would need {{cite magazine}} and very likely someone who can actually access the content as it is on JSTOR. The third source is a MoveOn.org petition, which isn't an acceptable source. (When I brought this up to the IPv6 user in -en-help and explained why we couldn't use it, they ignored the entire "why we can't use MoveOn.org" part.)
  • This can be seen in lineages such as the singer’s Beyoncé and Solange Knowles who’s mother Tina Knowles is from Louisiana of creole descent coming from Indigenous-Black American women and French men according to her genealogy. - Irrelevant. This section does have citations, but as this article is about the ethnic group en generale and doesn't specifically call out specific people as creole, this is completely out of place.
  • It can also be seen in American television journalists Don Lemon who is of creole ancestry through his mother via her grandmother also of Louisiana Creoles among others on the List of Louisiana Creoles.[sic] - Irrelevant and a biographical issue. We cannot make claims like this about still-living people without a properly-cited source, full stop.
  • The reclassified status to negro then later to African American in 1988 from Jesse Jackson was a way of disassociating Indigenous Americans from their land and heritage and giving it to the mixed which was a form of Blanqueamiento the Spanish term for Racial Whitening. - Of the six sources cited here, one is a duplicate. The sentence itself is a hard-to-parse mess. The rest:
  • The first source[3] lists no author and gives an utterly impossible date of Dec. 23, 1600. I'm sceptical this underwent any peer review or editorial oversight.
  • The second source[4] is used to cite the "[reclassified] later to African American in 1988 from Jesse Jackson" and amounts to source fraud. While Jackson is mentioned as being in support of the change the source also states he isn't the only one in support, nor does it claim in any way he had any more say than anyone else that met that day - which includes a who's-who of politically-connected Black American organisations. If anything, the article makes it clear that (1) the groups that met that day were in accord on the wording and (2) not everyone outside of that group agreed with it. As Jackson is still alive, this also amounts to a biographical issue.
  • The third source[5] seems to be a personal blog from an intern at Duke University, making it useless for want of editorial oversight.
  • The fourth source is a cite to Encyclopaedia Britannica. Other encyclopaedias aren't good sources as they're tertiary - i.e. they summarise what secondary sources have said. This also seems like it would be far better off on the article about racial whitening; here it's off-topic.
  • The fifth source is citing a book[6]. Without a copy of the book at hand I cannot speak as to this cite's usefulness.
  • The term creole is also a French form of mestizo which includes mestizaje. - Six sources, two of which are duplicates (one of the book, and the other of a source cited here). The first is a definition that conflates Creole and Mestizo as terms and is at odds with the rest of the article. The fourth[7] claims that "creole" is the Anglophone Caribbean equivalent of the Latin American "mestizaje" but otherwise says nothing about creole. The other two are non-sequiturs.
  • Creole is often confused with Cajun however the Creole especially in Louisiana are mixed with the European Cajuns. - Source?
  • Some Cajun celebrities would be Shia LaBeouf who’s dad is of Cajun French descent. - Irrelevant and a biographical issue.
  • Also singer Tim McGraw who is culturally from Louisiana. - The source cited here is the Nat Geo source which doesn't mention McGraw what-so-ever. This is source fraud, pure and simple, and thus a biographical issue.
  • The term creole being used for those of European descent born in the Americas was later changed to [Native] American. - This is citing the dictionary definitions of "Native" and "American" by Webster and is quite blatant synthesis; in no circumstances I am aware of has "Native American", capitalised like that, ever meant anything other than aboriginal Americans.
  • This was a reference to Europeans born in the Americas and more specifically within the United States of America being called American based on their place of birth rather than their lineage of where their ancestors were from. - This cites one of the aforementioned dictionary definitions and requires a source that isn't being tortured into this spot.
  • This link shows a Casta Painting of the mix. - "This link" is completely irrelevant.
  • The term Arab means to mix and it was a destination from an Arab-Mamzer. - Not only does this require a source, but this is completely and utterly off the reservation and shouldn't be in this article at all. Strap in, because I'm not going to hide my contempt for most of this paragraph for reasons which should VERY quickly become obvious.
  • Arab was a mix resulting in Hebrew women that mixed with other non-Hebrew men. - Source? This is something that is explosive enough that it needs to have an ironclad source to be in here because it looks stunningly racist.
  • An Arab-Mamzer was the result of Hebrew men mixing with non-Hebrew women which created and illegitimate child.[sic] - The three cites here are to, quite literally, Bible verses. There is absolutely no reason this article should be citing Scripture, especially as the Bible isn't taken entirely as a serious history book.
  • This can be seen in the Torah or Bible with Ishmael being mixed with a Hamitic mother and a Hebrew dad in Genesis chapters 15-18, and it can also be seen with the lineage of Esau who mixed with non-Hebrew women in Genesis chapters 25-27, Genesis 28:6-9, and Genesis chapter 36. - All of which is completely and utterly irrelevant and makes you come off as trying to proselytise, even if that was not your intent. This article has nothing to do with religious matters (except for what role religion plays in the culture) and so stuff like this sticks out like a sore thumb. Once again, every source cited here is a Bible passage.
  • Deuteronomy 23:1-8 goes over the mixes and includes Arab-Mamzer in Deuteronomy 23:2. - Irrelevant. Cites are to Bible passages.
  • Creole was initially a form of Arab and later included any mix which could also include Arab-Mamzer. - This needs a cite, full stop.
  • In America lineage was determined based on the mom especially in the Southern United States typically called the south. In the late 1800’s the south may also be referred to as Confederate States of America. - This appears to be utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand. Cites are to a PDF, Brittanica, The Hysteria Channel, and Encyclopedia Virginia.

To say I am completely unimpressed by what the IPv6 has been trying to force into the article is an understatement. This is a mix of shoddy scholarship mixed with an apparent intent to push some sort of agenda, and it has no place in the article under any circumstances. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.)

References

  1. ^ Gerdes, Caroline (2012-10-04). "Cajun or Creole?". National Geographic. Retrieved 2023-03-18.
  2. ^ "The origins of Louisiana Creole culture". Kreol Magazine. 2015-08-12. Retrieved 2023-03-19.
  3. ^ "African American, (the term); an article". Retrieved 2023-03-19.
  4. ^ "Leaders Say Blacks Want To Be Called 'African-Americans'". Associated Press. 1988-12-20. Retrieved 2023-03-19.
  5. ^ "Three things wrong with the term "African-American"". 2016-06-10. Retrieved 2023-03-19.
  6. ^ Hernández, Tanya Katerí (2012). Racial Subordination in Latin America - The Role of the State, Customary Law, and the New Civil Rights Response. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781139176125.
  7. ^ Bodenheimer, Rebecca (2019-11-22). "Mestizaje in Latin America: Definition and History". ThoughtCo. Retrieved 2023-03-19.

Different meanings everywhere[edit]

This article is a confused mess. I tried to make the intro more ambiguous since this term Creole is not uniform nor is it used for one people group. It is used in different ways even just in English. Yet I was reverted.

The Merriam Webster dictionary describes four meanings: 1: a person of European descent born especially in the West Indies or Spanish America 2: a white person descended from early French or Spanish settlers of the U.S. Gulf states and preserving their speech and culture 3: a person of mixed French or Spanish and Black descent speaking a dialect of French or Spanish 4: a: language evolved from pidginized French that is spoken by Black people in southern Louisiana b: HAITIAN c: a language that has evolved from a pidgin but serves as the native language of a speech community

Also, why should one photo of a member of ONE type of Creole be used in the intro/overview. This does not make any sense. I propose breaking this article up into those different specific communities which are called Creole. CMD007 (talk) 05:33, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. Only white Spanish and Native Americans are creole. Everyone else are just irrelevant. I will not revert you ever again.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Creole_peoples&oldid=1194420337"