Talk:David Lammy

British or English politician

Just looked back at edit history fully and realised there is an ongoing debate about whether to use the description of "English" or "British" politician. Convention is generally the latter, aside from some politicians in places like Northern Ireland, Wales, and Scotland, however for Labour MPs, especially members of the UK-wide (Shadow) Cabinet and who identify as British, it is normal and expected for them to be described as "British politician" as it is the most accurate and clear description, and a sort of unwritten convention at this point. I'd be curious to hear thoughts from others on this however given there seems to be a differing of views on the matter. Greenleader(2) (talk) 13:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

David Lammy has repeatedly identified as English, I don't see why English shouldn't be treated the same way as Scottish, Welsh, or Irish. Calling all people in the United Kingdom British isn't a workable solution, see WP:UKNATIONALS. Their are also sections of society that do not like Mr Lammy identifying as English. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear that that last point is not aimed at you, but is has been an obvious reason in the past. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Also the sentence is structured to negate the MP issue, as it says he an English politician serving as an MP not an English MP. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

This also doesn't hold water, as you don't have to be British to be an MP of the parliament of the United Kingdom. Any commonwealth, overseas territory or dependency, or citizen of the Republic of Ireland can serve as an MP (without having to be a British citizen). ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

We could use the following as citation if required;
David Lammy on twitter per WP:ABOUTSELF
The Guardian about the argument on LBC that is linked in the tweet
The Independent talking about his drive to have Black English on the census
ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

As I saw this go "English" and "British" back on forth again via my talk page recently. I looked at the clip in question (2:24) he also says he is "Now I am very comfortable saying I'm British, Black-British of course" [1] Is it clear whether Lammy prefers to identify as English over British or are they equal? If so that it is fine to leave it as English. I know other nationalist politicans who we do designate as "Scottish/Welsh" (Ian Blackford) as opposed to "British" specifically prefer the "Scottish/Welsh" designation.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 04:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

He does appear to use Black British as well, but that can be seen as part of the complex and confusing nature of national identity in the UK. Being English and British are not mutually exclusive, if you are English you are by default also British. Here's another tweet by Lammy saying "No one’s telling me I’m not English today.", while holding the England flag. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 08:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Separately to the IP I would point out that limiting English to only descendants of Angles, Saxons and Jutes would exclude large swathes of white English people. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 08:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Kvetching about "Anglo-Saxons and Jutes" in this context is flat out racist and I've given the anonymous editor a final warning for that particular edit summary, which possibly should be revdelled. I suggest that we entirely disregard any nonsense about this having to do with ethnicity and continue the discussion on the basis of things that are actually relevant. We should follow what the WP:MOS says about this. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, as I've said above WP:UKNATIONALS does a good job of explaining the complexity of enthno-cultural national identity in the UK. The questions is whether sources support British or English. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Perhaps a new thought is needed. It is important to distinguish between ethnicity and nationality. An ethnicity is cultural group with a unique language and culture, a nationality is a group of people born or living on any given land mass that is a country. All English, Scottish and Welsh are British, but not all British are English, Scottish or Welsh. We can also go further based on genetics and to give a kind of a quick summary, the only information I can find on ethnic English, is based on genetics, and specifically the DNA haplogroup R1b subclade R-U106, which is most common in England and the Netherlands, and whose history is in the Anglo, Saxon, Jute and Frisian immigration to Great Britain, where they coalesced and intermingled to become Anglo-Saxons and then modern day English. We won't know if David Lammy is ethnically English unless he takes a DNA test and shows the results, but according to Wikipedia, his parents were Ghanaian, leading me to believe that he probably would not have the DNA haplogroup pinpointed to English people. So therefore he would not be ethnically English. He most definitely is British however born and raised. The label British is more accurate based on what we do know.

• Side note: A good example of distinguishing ethnicity from nationality would be taking a look at the America's, every country we have today on the American continent is descended from European colonization and settlement. The only portion of the America's not settled by Europeans during colonization is portions of North-Western United States and Canada minus Alaska, these countries all have a unique culture, but not a unique language, all the languages are descended from European settlers and it's people are descended from their respective settlers, therefore Brazilian or American for example can be considered a nationality but not an ethnicity. Genetically and ethnically David Lammy is probably not English, but we don't know for sure, the British label is more accurate looking at it from a anthropologically as well as genetically. 2603:7000:3B40:B500:DC1C:81DC:FD6F:B393 (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

What of the pre-existing Romano-British population from before the Anglo-Saxon invasion, the Viking population, the Normans of 1066 and all that, or the Huguenots of the 16th century? None of these populations are Angles, Saxons or Jutes or anything similar. Genetic variation in the white English population is quite large, maybe many are of one subclade of one haplogroup but many are not. Are you saying that those who are not, and who's families may have lived here for hundreds of years are not English? Maybe instead different groups have been, over time, amalgamated into a enthno-cultural group we know as Englishness. And so therefore could new groups of people.
This is though a bit WP:NOTFORUM. Do you have anything to add based on Wikipedia policy? - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Restarting the conversation

The previous section has gone of the rails abit. So I'm adding a new section in case anyone has anything new to add. The pertinent policies appear to be WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:UKNATIONALS. I believe that the weight of sources, particularly the self declarations by Lammy, show that we should be using English. However I'm open to any policy based discussions. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we need further discussion. The last time this came up it was just racist vandalism predicated on the ludicrous idea that English is an ethnicity consisting exclusively of some very specific white people and hence that non-white people fundamentally can not be English (while ignoring that many white English people were not descended from those very specific white people either). No Wikipedian should be expected to waste their time on such utter nonsense. I recommend to just revert it on sight, and to issue warnings as appropriate if the editor persists.

For the record, I'm pretty neutral on whether the policy should be that British people should be referred to as British or as English / Scottish / Welsh / Northern Irish. The current policy does not make a firm recommendation in either direction, which seems somewhat unhelpful. If anybody wants to discuss that then I think that would be better done on Wikipedia talk:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom than here.

Absent a change in policy, if Lammy prefers English then that's perfectly good enough for us. The one thing I am 100% insistent on is that we must not treat people differently based on ethnicity and that any arguments predicated on such thinking are invalid. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

This is highly misleading and gives the wrong impression on what he is as Shadow Cabinet Minister and the constitutional system of the UK. There is no such thing as an English politician. He is a British Labour Party member and is serving in the British Parliament. What next, British Prime Minister are going to be called Yorkshire or Londoners before they're British? In addition multiple sources describe him as British and he has never refered to himself as an English politician. Erzan (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't say English labour party or English MP, someone who is English and a politician is an English politician. It's the same as if someone was English and a an author, they would be an English author. There are sources in this discussion that shows English politician, if you have others please add them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:37, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

David Lammy should be described as a British politician based on convention, especially for Labour MPs in the UK-wide (Shadow) Cabinet. Lammy has repeatedly identified as British, stating he is "British, Black-British of course," showcasing his preference for the British identity. Using the term "British politician" accurately represents his role in the British Parliament and his involvement in British politics. Highlighting his personal identity and heritage can be appropriately mentioned in the article, respecting his identity as both British, English and of Ghanaian heritage.Erzan (talk) 05:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you have source for this? Also note that MPs do not have be to citizens of the United Kingdom, so all the talk of British must equal British are simply not true. If you have sources showing self identification that please list them, or discuss the sources already given. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I am extremely disappointed to see this unproductive argument being brought back to life after a whole year. There is nothing to be gained by reopening this here. If anybody doesn't like the policy then they can go and discuss it on the policy's talk page. DanielRigal (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I support respecting David Lammy personal identification. He has called himself a Londoner, English and British. I only wish to maintain a common standard for British politicians and respect the constitution of the UK.

So I propose calling him a British Secretary or British politician but also mention he is an English lawyer or state he is English as well. Because there is no such as an an English HRM government or Cabinet government, it is misleading and an error. Erzan (talk) 11:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

If he was a baker he would be an English baker, he is an English politician. I could see the argument for British Member of Parliament rather than English Member of Parliament, as that could mislead, but it's stretching the argument past breaking point to also use it for politician.
No-one is a politician of parliament or a politician of HRM government, those are nonsense terms. Politician is an occupation, and the construct country/occupation is a common English construct, so there is no reason not to use it. Also from what your saying you appear to be the IP that has been making the most recent changes, please make sure to login to edit. These are obviously controversial changes and editing while logged out could give the appearance of WP:LOUTSOCKing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a English politician. His identity is not the same as his constitutional role. A Baker who is the representative of Britain to the UN would be a British Baker. I am open to compromise and suggested a way, are you open to it? Erzan (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

There could be confusion by using 'an English Member of Parliament', which is why it's not used. The term politician has absolutely nothing to do with any constitutional role, it's an occupation like any other occupation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Misunderstanding on my proposed compromise.

"British politician and English lawyer"

It's a clever compromise because there is such thing as English law and lawyers. Plus it acknowledges he is a British politician for the UK and backs British Unionism. Erzan (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

He is an English politician, there is no need to change it. If he is an English lawyer then he would also be an English politician. The fact he is an English lawyer has nothing to do with English Law, that's a truly odd idea.
Wikipedia isn't a place to back 'British Unionism' or anything else, Wikipedia is not here to promote something. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

1. There is no such thing as an English politician since the Act of Union and merger of the English and Scottish Parliament in Westminster.
2. Lammy has identified as a Londoner, English, British and European.
3. Lammy has stated he backs British Unionism. He is against separatism.
4. An English lawyer exists because they practice English law.
5. The compromise is a suggestion to have English lawyer and British politican.

Erzan (talk) 00:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

1. There is no such thing as an English MP. A local councillor is a politician but has nothing to do with the act of union.

2. Yes he has, do you have arguments backed up reliable sources on which one should be used? There are sources above, and on the article that makes a case for using English.

3. British unionism is not a factor here, Wikipedia bis not here to promote or back it.

4. That is preposterous he is an English lawyer because he is English and a lawyer. If you are going to continue in that argument you are going to have to find reliable sources that specifically states that an "English lawyer" is someone who practices English law and only that meaning.

5. The comprise isn't needed and is simply bad wording. It isn't even a comprise, it's how you would like the article to be against others objections. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

1. You just stated there is no English MPs.
2. MPs are politicians.
3. If there are no English MPs there are no English politicians.

Erzan (talk) 01:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

That is just bad reasoning. As I said not all politicians are MPs, so you argument fails at the second step.
Take as an example.
1. There are no green oranges.
2. All oranges are fruit.
3. If there are no green oranges, then there can be no green fruit.
It's doesn't work, you can't apply something from a subgroup to all things in the supergroup. All MPs are politicians but not all politicians are MPs, politician is not another name for MP. Being a tall politician doesn't mean you an MP in the government of tall people. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

If there are no such things as English MPs what type of MPs are there?

Name the sovereign country that he stood for election in?

He had to swore allegiance to the Head of State Elizabeth and Charles to become an MP, what sovereign country were they Head of State for? Erzan (talk) 05:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Politician doesn't mean MP. They are not the same terms, someone could be a Martian politician and a British MP. Everything else you mention doesn't matter, as you appear unable to understand that simple fact. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

why is Gordon Brown, Boris Johnson and Tony Blair British politicians but not David Lammy?

Erzan (talk) 10:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested@DanielRigal@Greenleader(2)@Spy-cicle

These are direct quotes from David Lammy official Twitter/X, LBC radio, Facebook page and some other sites. He repeatedly identifies as British. For context he is British MP for the British Parliament and is against separatism, he is a British Unionist.

https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/1158791107347668995?t=YqVVddS3hslr4DTZPZISXg&s=19

"Whether you like it or not I am both English and British."

https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/1121095507684859904?t=FqfHsMQBNsHWtd9YriXM5A&s=19

"for the record I am British."

https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/1111282788425175042?t=IjCokQ_FmZbUtaA7s-OLow&s=19

"I am British and proud of it."

https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/997413779569807360?t=0K_-paHtNWxEQ0Otx4AFug&s=19

"I am Black British"

https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/991002584294019072?t=rf6X_M7jemYZrWocOZMHgA&s=19

"I am here because you were there. My ancestors were not British subjects because they came to Britain. They were British subjects because Britain came to them"

https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/972502731087908866?t=Dh-t-SzdF9DHEWqg1jlRlQ&s=19

"I am Black. I am British. I am Caribbean."

https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/928171649521868801?t=-uFyjQZeYoSDCH5iD36Hrg&s=19

"I love Winnie the Pooh - does that make me more British?"

https://m.facebook.com/DavidLammyTottenham/photos/a.10151122350126541/10155261588046541/?type=3

"As a Black, British, Caribbean son of the Windrush and descendant of slaves"

https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/988828590644002821?t=-XogFbosAG_OgUOrvYwxUg&s=19

"Should be considered British"? Are British.

The Windrush Generation (including my parents) were British citizens when they were invited here. See the 1948 British Nationality Act, Chapter 56, Part I.

Their British citizenship is and always has been theirs by right"

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/david-lammy-labour-conference-keir-starmer-conservatives-sunak-braverman-b1111829.html

“The British are known for their fair play, their civility, their tolerance and understanding,”

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/david-lammy/black-history-is-british-history-black-history-month-commemoration/

"Black history is British history"

https://www.blackhistorymonth.org.uk/article/section/bhm-intros/black-history-month-message-from-david-lammy/

"our great nation is able to partake in the commemoration of one of the many things that makes Great Britain great ... our capacity to accept and pay tribute to the wealth of cultures which have come to be encapsulated in that word; British"

https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2020/07/29/david-lammy-tribes-book

"I am British, English and a Londoner"

https://highprofiles.info/interview/david-lammy/

"I guess. In that sense, [my faith] is terribly British."

https://www.windrushday.org.uk/news/perspectives-on-the-windrush-generation-scandal-a-response-from-david-lammy-mp/

"We’re all British – this is a multi-ethnic country with a long history. I will continue to assert the rights of British citizens"

https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/david-lammy-interview-2019

"People don’t contest that I’m British as a black man"

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2023/mar/28/david-lammy-on-regrets-rwanda-flights-and-racism-ive-had-so-many-death-threats

"That was terribly un-British; just not the way we behave.”

https://www.littlebrown.co.uk/little-brown-news/2020/06/12/read-an-extract-from-tribes-by-david-lammy/

"I’ve lost count of the times I’ve been told to go home, or had my Britishness questioned."

Erzan (talk) 06:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, but there is no need to go to so much effort over this pointless pseudo-argument that gets kicked off again from time to time. It is Wikipedia's style to refer to UK politicians as English, Welsh, Scottish or Northern Irish. If we were to change that across the board to "British" for all UK politicians then that would be fine but changing it for just some non-white politicians while keeping it for the white ones, which is how this whole idiotic argument got started, is a complete non-starter. In the quotes above Lammy refers to himself as both British and English. English automatically implies British anyway. We will continue to refer to him as English, in accordance with our standard style for UK politicians.

If anybody wants to propose changing the style then please take that to the Talk page of the appropriate MoS page(s). There is no point in talking about it here. DanielRigal (talk) 09:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

This is bias and uncooperative. Editors ask for sources and then when they overwhelming show the person calls themselves something it's ignored. Àlso to imply discrimination is not civil, especially when I have gone out my way to offer a compromise that show tje complete opposite. Erzan (talk) 09:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Editors ask for sources and then when they overwhelming show the person calls themselves something it's ignored. No I asked for sources and then went to sleep, you don't get to demand other editors time. This isn't something so urgent that I must WP:SATISFY your whim.
Also to imply discrimination is not civil, that was not what DanielRigal said, they said this discussion started as such.
especially when I have gone out my way to offer a compromise As I said above your compromise is just your desired outcome it is not a compromise, and as I have shown above it is poorly thought out.
I'll go through your sources later, but for the moment I sughest you listen to DanielRigal advice. I would suggest to start by reading WP:UKNATIONALS.
Finally as to This is bias and uncooperative don't make WP:ASPERSIONS against other editors. If you truly think this is the case then WP:ANI would be the place to report it, but I would very strong suggest you read WP:BOOMERANG first. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Every comment is being misunderstood and bad faith is being implied. When I say the sources have been ignored, it is reference to the user I am talking about. Then you come in and make it about yourself. Despite my response clearly being in reply to another user. This is why I have had to seek a dispute resolution, this conversation is spiralling into combative behaviour. Erzan (talk) 10:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

it's ignored now it wasn't, you just have to give other editors time to reply to your comments. Editors may not be able to reply immediately, and you don't get to insist they do. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Otherparty field

Just to note "other stuff exists" is a bad argument. If you want to tag someone just do it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone have a objection to removing this as it's being misused? I'll come back in a week. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I've removed it. It's clearly inappropriate. My first thought, when I saw it added by an IP, was that this was an antisemitic insinuation of a "party within a party" but I checked the IP's contributions and they are just a bit gung-ho about adding links to things. I don't think there was any bad faith in it but it's still wrong and prone to misinterpretation. DanielRigal (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

From WP Labour Friends of Israel article:

"Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) is a group in the Parliament of the United Kingdom that promotes support for a strong bilateral relationship between Britain and Israel, and seeks to strengthen ties between the British Labour Party and the Israeli Labor Party."

Sounds pretty political to me. Is Lammy affiliated? If so, there's nothing else to say. 142.126.136.203 (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Labour Friends of Israel is not a party within a party, no-one can be politically affiliated with it. It's a working group to strengthen UK / Israel ties. Your own quote from doesn't mention it's a political affiliation. But why am I arguing with an editor who immediately assumes I'm Jewish, I'm not nor are my ancestors (care about blood much), and who is obviously adding this to (((affiliate))) Lammy with Israel. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested @DanielRigal This same affiliation has also been added onto the Rachel Reeves article. Michaeldble (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I note it's one of the editors who restored it here after it was added by an IP editor. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

They did the same at Peter Kyle. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

*An IP hoping disruptive editor making negative comments on the assumed ethnicity of other editors, I already know everything I need to about such editors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• And I never said anti-zionism was antisemitism (it isn't), I said that tagging people in other countries as being controlled by ""the Israelis" wink-wink nudge-nudge is antisemitic. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  Struck myself ranting at an IP troll. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

The editing page (which the reader can't see) says "otherparty" but it says "Other political affiliations" on the page and that's what people see. Therefore, this is NOT saying this is a political party when people come to read the Wikipedia page. I agree with the above IP that it’s a political group. It’s a group in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, which is obviously a completely political institution. If it wasn’t political it would not be a group in the UK Parliament. Helper201 (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, as the IPs comments were reverted, my comments above were not aimed at you in anyway.
The political affiliation of member of the group is the Labour party. They don't separately hold any affiliation for the group itself. Just because it's political doesn't make it a "political affiliation". So no it's not a political affiliation and so shouldn't be in the "Other political affiliations" field. This is a misuse of the field, if its being used this way at another article that doesn't not make it misuse and the local consensus of another article doesn't have weight outside that page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The party is the Labour Party, this is "other political affiliations". If we are agreed it’s a political group and its cited he is a member of it (as seen in the article’s section "Issues of race, prejudice and equality"), then how is that not a political affiliation? Helper201 (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Because simply he holds no political affiliations to it. If he was a member of of the "Friends of healthy eating" group we would not be having this conversation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Membership of a group is affiliation. That's WP:SKYISBLUE. Here are definitions of affiliation: "the state or relation of being closely associated or affiliated with a particular person, group, party, company, etc." (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/affiliation) / "a connection with a political party or religion, or with a larger organization]" (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/affiliation). And here are definitions of membership and member: "the state of belonging to an organization" (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/membership) / "one of the individuals composing a group" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/member). To say membership is not affiliation you'd be saying someone who belongs to an organisation has no connection to it, which is completely illogical. As for your example, that's true, but only because "Friends of healthy eating" would not be a political entity. You'll find multiple sources that plainly call LFI a "lobby group", of which lobbying is, as stated on its Wikipedia page, a political matter. Sources that call it a lobby group: A and B. Helper201 (talk) 23:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we going to agree on this, hopefully another editor will have some input. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

BTW I am saying membership of a group is not "political affiliation". References to "affiliation", "membership", etc are pointless as "Political affiliation" does not have the same meaning as the words 'political' and 'affiliation' do separately. Mushing the two definitions together misses that the term has greater meaning than that, if it didn't then we would just use 'affiliation' on it's own. It is quite normal in English to have two word phrases that have more meaning than the two words separately, this is one of those cases. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Labour Friends of Israel in the "Other political affiliations section"

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is clear consensus against including Labour Friends of Israel. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

---

Is it acceptable to place Labour Friends of Israel in the "Other political affiliations section" of the infobox? Helper201 (talk) 00:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, per the reasoning I've set out the discussion directly above this. Helper201 (talk) 00:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes - after reading the discussion above, I see no reason to leave it out. It is an explicitly political group which Lammy is a member of. Remagoxer (talk) 07:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

No. Did you really start an RFC over this? I'm sure it's something that could have been worked out by discussion.
Lammy is a member of a group, I'm sure he's a member of many different groups and we wouldn't count such as "Political Affiliation" even if the group had a political aspect. He is not politically affiliated to an internal Labour work group, he is not politicallly affiliated to the inter-party Faith and Society group (even though he's the secretary of that group).
That he has a supposed allegiance is a product of the current times, and not a reality. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Comment, you said "I don't think we going to agree on this, hopefully another editor will have some input". I opened the rfc to get that input from other editors. I don't see a problem with that. Helper201 (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

There's a lot of other ways to resolve disputes without jumping all the way to having an RFC, per WP:Dispute resolution and WP:RFCBEFORE. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

No. I don't think this is necessary and would just add unneccessary clutter. What if there's a Labour MP who's a member of the Socialist Campaign Group, Labour Friends of Israel, Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East, Labour Friends of the Forces, Labour Friends of Taiwan and possibly other Labour parliamentary groups as well? There'll certainly be politicians who are members of several groups, at which point surely we wouldn't just add a long list of mostly irrelevant political affiliations to their infobox? If we are to use the other political affiliation section in the infobox of UK politicians (Lammy isn't the only one who's had LFI added in recent weeks) then it should be something specifically noteworthy to that politician. For example, Tony Benn was a founder and chair of the Socialist Campaign Group, so it would make sense to have that group added to his infobox since it's of noteworthy relevance to his career. Afaik, Lammy is merely just a member of LFI. He's not a founder or a prominent member; it has no noteworthy relevance or bearing on his wider parliamentary career. It's just a bit of unneccessary trivia to add LFI into the infobox.

Former prime ministers Gordon Brown and Tony Blair are also members of LFI, yet it isn't mentioned in their infoboxes either. Former PM Liz Truss is a member of the Conservative Growth Group and the Free Enterprise Group, yet none of these are mentioned in her infobox. Michael Foot was a member of the Tribune Group, yet that isn't mentioned either. I could keep going. I just don't see any reason why any group, including LFI, should be included in Lammy's infobox unless, as I've said, they are noteworthy to his career. Lammy's membership of LFI is a minor footnote to his career and therefore should not be mentioned in the infobox due to its irrelevance. Same with other politicians. ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Comment: That isn't the case with this person in terms of belonging to a long list of groups. Nor is there going to be many politicians that belong to a long list of groups. Regardless, this could easily be resolved by using group abbreviations e.g., for Labour Friends of Israel use LFI. The Wikipedia notes system could also be used to resolve this if it ever becomes an issue. I.e., there are multiple ways this could be resolved if an issue arises from it but it’s not even an issue for this page anyway. I'd certainly argue this is very much relevant in terms of Lammy given he's the Shadow Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, one of the most senior Shadow Cabinet positions and the most senior in regards to foreign affairs, of which this strongly relates.

In regards to Brown and Blair and those other examples, that is WP:OTHERCONTENT. Helper201 (talk) 20:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

As you reinstated this into the article saying that this is the way it's used at Jeremy Corbyn that seems to be a bit of an about face. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

No. It is unnecessary for the reasons stated above Michaeldble (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

No. It is not necessary to include all of a politicians affiliations to groups within their own party. If we were to routinely do that then the list would be a dozen items long for almost every politician. If some politician is on the Green Party Working Group for Procurement of Sustainable Paperclips then that does not belong in the infobox. If it is notable then it can be covered in the body. If we are to decide that Labour Friends of Israel is a special case then we had better have a very good reason for singling them out over all the other internal Labour groups that could be listed. As I see it, this field is primarily for people who represent different parties at different levels (e.g. one party at a national level and another at a transnational level) or where a person represents more than one party (e.g. Labour and Cooperative). I see the point that the field might be used for organisations other than parties but I see something like a sponsoring trade union as a much more legitimate use than some selected specialist group within the party already listed. Bloat and arbitrariness are not the only considerations here. Adding groups may give an impression of divided loyalties, even when that is not intended. My first thought when I saw it added here was that this was exactly what was being insinuated, although I quickly realised that it wasn't when I checked the editor's other contributions. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Comment: No one has said it's necessary to put all political affiliations in the infobox. We are talking about this instance on this page. Even if we were talking about multiple affiliations in this section its easily doable via abbreviations. What is "necessary" is entirely subjective. This case has an exceptionally good reason for being in the infobox being it’s a group specifically centred around foreign policy with this person in a Shadow Cabinet position role presiding over foreign policy. Helper201 (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

No. It is not necessary to include … a politicians affiliations to groups within their own party, and mere membership indicates 'interest' rather than 'affiliation'. The underlying logic of this is somewhat McCarthyite "Are you or have you ever been a member of the Friends of …". If and when WP:RS describe some solid reason why an individual politician's 'memberships' become important - then it can go in the body and perhaps the infobox if WEIGHT allows. Pincrete (talk) 09:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC on David Lammy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This RfC has been open more than a month, discussion seems to have slowed, and a closure request has been registered at WP:CR. I am here to bring you closure.
By headcounting, 5 editors supported "English" and 8 supported "British". Another editor didn't really care one way or the other and said either was fine with them.
Argument came down to an MOS battle, with MOS:NATIONALITY frequently cited, directly or indirectly, by the "English" camp. In rebuttal, some "British" editors said the MOS allows either. However, the allowance of either is implicitly an argument not to preclude "English". MOS:CITIZEN was cited by some in the "British" camp, however, like NATIONALITY, the authority of that argument collapsed a bit during rebuttal and surrebuttal. WP:V was touched upon with some editors indicating sources refer to him as British.
Ultimately, arguments on both sides were equally convincing and of similar quality so resolution by strict application of WP:DETCON is not possible at this time. And an 8/5 split is too narrow to infer unread consensus. Therefore, there is WP:NOCONSENSUS and, as such, the stable form of the article prior to the RfC should remain until this RfC is overturned. By my reading, "English" is the stable form of the article. To clarify, there is no consensus for "English," rather "English" is merely the status quo for the article until a new RfC can arrive at consensus. Chetsford (talk) 06:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

---

Should David Lammy, the MP for Tottenham, be described as a "British politician" or an "English politician"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• Procedural comment: This RfC was opened with a non-neutral question. It is still present just below, signed by Erzan 14:11, 14 February. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Do the balance of these sources assert that David Lammy, the MP for Tottenham, is a British politician?

[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] Erzan (talk) 14:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

That's not a valid RfC question. You have to ask about how the article should be worded in a clear way that everybody can understand and which can be implemented. As nobody has replied yet (this comment doesn't count) you can try rewording it. DanielRigal (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

OK. Maybe I can rescue this. While I think the question here was asked and answered quite some time ago, I think it might be good to get a final, definitive, documented answer that will discourage repeated attempts to relitigate it. Here is my interpretation of the question that Erzan is asking stated in the most simple and neutral way that I can. Ezran, please feel free to point out any mistakes in this:

This article currently describes Lammy as "an English politician". Should this be changed to primarily describe him as "a British politician"? --DanielRigal (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• No. Lammy is an English person representing an English seat in the UK Parliament. He (correctly) describes himself as English as well as British. As such, "English" is preferable because it is more specific, equally correct and more consistent with the way we write about other English politicians. "English" automatically implies British so there is nothing lost by saying "English" instead of "British". I see no problem with the word British being used in other parts of the article but the primary description of him should be as English. Ezran has not advanced any argument that English is wrong, only that British is also correct, which is true but irrelevant. I do not know why Ezran is so keen to change this. I do know that some previous editors of this article have attempted to make the same change and have made the claim that English is an ethnicity and hence black people can not be English. That is just racist claptrap and deserves no further consideration. To be very clear, I am not accusing Ezran of holding that position. Nonetheless, we should avoid wording the article in any ambiguous way that might be misunderstood as supporting, or leaving space for, such an idiotic position, even inadvertently. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  There is no such thing as English citizenship and saying that an MP sits for an English constituency and is therefore English makes no more sense than arguing that Kamala Harris is a Californian, but not an American politician. The description 'English politician' has not been in regular use for 100s of years. 'Scottish politician' as a term makes sense, not because of place of birth or residence of the politician, but because there is 'Scottish-specific politics' and there are politicians and Scottish parties who seek independence from the UK and who habitually identify themselves, and are therefore ordinarily identified by sources as 'Scottish'. There are no significant English independence parties or politicians. No source AFAIK ever calls Lammy an English politician. Pincrete (talk) 07:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  A politician who is English is an English politician, that is just how English works. Someone who is Scottish and a baker is an English baker.
  The occupation of being a politician is not the same as saying some one is an MP, there are many politicians who are not MPs. So whether or not he is an English or British politician has nothing to do with with the nature of Parliament.
  The situation in the UK is not the same as the US, see WP:UKNATIONALS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  David Lammy

1. Overwhelming refers to himself as British. The many references support that.

2. A British politician for the British Parliament. English MPs do not exist nor is there an English election or Parliament.

3. A member of the British Labour Party.

4. Personally identifies as European, British, English and a Londoner.

5. The vast majority of the UK Shadow Cabinet are also described as British politicans.

I am the same ethnicity as David Lammy, Afro-Carribbean heritage, and have repeatedly explained with many references why Lammy is a British politician. A compromise was offered to have his English identity mentioned elsewhere and I am more than glad to have it mentioned in his personal life area because it is clear by the many references he has a strong passion for a plural identity. This repeated need to mention alleged bigotry have nothing to do with my statements, please stop mentioning it. Thank you.

I propose an offer of compromise.

David Lammy described as a British politician, like the rest of the UK Shadow Cabinet of MPs, then have his personal identities mentioned in the personal life section.

Erzan (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

OK. Clearly you have been unlucky in that you are making the same suggestion as those other people I mentioned but for very different reasons and some of the annoyance that they caused may have affected the responses to you. The last time I looked, the majority of English MPs were described as English but I'll have another look. DanielRigal (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I offer an even bigger compromise.

In the personal life section or something similar, only mention him being English additionally. I won't touch it. I am not asking for British to be mentioned any other places than "British politician" in the lead.

Thank you for also acknowledging my concerns. Erzan (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I've just been clicking on articles about MPs pretty randomly and the English ones are mostly listed as British now. The Scottish and Welsh ones are still mostly listed as Scottish and Welsh. I'm not keen on that inconsistency but it does mean that changing it to British would not be inconsistent with other English MPs. I'm still not sure that changing it is necessary but I no longer think that it is objectionable. I'll strike out the appropriate parts of my !vote above. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. @ActivelyDisinterested do you agree with @DanielRigal and if so would you like the offer of compromise as well? Erzan (talk) 09:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I suspect that the difference is that Scotland and Wales have their own devolved parliaments, unlike England. An English politician who sits in Westminster is perhaps better described as a 'British politician'.  Tewdar  09:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

1/. There are many sources for both.

2/. Politician as an occupation isn't the same as being an MP. A local councillor could be an English politician, even if they were a councillor in Scotland.

3/. If the sentence at question was about his membership of the Labour party this would be relevant, but the sentence isn't about his membership of the Labour party so its not.

4/. Yes he does the question is which one to use.

5/. How other articles are setup doesn't dictate the wording in this one.

Who you are, or who I am makes no difference is this discussion (On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

English This is a very simple case per MOS:NATIONALITY. He resides in his country of origin, which is England. I don't see a compelling argument presented to change the status quo. WP:OTHERCONTENT is irrelevant. Frankly, I don't think a RFC is necessary on something so simple. Nemov (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain why David Lammy's article should go against the standard of other similar articles? The vast majority of British MPs are called British politicans.

Can you explain why the numerous sources repeatedly have David Lammy call himself British should be ignored?

Can you explain why the numerous of sources that describe David Lammy as a Biritsh politican should be ignored? Erzan (talk) 16:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Can you WP:DROPTHESTICK and stop WP:BLUDGEONING? This is a RFC and editors aren't required to satisfy you. Nemov (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

"English" is not a nationality in the ordinary sense of the word - like French, German, American etc. It is a cultural identification somewhat akin to ethnicity. Charlie Chaplin described himself and was seen as being "English", rather than "British", but most people born in England are described as British, rather than English. George Bush was Texan, but does that mean he was a Texan politician? Originally perhaps if he was solely involved in Texan local politics, but even then WP would describe him as American. Why would we want to use the more parochial term? The bottom line is, do sources describe Lammy as an 'English politician'? Because, I thought he was the (Shadow) British Foreign Secretary! Pincrete (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

British, in line with the articles for these first contemporary politicians I picked, and the sources above which could be used to support self-identification as either British or English. From a quick glance at other articles, it looks like 'English politician' is more common for historical figures like these ancient guys. Changed my mind. English or British are both fine. I'm not sure the argument about 'British politician because they sit in Westminster' is really all that great (we wouldn't call an English person sat in the European parliament a 'European politician', for example. If anything, I'd probably prefer English, which is also supported by the sources and in line with the sort of, lowest level of nationality the subject identifies as.  Tewdar  09:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC) edited by  Tewdar  09:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

If a person born in London migrated to Sydney & became an MP of the Australian Parliament, you'd call them an Australian politician. Despite being born in England. Because birthplace isn't the determined factor, citizenship & the geographical jurisdiction of the institution they are a member of are. An English citizenship & Parliament doesn't exist. So, applying the same logic to David Lammy, he is a British politician. Erzan (talk) 12:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

British, in line with sources. English politician would only make sense if his politics were England-specific and/or he supported English independence, neither of which is the case.The English ones are mostly listed as British now. The Scottish and Welsh ones are still mostly listed as Scottish and Welsh That simply isn't true, Gordon Brown, Robin Cook, John Smith, Tony Blair (who was born in Scotland) are all described as 'British', because they were all members of the UK parliament and involved with British, not Scots, politics. Those who are listed as 'Scottish/Welsh/ N Irish' will almost always be because they are solely involved in devolved (ie Scots/Welsh/N Irish) politics in Scots/Welsh/N Irish assemblies and/or because they are members of pro-independence political parties. I have never heard of Lammy being described as English. If he ever self-describes, it is as a local cultural identification akin to Bush describing himself as 'Texan', not something that overrides Lammy's citizenship (British) and area of political involvement (the UK). This is an attempt to impose a 'one-size-fits-all' logic by those who don't appear to understand either British politics or conventions.Pincrete (talk) 07:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• English as per self identification in the sources on the article. I don't see any of the arguments given as a good reason to change it. The fact that other articles have been changed isn't an argument for changing this one, that's just fait accompli (The English ones are mostly listed as British now.
  The situation in the UK is not the same as the US, nationalitylies in the UK ate not the samr as being from a particular state of the US (WP:UKNATIONALS).
  There was a question of the misuse of "English Member of Parliament", which would be wrong but that isn't what the lead says. If Lammy was Scottish and a baker they would be a Scottish baker. Someone who was English and a baker in Scotland would be an English baker who works in Scotland.
  The occupation has nothing to do with the nature of the British parliament, this is as silly a notion as the idea that an English lawyer is English because they practice English law. Someone who is English and resides in England, but works long distance in American law doesn't become American because of their occupation.
  "English politician" is still very commonly used for disambiguation of individuals, in those articles however the lead has been changed to say "British politician" something that should be undone until an RM is done so article title and article text match. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
• procedural close per Nemov's suggestion below. When viewing this at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies it only shows as "Do the balance of these sources assert that David Lammy, the MP for Tottenham, is a British politician?" with the sources 1 to 19. This is a badly worded RfC. TarnishedPath^talk 01:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  @TarnishedPath The RFC has been reworded if you wish to amend your comment. Nemov (talk) 18:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• British politician I would consider that MOS:CITIZEN, by referring explicitly to citizenship and nationality, indicates British is generally more appropriate. "In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory where the person is currently a citizen, national, or permanent resident." There is no English citizenship, only British and England is not a sovereign state. I have always found "English politician" to refer to a politician active in national politics of the United Kingdom as awkward and misleading; there seems to have been a recent shift away from that wording. Wouldn't it seem inaccurate and weird for Rishi Sunak, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, to be described as an "English politician"? The issue of consistency is relevant here; most other national politicians are described as British politicians. If Labour win the next election, will Lammy be the English Foreign Secretary or the British Foreign Secretary? AusLondonder (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  The problem is this breaks down when it comes to Sinn Fein politicians who are elected to parliament. They would very much disagree with being called 'British' politicians, while DUP politicians would be equally be upset by not being called British.

  Again the sentence does not say he is an English MP, so it wouldn't say he would be "the English Foreign Secretary". An occupation is not the same as a job title. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  For instance good luck changing the lead of John Finucane. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  Given that Finucane is an Irish citizen and not particularly active in UK-wide politics (he doesn't take his seat in the House of Commons) I don't see the comparison. But are you suggesting DUP politicians are referred to as British politicians? AusLondonder (talk) 01:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  I can't find any mention of Finucane being an Irish citizen in their article. He was born in the UK and was elected to the British parliament. These are the same arguments being used for why Lammy should not be identified as English (note I definitely don't believe Finucane should be labelled as British).
  DUP politicians are are generally described as British as that is how they identify, see Jeffrey Donaldson the current leader of the DUP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  You must be joking thinking a Sinn Féin politician is a British citizen? I'm guessing you're not familiar with this but anyone born in Northern Ireland is entitled to Irish citizenship. As of 2022 nearly half of people born in Northern Ireland held an Irish passport, with the number holding citizenship without a passport presumably notably higher. It would be utterly inconceivable for a Sinn Féin politician to be a British citizen. Linking David Lammy to the issue of identity in Northern Ireland seems like a bit of a red herring. AusLondonder (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  You must be joking thinking a Sinn Féin politician is a British citizen? I'm not saying that (as I specifically noted). I'm saying that even though Finucane was born in the UK and was elected to the British parliament, it would be wrong to call him British. Those facts don't change that he's Irish. I did say I didn't see anything in his article to show that he's taken Irish citizenship.
  nearly half of people born in Northern Ireland held an Irish passport absolutely and it's why it not possible to have a simple one size fits all for all people in the UK. The fact remains that there are four nations of people inside the UK state
  Finally as this seems to be getting missed repeatedly you don't have to be British to be a Member of Parliament in the UK. As in you don't have to have British citizenship, you can be born in Ireland to Irish parents, only have Irish citizenship, life in Ireland and have spent your whole life in Ireland, and still be elected as an MP. The same is true for any commonwealth country, so being elected to the British parliament is not a reason to be called British. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• British Based on the sources, Lammy tends to identify as British more than English and is a UK unionist (in comparison Englsih/Scottish etc separsits).  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 01:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
• British - as he is a member of the British Parliament. AFAIK, there's no such thing as a devolved English Parliament, that he was a member of. GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• British per MOS:CITIZEN and per the balance of WP:RS. TarnishedPath^talk 00:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
• British Parliament = British Politician I have been reading the comments here and looking at related sources. It is abundantly clear that the term "British Politician" on this website is meant to associate the politician with the British Parliament. Members of Parliament like David Lammy are British Politicians in that sense.

Lammy has described himself as "British" and "English" like any other politician listed in this article's infobox. From what I am reading from this website, these terms are not meant to describe how they personally describe their nationality. As others have noted, there is no "English Parliament", rather constituents of England and the other countries represented in that one single Parliament that meets in that famous building in London, that governs the entire UK.

One must be careful when comparing with US politics indeed. First of all, the MPs are all in the same branch of government as the PM. Whereas in the US, Kamala Harris and George W Bush were previously state politicians (and remember "states" in the US are more like formal jurisdictions rather than separate countries in the UK). The UK does not really have the separate legislative and executive branches the US has so that when Harris and Bush went to the executive, "US politician" does make more sense perhaps for the same reason that "British politician" makes more sense for Lammy because Harris and Bush are in the federal executive at that point, and not any state government. Likewise, Lammy is an MP in the British parliament as opposed to a politician in an English jurisdiction.

Also, as others have noted and according to England#Politics: There has not been a government of England since 1707

And so, please do not single out this British MP. He's a member of British parliament, hence a British politician Ender and Peter 06:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• British per “why is this important” + “readers can infer he’s also English from his birthplace”. I don’t really support treating sub-national countries as nationalities. Is someone from Yakutia a “Yakutian politician” or just a Russian politician? The latter, obviously. Dronebogus (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• English, it necessarily implies that he is British no?--Ortizesp (talk) 14:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, well, being born in England implies English. Bit of a Buridan's ass, no? Dronebogus (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  Not really, if we say he's English it covers both bases, while if we say he's British someone will have to go all the way to the infobox to confirm... Ortizesp (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• British, a person born in London migrated to Sydney & became an MP of the Australian Parliament, you'd call them an Australian politician. Despite being born in England. Because birthplace isn't the determined factor, citizenship & the geographical jurisdiction of the institution they are a member of are. An English citizenship, Shadow Secretary & Parliament doesn't exist. So, applying the same logic to David Lammy, he is a British politician. Erzan(talk) 17:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• English, largely on the basis of STATUS QUO. The MOS accepts either form (see WP:UKNATIONALS), Lammy self-identifies as both and the sources refer to him as both. Given there is no other way to split it, leave it alone. Many of the other arguments are dismissed on that page too (consistency with other politician fails WP:UKCHANGE, for example). - SchroCat (talk) 10:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  This is like calling the minority deputy leader in the US House of Congress, a Californian politician. So if he becomes Chancellor of the UK, we're going to call the UK Chancellor, an English politician? I am trying to understand the logic here. Erzan (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  As someone has said above, there is no need for you to BLUDGEON people. You’ve made your comment, so let other people speak without repeating yourself.

  It is nothing like describing an American: it’s a different country with no similarities in how the country was formed. (The very rough equivalent to ‘California politician’ would be ‘Hampshire politician’, not a country designation). See also note A of mos:NATIONALITY: “There is no categorical preference between describing a person as British rather than as English, Scottish, or Welsh”. - SchroCat (talk) 05:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  This is a open discussion and people are free to ask, as others have done above. The UK & USA are sovereign countries, California & England are sub-national units. The UK is equal to US. England is equivalent to California. Hence it is the UK & USA who are UN members, not California or England. This is why I asked because there's fundamental misunderstanding of politics and law being applied here. Erzan (talk) 14:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  I suggest you look at some books on the UK to find out what it is - because it's not what you describe. England is not equivalent to California - something children learn in schools here. The "fundamental misunderstanding of politics and law" isn't by me (a Degree and Masters in Politics and Government here, and this is entirely clear in my mind, let alone in any number of reliable sources). California is not a country, England is. That's why - in a differing example - there is no California football team at a World Cup, but there is an England team, (as well as sometimes/potentially a Welsh, Scottish and Northern Ireland one). If you could learn a bit more about the UK and it's constituent countries, you may understand the difference (it's clearly outlined here and the first paragraph here). Feel free to take note of BLUDGEON as part of your reading, and then not reply, that would be great, thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. You're under no obligation to reply but the reason the UK doesn't compete as one team in FIFA is the historical decision by the leaders of the UK football sports teams in that organisation early inception, it has nothing to do with England not being the sub-national unit of the UK like California is the sub-national unit of the USA. The information you linked also backs this up, it literally explains what I am saying. Hence the UK competes in most sports as one team, Team GB. Hence the UK and only the UK can join the EU, UN, NATO, IMF & WTO. Erzan (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  I’m sorry you are unable to understand some basic points on the make up of the UK. It’s seems you cannot differentiate between a nation and a nation state. I’ll step away from this, as WP:COMPETENCE and WP:ICANTHEARYOU and joining BLUDGEON to an unfortunate degree. - SchroCat (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  Once again please do not be sorry. You mentioned FIFA which is 1 sports organisation and not the authority on the independence and statehood of country. So I was confused why that was used. Again, no need to reply. Thanks. Erzan (talk) 20:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  England and California are not equivalent, it's widely recognized that England is a country within the United Kingdom. Very much not the case with California. Ortizesp (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  The word country is synonymous with state or land. It’s an old word used before Scotland & England came together to make the UK. How several states make 1 state in the US, several countries came together to make 1 country & named it the United Kingdom.

  England and California are politically, geographically and legally recognised as equivalents. They are sub-national regions of a sovereign state. The UK Supreme Court & UN has made that clear. Erzan (talk) 07:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  Please don’t make up such rubbish. As you’re unable to grasp something so basic as this, I don’t think you have sufficient COMPETENCE to be dealing with questions on what nationality someone else is. - SchroCat (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  @SchroCat please refrain from engaging in WP:CIV. There has been comments made towards me that are belittling and personal WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL. If you wish to construct a persuasive argument all you needed was citations or ask for clarification, I would be more than happy to see what the UN or Supreme Court have said otherwise for example. Thank you. Erzan (talk) 06:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  Questioning competence isn’t uncivil for a project that requires competence. Things like you leaving a message in my talk archives, rather than on my talk page, tend to reinforce my opinion. - SchroCat (talk) 07:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• This RFC is kind of a mess. The previous discussion should have prompted a cleaner RFC question, so I'd recommend a procedural close until there's a clear, neutrally worded question to consider. As it stands right now this RFC is too cluttered. Nemov (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  The RFC has been based on previous RFC. Please explain how asking people whether references support something or not is not clear? Erzan (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Nemov: DanielRigal did indeed provide a clear, neutrally worded question (it's still there), but being buried in the comments, will not be picked up by Legobot. I attempted to rectify this, but was reverted to all intents and purposes. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  So far this has been WP:DISRUPTSIGNS and WP:CIVIL. Efforts to show sources, ask for explanations or raise objections have been ignored or mocked. Erzan (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  If you want to make aspersions against anyone you should do so at WP:ANI and use diffs as prove. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  Or how about not? Because this is about the difference between two nearly synonymous words that have zero effect on the overall article quality? Not worth fighting over. At all. Dronebogus (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

• I posted a more neutral opening question. Erzan, please do not revert again. You are welcome to make your points and cite your sources, but those do not belong in the neutral opening statement. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Note: I have recently reverted attempts to change the description from "English" to "British". This was because those changes were accompanied by racist edit summaries and were obviously not genuine attempts to implement any consensus reached here. Please do not interpret this as a slight on those who want to make the same change for non-racist reasons. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Criticism section / Comments attracting criticism section

The section was just renamed, which got me to think the whole things should be broken up. Per WP:CRITS I'm thinking the different parts should be merged into the Views and Parliamentary career sections. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)