Talk:Creole peoples

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Brazilian mestiços or Brazilian crioulos?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Mixed Languages 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Reunion and Mauritian creoles 

message: 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)
replies: text: remove Creole and cree language 107.159.164.162 (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Section on Creole Development 

message: 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.
* Chinese Creole (Filhos di Macau, Macanese)
* Malay Creole (Portuguese-Malay, Gente Kristang or Cristão)
* Indian Creole (Portuguese-Indian)
* Sri Lanka Creole (Portuguese Burgher)
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
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Portuguese Creole replaced by Portuguese Africa Creole

message: 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)
replies: text: These issues now pertain to creole languages. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article is incomplete

message: 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)
thread_title: Alaskan Creole

message: To avoid confusion with "creole language", this article should be renamed "Creole peoples". Jorge Stolfi 08:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was renamed quite some time ago. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename this page

message: 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)
replies: text: *I'll try to fix it up next week --150.203.177.193 06:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *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)
thread_title: Is this really a disambiguation?

message: 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)
thread_title: Article is POV

message: 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)
thread_title:  Remove everything below the disambiguation 

message: This section was moved to Talk:Creole language as it dealt with that subject exclusively. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pidgins, patois, creoles, lingua francas - defined 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Olive-skinned? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article is not a hoax 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Accuracy of Brazil section challenged 

message: 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:
# 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?
#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.
#It needs sources or references that appear in third-party publications. The cited reference is third-party.
#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.
#Its factual accuracy is disputed. Same as above.
All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 06:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unwarranted tag 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Meaning of "crioulo" in Colonial Brazil 

message: 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)
thread_title: Since when does créole mean white in martinique???

message: 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)
thread_title: Bajan???

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dutch Creole 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Need primary evidence of the term "Creole" being used in the Chesapeake Area 

message: "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)
thread_title:  An outdated term..? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724054518/http://rocinak.sasktelwebsite.net/roc/creole.htm to http://rocinak.sasktelwebsite.net/roc/creole.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060130014847/http://www.allcaboverde.com/ to http://www.allcaboverde.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070113121134/http://www.nsula.edu/creole/ to http://www.nsula.edu/creole/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101127112547/http://montraykreyol.org/spip.php?article177 to http://www.montraykreyol.org/spip.php?article177
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Suggested Rework. 

message: 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
? — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 10:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Short description 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Should the Gullah people be included in this page? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Different meanings everywhere