Talk:Burgher people

Language

I am some doubt about "Nowadays Burgher people predominantly speak Sinhala". The census cited shows a higher proportion of Burghers speaking Sinhala than English (88% vs 73%), but 97% literate in English. That is badly inconsistent.

The whole paragraph goes far beyond what can be deduced from the one cited source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serendipitous1 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Mico

I deleted this sentence from the History section:

  Their mestiço children were often called 'micos' 
  (a corruption from the Portuguese word for 'mechanic').

This sounds strange, can anyone confirm it? My dictionary (Aurélio) has only one entry for mico, namely "monkey" (from Carib miko). This is probably an old (16th century) loan. So perhaps that was just an ethnic slur? (And perhaps someone got the wrong idea from "monkey wrench"?)
Jorge Stolfi 19:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleting the mico word does not mean they wre not called as such.
User:RaveenS 11:29, 4 March 2006 (EST)

That is not the point, the point is to give the correct and complete information. The etymology must be correct, and if it is an ethnic slur, that must be said. Moreover, for completeness, we should also report how the mestizos called to the Portuguese children. (After all, there is far too much peace in this world, don't you think so? 8-) Jorge Stolfi 23:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself defines mestiço as derived from Latin and meaning mixed. The Portugese word for 'mechanic'is - as could be expected- 'mecânico', not 'mico'.

'Momkey wrench has nothing to do with Monkeys but comes from "Moncky": Charles Moncky, is the inventor of the Moncky wrench, that became the Monkey wrench. Just like the 'black box' is not black but was invented by someone called 'Black' User:Ed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.132.62 (talk) 05:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I have heard the word "mecho" to describe Portugues Burghers ( which is more consistent with the mechanic derivation. Its going to be difficult to find a citation for that. User:Serendipitous1 —Preceding undated comment added 16:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Burghers

Was Keith Potger from the Australian musical group, The Seekers a burgher? He was listed as a Sri Lankan Australian, surley they wouldn't have pit him in that catergory if he was simply a European who was born in Ski Lanka (e.g. Vivian Leigh)

Danielle De Niese (opera singer, Dutch and Sri Lankan) should probably be added, too. ~~Mimi~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.244.97.178 (talk) 00:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The word 'Burgher' does not come from 'Vrij Burgher'. It simply comes from 'Burgher' that is a dutch word for a citizen and as such had certain rights. Yes they where 'free'(Vrij), but the word Burgher itself has no linkage with the word 'vrij'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.132.62 (talk) 05:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Picture

I'd like some pictures of Burghers, preferably with different degrees of whiteness/Sinhalaness. --84.20.17.84 14:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Nigel Barker?

Since when was Nigel Barker a Burgher person? Burghers are a community of people from Sri Lanka who have resulted from colonists and locals mixing. Nigel's mom was a Sri Lankan model who moved to the UK and married an English man. AyanP (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Ayan

Who is a Burgher?

I have a question. When a foreigner has a child with a Sri Lankan, is this child automatically considered a Burgher? Or is a Burgher only somebody who has ancestors from colonial times? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.27.171.130 (talk) 01:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I am a Sri Lankan and I have worked in 2001 census. People of Sri Lanka (Sri Lankan or foreigners with Sri Lankan origin) with ancestry to European colonists are considered Burgher. This term is not associated to child of any foreigner marrying in Sri Lanka, even he/she comes from any former colonial powers. Malayan people of Sri Lanka who arrived in the country during the Dutch period or Tamil people who arrived during the British period are never considered Burgher.--Fahim (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Guy Sebastian?

Where is the evidence to support the theory that Guy Sebastian is descendant from the Burgher people???

Minimal details are available that his father Ivan is of Sri Lankan descent, while his mother Nellie has an English and Portuguese background and was raised in India. Guy Sebastian was born in Malaysia and the family moved to Australia in 1988 when he was 6 years old. Sebastian is an Australian citizen and is married to an Australian woman whose parents are of Irish heritage.

I do think having Sebastian's image here as a notable Burgher particularly as there is no mention whatsoever in the main article to support that - is a big stretch and I would like to remove the image if there is no available data to support it being here on this article.

Dee 114.78.31.119 (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there a distinct Burgher language or not?

The body of the article indicates that there is as an amalgam of Portuguese, Tamil, and Sinhalese. Presumed misrepresentation of a more nuanced thing. 72.228.190.243 (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Burgher intro

I'm not really sure what the issue is with constantly including "British and other European" in the lead. All of the sources previously cited note that the term "Burgher" was coined to denote the existing Eurasian group on Sri Lanka when the British arrived. While occasionally the term has been used - albeit incorrectly - as a blanket application for all Sri Lankans of mixed Asian and European ancestry, the second source in particular mentions that the Eurasian community of British descent never identified as "Burghers" during colonial rule. Hence erroneously describing them as such would violate Wikipedia's policy on conferring group titles based on self-identification.

The only British progenitors present in the ethnic group were the few who intermarried with the existing Burgher population and became assimilated to that group - which was nevertheless considered a social stigma and, as related in the book Lost White Tribes by Riccardo Orizio, rarely occurred.

The adoption of the English language appears to have been in reaction to the changing political and social environment on then-British Ceylon, as opposed to a significant degree of intermarriage. However, the lead has provided for that by noting the few intermarriages that occurred in the third paragraph. When opening the article in question it conveys the wrong impression to the reader to suggest that the ethnic group in any significant way represents a British or other European diaspora besides Dutch and Portuguese. --Katangais (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

There are a few minor Eurasian ethnic groups live in Sri Lanka. They too consider as Burghers. Sri Lanka government census never desperate them as Portuguese, Dutch or British. So, the lead denies or ignores other Eurasian ethnic groups as Burghers. Wikipedia article can not sensor. Or, Does the article say other Eurasian ethnic groups? The fact has to be included rather than book references. I am very well know about the Sri Lankan context than what the books say. --Anton^Talk 03:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Please read the lead thoroughly. The bottom line clearly indicates that some Burghers intermarried with the British, mostly those who produced fairer descendants. Moreover, the top line states "predominantly Portuguese and Dutch" - this is merely to introduce the topic to the reader, and by no means ignores the contribution of other European groups. In the historical context, most Burghers have been of Portuguese and Dutch descent. Look up ^^ and explain why this is part of WikiProject Netherlands and WikiProject Portugal, but not WikiProject UK.

Besides, by reverting my edit you keep reinstating a grammatical error, replacing the second lead sentence with a fragment. Furthermore, you disrupt the continuity of the paragraph - by introducing the Burghers as a mixed "British and other European group", we ignore the following sentences that states those with the ties to the Netherlands departed at the advent of British rule and others adopted the English language. This makes no sense if the group was already of partial British descent. You have inadvertently caused a continuity cock-up which may lead to confusion among our readership.

By referencing the Portuguese and the Dutch, I was starting a cue to elaborate on the Burghers' history. They started out as a Portuguese and Dutch group. Far from ignoring the later contributions of British blood and others, again note that in the last paragraph I acknowledged the important contribution of the British, particularly with those Burghers who produced fairer descendants.

So either rewrite the first paragraph of the lead altogether - which you seem unwilling to do - or replace it with some semblance of the older revision per my concerns above. --Katangais (talk) 15:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the lead is crooked. Give me some hours. I will check with some Sri Lankan and come back. --Anton^Talk 17:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Gallery of 'notables' in infobox

Please see the current RfC regarding the use of 'notable' members of any given ethnic group in the 'ethnic group' infobox. Firstly, per WP:TITLE, this article is not entitled "List of notable Burgher people". Secondly, having checked through the history of this article, there has never been any discussion as to who should be depicted, or why they somehow are representative of an entire ethnic group. All I've established is that a gallery was added to the infobox in January 2010 as a unilateral decision. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we can add "notable Burgher people" who were/are representative of Portuguese, Dutch and other ancestral groups and I am not sure who should be on the list. This could help. --AntanO 04:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: - You are misinterpreting Wikipedia:Editing policy - we don't need to get consensus for every edit, only if there are disputes do we need to get consensus. And as WP:EDITCONSENSUS states, an "edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus". The images were in the infobox for nearly six years before you removed them. Numerous ethnic groups have images of "notable" people in their images - e.g. Australians, French people, Germans, Han Chinese, New Zealanders, Slavs and Ukrainians etc - I would like to know why you have singled out this article for removing images? Why don't you try and remove images from high profile articles?--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 17:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@Obi2canibe: I have done so on various articles as I go along. If you check the RfC, I've managed to make it stick for several (like Russians, Romanians, etc.). I'm not 'picking on' any single ethnic group article. I realise that you're an experienced editor but, judging by your editing history, you don't specialise in developing multiple ethnic group articles. There is nothing preventing articles from having an image gallery, or individual photos of notable people from an ethnic group in the relevant section, rather than as infobox clutter. As it stands, I'm about to move the List of Burgher people to List of notable Burgher people in keeping with the common nomenclature (and COMMONSENSE) for such articles unless anyone objects. I'm treating it as an uncontroversial technical move, but I'm giving other editors a heads up in case there are objections. Per WP:TITLE, that is the appropriate article for such a gallery.

Naturally, I don't OWN any of these article and, but I've gone BOLD here on the premise that consensus can change. I've noted comments about including more darker skinned Burghers in the gallery, etc., etc., etc. This brings up further questions about how an arbitrary collection of exceptional people are representative of an entire ethnic group. How do two Australian Burghers and a beauty pageant winner represent Burghers as an ethnic group? Such selections are inevitably subjective. Okay, I lived in Sri Lanka for almost two years and knew Burghers who were Solar scientists, teachers, businesspeople, doctors, clerks, university lecturers, political activists, retired British Army colonels... and they were people who lived there, not in the diaspora. How do the three people depicted in the gallery relate to any of them? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: I note that the Rfc isn't closed yet so perhaps you should have waited for that before you removed the images. If the Rfc outcome is to exclude images that's fine but if it isn't what then? Shouldn't they be re-inserted given that we have three editors wanting inclusion and one wanting exclusion?

With regards to List of Burgher people, WP:LISTPEOPLE makes it clear that only people who meet Wikipedia's notability requirement can be included in lists of people. Therefore all "lists of people" are "lists of notable people" and having "notable" in the title is redundant. There are thousands of "list of people" articles but only eight contain "notable" in the title. Again, I would like some consistency otherwise it looks like individual low profile articles are being unfairly targeted.

I don't believe the editor who added the images in the first place chose to include notable, white skinned Burghers only. They were constrained by the lack of free images (see c:Category:Burgher people). If you can find free images of non-notable or dark skinned Burghers you are welcome to add them.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 15:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

As regards restoring the gallery, you're welcome to do so until the outcome of the RfC. Nevertheless, I would suggest that, should the outcome be in favour of consensus-based galleries, a new discussion as to a consensus should take place in order to establish who, what fields, why, etc. In terms of the 'notable' descriptor, it's a matter of COMMONSENSE. It's fine that editors know that these lists are for people who pass WP:N, but it is not edifying for the reader: qualifying such lists with 'notable' is for the benefit of the reader (as well as AGF IPs and newbies who add redlink names for people who don't qualify). If you put yourself in the shoes of a reader, what does "List of Filipinos", "List of Ukrainians", "List of Spaniards", et al connote to you? It sounds like a directory. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

As I have stated previously, I would like some consistency.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 11:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

There will be consistency. The outcome of the RfC was in favour of the removal of galleries, therefore editors are already in the process of doing so. See RfC here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 19:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)