Jump to content

Talk:David Lammy

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


Separate article for Lammy's tenure as foreign secretary?

[edit]

Former prime ministers Boris Johnson and David Cameron have articles dedicated to their tenures as Foreign Secretary (Johnson, Cameron). Because, for example, Jeremy Hunt doesn't have one, there appears to be a rather arbitrary process for creating separate articles dedicated to the tenures of foreign secretaries. Therefore, does Lammy, as the first Labour foreign secretary this decade, merit his own article? Maurnxiao (talk) 21:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would depend on how much there is to write about, and if third parties report on it. I doubt there's an immediate need for a separate article, but that could well change. Johnson has a separate article as there's a lot to write about, while Cameron's one appears to have been separated out as the main article is already quite long (as he was PM before he was FS). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you and that does make sense. Maurnxiao (talk) 01:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant 'British' in the first sentence

[edit]

The addition of British without any other changes to the first sentence is bulky and redundant. Maybe David Lindon Lammy (born 19 July 1972) is an English politician and lawyer who has served as Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom since July 2024. (addition bolded) would work better. Any thoughts? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. Maurnxiao (talk) 12:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the change. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mastermind Appearance

[edit]

Why is there no reference to Lammy’s Mastermind appearance? Rustygecko (talk) 02:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"English politician"

[edit]

This description in the lead section is completely inconsistent with literally every single other sitting MP. No sitting British MP is described as an "English politician" other than Lammy. Why is Lammy being singled out here, ActivelyDisinterested? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That no others are described as such is not much of a reason to make the change, consistency isn't required. Everything I'm going to say has been said. See the arguments in the RFC above. That RFC was the result of months of talk page comments, and edits and reverts going back muh further. There is no consensus to make the change you want to make, and the onus is on you to find consensus to make it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree it's ridiculous especially as he's literally the British Foreign secretary. AusLondonder (talk) 16:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a good enough reason to break with consistency against literally every single other MP in the category UK MPs 2024–present. He's a British MP just as much as any other, and singling him out as "English" is just absurd and frankly wp:pointy. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency and being a British MP were brought up in the RFC , if you have any new arguments I'm willing to listen. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this is a neutrality issue, the details are backed up by sources and the weight of those has been put through the RFC as well. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's absolutely a neutrality issue, given the subject of ethnicity having been brought up repeatedly. Again, there's no valid reason for this article to break with precedent, absolutely none whatsoever. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is not "no reason". Multiple reasons have been brought up in the RFC. If you have a reason or rationale as to why his nationality should be changed from English to British please feel free to provide them Bejakyo (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no valid reason, and none of those "multiple reasons" brought up are valid. The reason is obvious, it's consistency with literally every single other article of a British MP. Lammy isn't a local politician, so describing him as an "English politician" is also completely misleading. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Calling him an English politican is perfectly clear and not at all misleading. Changing articles to enforce needless uniformity is againt WP:UKNATIONALS. Additionally citing consistancy is also incorrect --- there are plenty of articles of both sitting and former MPs are not described as in the first sentence British. confusion is particularl an invalid reason as there's no Parliament of England to be "mislead" or "confused" by, as well as the lead clearly describing him as as holding one of the Great Offices of the United Kingdom. Bejakyo (talk) 22:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's infinitely misleading. Again, he's literally the only sitting MP not to be described as a British politician, as evidenced here. How is he any more of an English politician than Keir Starmer, for example? He's not a local politician, he's a politician at the national level, and England isn't a devolved nation. Referring to him as an English politician is needless wp:pointy nonsense. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's perfectly clear. Again he is not the only MP sitting not to be described as British, there are multiple Scottish MPs who are described as such, as well as English MPs who while not presently sitting have indeed been sitting within the last few years. Even if there were not, again "consitancy" is not a valid excuse to impose a uniform description. Neither the devolution status or level of legislature of which they sit is relivent to their description. Bejakyo (talk) 22:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All MPs who sit in the British Parliament should be referred to as British politicians. Describing Lammy, or any MP, as an "English politician" implies a level of regional politics that simply doesn't apply at the national level. Lammy, like other MPs, operates in the British Parliament, representing constituents at the UK level, not in any devolved or local English context.
You mention former English MPs, but they're not relevant here because they are no longer involved in national politics. Some may have transitioned to local or regional roles, which would justify more region-specific labels. Lammy remains a national politician, and it's only logical that he be described as a British politician. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 15:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I've been a bit busy, there is not a consensus here to change and I don't see how it could be seen that way. Again consensus is required to make the change.
The only arguments I've seen that were not neutral have been some of the sillier arguments for changing this to British, the one that it should be changed for the sake of British unionism for instance (and the more obvious one). All the others I've seen have been good faith, I would have hoped that the same believe would have been shown here.
Consistency was an argument brought up in the RFC, it didn't gain consensus and it doesn't have one now. The idea that all MP should be described as British flies in the face of the fact that MPs do not have to be British (as in citizens of the United Kingdom), so any consistency for consistency sake would be a false consistency. Also he's not decribed even described as an 'English MP' but as someone who is English and a politician. So the argument has no basis there. Again this was all discussed in the RFC.
Unless there are new arguments I'm not going through all this again. The RFC and other discussions are all available for reading here and in the talk page archives. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There has never been a consensus to describe Lammy as "an English politician". This change was introduced without prior consensus, which is why we're even having this discussion now. The RFC you reference did not establish consensus in favour of the current phrasing; rather, it concluded with "no consensus".
In fact, more contributors supported maintaining the previous status quo where Lammy was described consistently with other MPs as a "British politician" than those who supported this change. The lack of consensus means we should revert to the previous phrasing until a clear majority supports a different description. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 14:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very well put ActivelyDisinterested, Thank you Bejakyo (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the RFC was that English is the status quo until there is a consensus for change, there isn't one. If you disagree with that close talk to the closer and have it reviewed, but I would say it's a bit late now to do so. If you want to start a new RFC and we can go through it all again I can't stop you. As to how many editors have supported this or that consensus isn't a vote. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The status quo was never introduced by consensus, was it? It was introduced unilaterally. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:29, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's from the close of the last RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On one hand, I'd personally softly support a consistent approach. It is odd that only Lammy is described as "English", especially given he claims to prefer "British". I also find the previous RfC to be pretty low-quality. While resolving the lack of consensus by sticking to the status quo is a reasonable compromise, I don't think the lack of previous consensus is a strong argument against change when a good argument in favour of change is made.
On the other hand, this is utterly trivial, and I do not think it can reasonably be called a "neutrality" issue.46.33.135.228 (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen Lammy claim to prefer being called 'British' anywhere. On the contrary, he was given a huge amount of media coverage for his defence of a diverse English identity (see my post below for links). Hitoubashira (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weighing in here as the person who made the original edit changing 'British' to 'English'. 'British' and 'English' are used fairly interchangeably across Wikipedia, however 'English' is usually put for individuals who have a strong and particular association with English identity or the country of England, such as Tolkein or Eric Gill. Lammy is specifically known for his advocacy for a more inclusive English identity, and there are numerous high-profile media sources backing this up:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-lammy-black-english-census-b1895736.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-lammy-lbc-african-caribbean-english-b1824029.html
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2021/03/david-lammy-has-shown-what-it-truly-means-be-english
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/in-praise-of-david-lammy/
For both reasons of self-identity—Lammy has made it very clear what he considers his national identity—as well as public awareness—see the slew of media articles from outlets across the political spectrum—I believe describing Lammy as British rather than English would be very inappropriate. Hitoubashira (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is just an absolutely inane argument. Winston Churchill's strong and particular association with English identity is undeniable, and yet he's still described as a British politician, because he served in British politics, as opposed to regional politics. You were completely wrong to make this edit without consensus on the talkpage, and I strongly encourage you to restore the previous status quo pending an actual talkpage consensus. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current status quo is the result of the last RFC as previously mentioned. If you want to change you need consensus for it. Self identification is a perfectly acceptable reason to label someone's ethnicity, that Lammy's occupation should be the deciding factor is a very poor argument. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a very poor argument to point to an RFC that resulted in no consensus. There's never been any consensus in favour of the current status quo. Why exactly didn't Hitoubashira need consensus when he wanted a change? It's not "perfectly acceptable" in the slightest, it's completely absurd. Lammy has never self-identified as an "English politician". ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First through editing, then through discussion per WP:CONSENSUS. I point to the RFC because it contains the specific wording 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. As I have said if you want to restart the whole RFC process then you can, but until then English is the status quo.
Lammy has identified as English as shown by the sources, it is ridiculous to deny that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chetsford was mistaken to say "English" is merely the status quo for the article, since Lammy had hitherto been referred to as a British politician for almost 17 years from October 2004 to July 2021, when Hitoubashira introduced the change unilaterally without having consulted the talkpage beforehand. This "status quo" has lasted only a little over three years, and has been repeatedly contested by multiple editors since.
No, read what I wrote again. I clearly said he has never self-identified as an English politician, which is another thing entirely from self-identifying as an Englishman. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He's an Englishman and a politician, if he was a plasterer he would be an "English plasterer" that's just how language works when you write about ethnicity and occupation. The article doesn't say he is an English MP, as that would be contradictory. That the ethnicity / occupation construct has to follow the rule you mention has no basis.
If you want to review the close of the RFC I sure you know how. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He's also a Londoner and a politician, but that wouldn't justify describing him as a "London politician", would it? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Calling him an Englishman would be akin to claiming Cecil Rhodes is a Bantu African. He has British citizenship, his entire ancestry is anything but English, which is an ethnicity not a citizenship. It shouldn't say 'English politician' as that is about a far from the truth as pluto is from the sun.ThePaganUK (talk) 00:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He is socio-culturally English, ethnicity doesn't necessarily mean ancestry. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be more akin to claiming Rhodes was a Rhodesian, but that's beside the point. His ethnicity is neither here nor there, and if he was just a regional politician in England, it wouldn't necessarily be a problem to describe him as an English politician. But the problem here is that he is not a regional politician, but one at the national level. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cecil Rhodes was born in Hertfordshire, did not live in the area of Rhodesia until far later in his life, and never even liked the name "Rhodesia". David Lammy was born in England, lived in England his entire life, and identifies as English. How on Earth are those things remotely comparable?
There is also no such thing as an 'English regional politician', except perhaps mayors. Regardless, I don't think that Mhairi Black being elected to the British House of Commons makes her suddenly 'British' instead of 'Scottish', does it? Why should someone born and raised in England, who calls himself English, be transmogrified to become British because of his current position? Hitoubashira (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison pertains to their identification with a specific region (England for Lammy and Rhodesia for Rhodes), and how this regional association does not negate their status as British politicians at the national level. In Lammy's case, his identification with Englishness does not override the fact that, as a sitting MP in the UK Parliament, he is a British politician by virtue of his role in national politics.
To clarify, when I referred to regional politicians in England, I was indeed thinking of local figures such as councillors and mayors, not national MPs like Lammy. MPs serve at the UK level, which is distinct from local or regional political roles.
As for Mhairi Black, she is no longer an MP, making the comparison with her irrelevant in this context. Lammy has never referred to himself as an "English politician", a term that, in this context, implies regional political involvement. His role is clearly national, and as such, the label of British politician is not "transmogrifying" but rather accurately reflects his position. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think there is any ambiguity in the current description given that the opening sentence reads "an English politician and lawyer who has served as Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom since July 2024". I strongly feel that his identity as English is relevant to his persona and should be listed on the page.
That said, I want to try and reach a consensus, and I'd suggest something like: "an English British politician" or a "British politician from England". It's going to be clunky no matter what, but maybe someone can figure out a better way to phrase this. Hitoubashira (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's ("British politican from England") an interesting proposal, Hitoubashira. As a general observation, without either encouraging or discouraging this, I'd note that it's very reasonable to open a new RfC if the previous one closed as no consensus. Chetsford (talk) 01:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the locus of the dispute is on "English politician" another solution would be "English lawyer and politician" as it removes the implication that is perceived by some that Lammy is a only a politician for England.
"British politican from England" has the problem of being redundant (he was born in London so defacto is from England) and it removes the self identification of being English.
Completely agree that anyone who wants to can open a new RFC, the last one was anything but conclusive. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments being put forward here are either unpersuasive or overtly racist. No, there is no verbatim quote where Lammy says "I am an English politician", but I doubt there's a quote where Cecil Rhodes describes himself as an "English mining magnate and politician in Southern Africa" either, but it's a perfectly good description for him on his Wikipedia page. I'm not even going to address the argument about racist argument about ethnic heritage. Englishness is one of several national identities within Great Britain. A Scottish or Welsh politician doesn't become suddenly not Scottish or Welsh by dint of serving in the British governnment. David Lammy has identified himself clearly with Englishness. He is a politician. He is therefore, an English politician. Hitoubashira (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question comes down to "British politician" or "English" - "politician". Whether to descibe him only by occupation or by ethnicity and occupation. In the end all of this has been gone over, and over, including in the prior RFC. There's nothing new here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both you and Hitoubashira should have sought consensus for this change instead of imposing it against the will of a majority of editors. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No-one has to seek your permission for a WP:BOLD edit. See WP:CONSENSUS, first through editing, and then by discussion. That's what happened, and that how we got here. I became involved in this after reverting 'English' being changed to something racist, I certainly didn't need your permission to revert that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the closer, I disagree with the opinion that the close was incorrect and -- presented with the same distribution of arguments and !votes -- I would close it the same way again. That said, I have been reading the ongoing discussion and have become personally convinced by the "British" side of the argument. If a new RfC were to be opened, I would probably enter it as a participant in favor of that outcome. Chetsford (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification Chetsford. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a change to hopeful see off the need for another RFC[1], this removes the issue under discussion. Yesterday I pointed out that "from England" is redundant for someone who was born in London, which got me thinking that similarly politician is redundant in a sentence that says he is foreign secretary for the United Kingdom. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: First sentence

[edit]

In the first sentence of the article about David Lammy, how should he be described?

  1. British politician
  2. English politician
  3. English lawyer

Khiikiat (talk) 11:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polling

[edit]
  • Option A. He should be described as a politician because that is his primary occupation and the occupation for which he is notable. He should be described as British for the following reasons:
    1. Describing him as an English politician is potentially misleading. Readers may think he is some sort of regional or nationalist politician.
    2. His own sense of Englishness is not central to his notability and does need to be mentioned in the lead. It should be discussed in the "Personal life" section.
    3. This is generally the policy that is followed in relation to other politicians from the United Kingdom. For example, Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond (regional/nationalist politicians from Scotland) are described as Scottish politicians, but Gordon Brown and Douglas Alexander (national politicians from Scotland) are described as British politicians.
    Khiikiat (talk) 11:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A For consistency with every single other national politician in the UK. Lammy is the only current Westminster MP to be singled out as an "English politician". He is the British foreign secretary, not the English foreign secretary. Why this has needed multiple RfCs is frankly ridiculous. AusLondonder (talk) 12:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERCONTENT and WP:UKNATIONALS both state against changing information for purely the sake of consistancy Bejakyo (talk) 09:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A - for the reasons stated. I concur that this should not be an issue, really. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close (Summoned by bot) as this was only discussed seven months ago at Talk:David_Lammy/Archive_2#RfC_on_David_Lammy and absolutely nothing has changed since then.
    Regarding a possible procedural close, please note that on 13 October 2024 Chetsford (the administrator who closed the previous RfC) stated: "As a general observation, without either encouraging or discouraging this, I'd note that it's very reasonable to open a new RfC if the previous one closed as no consensus." See Talk:David Lammy#"English politician". Khiikiat (talk) 13:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The previous one (as is clearly evidence in the link I provided) did not close as no consensus. There was a clear consensus for a specific outcome. As far as I can tell, absolutely nothing has changed since then. TarnishedPathtalk 14:09, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, I've just gone back and reread the close another time and it was no-consensus. TarnishedPathtalk 14:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B - As my attempt to head off this RFC has failed, and we're going to do the same thing as we did a few months ago. But I guess we go for another bite of the apple.
    There is no confusion or misleading going on. If he was a butcher he would be an English butcher, noone is confused by this it is just simply how language works. Language is not a logic puzzle and Wikipedia doesn't have to be written in some legalese. The common understanding is obvious and noone has ever reported that they don't understand what is meant by the statement 'English Politician'. Further if he had been a member of the European parliament he would still be described as English, not European just because of how that relates to his occupation.
    Per WP:UKNATIONALS it is perfectly acceptable to use English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish instead of British. In fact there are situations where following MOS:CITIZEN rather than using one of the other labels could be considered offensive. There is no argument that all British citizens must be labelled British.
    The idea that all politicians in Britain must be labelled British because they are involved in British politics is fallacious. British MPs do not have to be British, they do not have to hold British citizenship, they do not have to be born in Britain. If someone from Ireland who did not hold British citizenship was elected an MP it would be inappropriate to call them a British politician. So there is no argument that all MPs must be labelled British.
    Consistency is a nice to have but is not mandated, it's an argument to WP:OTHERCONTENT.
    The lead sentence already states that Lammy is the foreign secretary of the United Kingdom. I don't see why that needs to change, unless he must be the British foreign secretary of the United Kingdom.
    Lammy has self identified as English, as shown by the sources in the article and the other already mentioned in the prior RFC and discussions. I don't see any reason to muddy this with unnecessary complications. Another recent article on Lammy self identifying as English is this Times article[2], "[The far-right] has forgotten about what it means to be English: the north star of our values is tolerance and our beautiful country is held together by a constellation of values it has rejected."
    Not one new argument has been presented, so this just going over the same ground as the prior RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the only real arguments is are the weight of sources, which could go either way, and self identification that clearly goes one way. I'd argue the weight of sources show that English should be used, but I'd respect arguements to the opposite. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Per WP:UKNATIONALS it is perfectly acceptable" UKNATIONALS is an essay. An essay, which represents the opinion of the last person to edit it, is not a veto vehicle for a community-decided guideline like MOS:CITIZEN. Chetsford (talk) 20:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nor does it stop any self-identifying individual being described as English, Welsh, Irish or Scottish. - SchroCat (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They're free to self-identify however they want. Wikipedia, however, will describe them using its guidelines (e.g. MOS:CITIZEN) until such time as new guidelines are adopted. Chetsford (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) As I've pointed out: MOS:CITIZEN does not "stop any self-identifying individual being described as English, Welsh, Irish or Scottish" - and for the sake of clarity, that means on WP too. - SchroCat (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And neither does MOS:CITIZEN say that British must be used. As stated labelling all British citizens as British would cause offence in some instances, part of the issue that UKNATIONALS tries to resolve. It's also the most minor of my points. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems a lot of answers rely on "British parliament must mean British", without noting (per my comment above) that you don't have to be British to be a member of the British parliament. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On the issue of MOS:CITIZEN and it not always being appropriate to force citizenship over identity there was an RFC about using Catalan rather than Spanish. With the result that those article now generally use Catalan rather than Spanish, so there is no citizenship must be used consensus in general. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Option B for the reasons listed by ActivelyDisintrested. While WP:UKNATIONALS is "only" an essay and not official wikipedia policy, it's pretty clearly the most linked essay on the topic, and the most reputable and widely followed thing in absense of an offiical wikipedia policy. Stating that he's Foreign Sec of the United Kingdom is already pleanty clear to which soverign country's politics he is involved in Bejakyo (talk) 09:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really see an issue with either, if he's English he's necessarily British too, no? And if you want to keep it British for consistencies sake then so be it.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERCONTENT and WP:UKNATIONALS both state against changing information for purely the sake of consistancy Bejakyo (talk) 09:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B. I'll repeat what I said last time: "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. We have other members of the UK cabinet described as Welsh (Jo Stevens) and Scottish (Ian Murray (Scottish politician)): there's no reason why "English" should not be given the same status if someone self-identifies that way. - SchroCat (talk) 14:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A per consistency, precedence and reliable sources describe him as a British politician, so it's weird that Wikipedia would be the outlier and choose not to describe a British politician as a British politician. [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B per SchroCat and my reasoning in the last RFC. Opening this up 6 months later when nothing has changed is kind of a waste of time. Most of the editors supporting using British that have cited reliable sources have seemingly ignored the fact that the reliable sources in England call him English. That's all I need to to know. I wouldn't cite the Hindu Times over the New York Times on matters related to the United States. Nemov (talk) 14:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "the reliable sources in England call him English" Except for The Guardian [13], the BBC [14], The Independent [15], The Economist [16], etc. Chetsford (talk) 13:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say "all" reliable sources and as noted below several of those have called him English as well. Can you please stop WP:BLUDGEONING? Nemov (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, Nemov! I'm aware you didn't say "all" - it was just a GF addendum to clarify that you probably meant "some RS call him English" and not "all". Thanks! "as noted below several of those have called him English as well" By several do you mean The Guardian? I wasn't able to find any others from that group (The Economist, BBC, The Independent, The Guardian) below so just want to clarify. Thanks, as always! Chetsford (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A per Khiikiat, AusLondonder, Isaidnoway. He is a national politician with responsibility for the whole United Kingdom, represents a party covering the whole of Great Britain, does not advocate for English nationalism or similar and is described as British in the majority of reliable sources. Thryduulf (talk) 15:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A For all the resons described above - mainly consistency. From Rishi Sunak to Peter Mandelson we say "British politician" Could say "British Labour Party politician" but that isn't the point at issue here.Lukewarmbeer (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A MOS:CITIZEN directs we identify persons in situations like this by their nation of citizenship while MOS:ID suggests we use identity terms that predominate among WP:RS. Lammy is (apparently [17]) a dual citizen of Guyana and Britain, but he is not a citizen of England as England is a geographic area that does not grant citizenship (similarly, we don't call Joe Biden "a Delawarean" or a "Western Hemispherian" even though both may be true).
    Ergo, under CITIZEN we must call him either "British", "Guyanese" or "British-Guyanese". To determine which of those three, we then apply WP:ID to find which is most widely used by RS. Based on my cursory examination, a great many sources refer to him as "British" but few or none call him "Guyanese" or "British-Guyanese" (see examples, below).
WP:RS referring to Lammy as "British" (limited to 13 examples for brevity)
Insofar as occupation, "politician" is that for which he is best known. Chetsford (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:UKNATIONALS, which sinks pretty much all your argument. Lammy self-identifies as English (and British too), which means we can describe him as English, just as we describe his cabinet colleagues Jo Stevens and Ian Murray as Welsh and Scottish, respectively.
Many of the sources you provide are not British, which means it's pointless to try and use them: the ignorance of non-UK journalists on the subject is absolutely no basis on which to determine an Englishman's nationality. For further details on Lammy's self-determination as English:
Strong (ie. not ignorant) WP:RS referring to Lammy as "English" (many including his stated preference to be described as English)

- SchroCat (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"See WP:UKNATIONALS" UKNATIONALS is an essay and doesn't represent anything other than opinion of the last person to edit it. MOS:CITIZEN and MOS:ID are guidelines of EnWiki, adopted by consensus of the community, and are to be normally followed.
"Many of the sources you provide are not British" Many of the readers of EnWiki are not British. Chetsford (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) So you want to base your opinion on the ignorance of people who just don't understand things properly? (The Biden argument a good example of a complete lack of understanding of the subject - this had to be explained at great length in the last RfC too). Self-determination is a thing in the UK, where it is entirely possible for people to be Welsh, Scottish, English and Irish (as well as Cornish, Manx and a few others): we take people's own self-determination into account, regardless of the complete ignorance shown by non-UK journalists.{{It's clear that not all readers of EnWiki are British (no-one is even remotely claiming otherwise, but it may be a chance to educate them in things, which is one point of an encyclopaedia. And MOS:CITIZEN isn't as cast iron an argument as you want it to be. It certainly doesn't stop people from being described in the opening sentence as English, Welsh, Irish or Scottish. - SchroCat (talk) 20:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"your opinion" You spelled "Wikipedia guideline" wrong. Chetsford (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I really didn't. I'm sorry you don't understand the make up of the UK, or the factors in which people will call themselves one thing over another, but that's obviously something you're not willing to address. - SchroCat (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"that's obviously something you're not willing to address" Correct. I'm here only to apply WP policies and guidelines, not to negotiate the internal social idiosyncrasies and nomenclature sensibilities of any specific locality. Chetsford (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you're not really understanding the MOS terribly well here, particularly given it's already inherently flexible to some groups. There is nothing in MOS:CITIZEN that stops Lammy being described as English, nor of others being described as Welsh, Scottish or Irish. "this will be the country, region, or territory where the person is currently a national or permanent resident". He is a permanent resident of the country of England and self-describes as English. I'm not sure why there isn't a problem with people being described as Welsh, Irish or Scottish, but there seems to be with English. - SchroCat (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He is also a permanent resident of the country called United Kingdom and self-describes as British, this proves nothing either way. Some people are most appropriately described as British, some people are most appropriately described as being English/Welsh/etc. Which is most appropriate for one person has no bearing on which is most appropriate for another person. I have not investigated how the people referred to elsewhere in this discussion should be described, but it is possible that some or all of those cited as being described as Welsh/Scottish/etc would be more appropriately described as British (or vice versa), but this is not relevant for how David Lammy should be described (this is similar to why WP:OTHERSTUFF is a almost always a bad argument in a deletion discussion). Thryduulf (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not basing my argument on OTHERSTUFF, but it appears there is a double standard being applied to someone who more often than not self-identifies as English. He has complained that when completing the census, he is forced to choose Black British, rather than his personal choice of Black English, which speaks volumes as to his thoughts in the matter. - SchroCat (talk) 01:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"He has complained that when completing the census, he is forced to choose Black British, rather than his personal choice of Black English" He may well have a valid complaint. Whether he does or not, however, is out of scope for this discussion. We're not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. We are a perfect reflection of an imperfect reality. And the reality is, RS call him British. Chetsford (talk) 03:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RS call him English, particularly when the ignorant ones are ignored. No-one is talking about rightgreatwrongs: he is English (and British), and self-identifies as such. How crass do we have to be to ignore self-determination and go outside the scope of MOS:CITIZEN for petty reasons? - SchroCat (talk) 03:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The standard you argue for, that only UK sources be accepted as reliable on this question, is not one bedded in policy. TarnishedPathtalk 00:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never claimed it was, but why base something on the ignorance of writers? - SchroCat (talk) 01:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've made a blanket statement about non-UK journalists being ignorant of UK affairs and while I might have some sympathy for the position that a lot of US based journalists try to frame everything to fit their worldview (last RFC we had a US based editor who repeatedly claimed that the relationship between England and the UK was synonymous with the relationship between California and the United States despite multiple other editors telling them repeatedly that England was a country, not a state) your suggestion that we completely disregard none-UK sources without any sort of analysis is not how we do things. TarnishedPathtalk 01:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't even try to patronise me with comments about 'how we do things', but if you rely on ignorant sources, you get ignorant articles. It's exactly why UKNATIONALS says "non-UK media can make simplistic (and erroneous) assumptions about UK citizens". Unfortunately too many people outside the UK don't readily grasp the concept either, thus the strawmen arguments about not calling Biden "a Delawarean" and similar misguided comparisons. - SchroCat (talk) 03:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an essay (WP:UKNATIONALS) will never trump a MOS. If you are going to stick with RS from outside the UK not being reliable for statements about the nationality of UK nationals then you've going to need something stronger than an essay. TarnishedPathtalk 03:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And as stated many times before MOS: CITIZEN doesn't say he must be called British. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that from what I've seen the weight of RS seems to be more on the side of describing Lammy as British, I'd think that would have an influence on our reading of MOS:CITIZEN. TarnishedPathtalk 10:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd disagree on the weight of RS, but agree that it would effect how MOS:CITIZEN should be read. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A - He's British & serves in the UK Parliament. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A per MOS:FIRSTBIO which says the first sentence should include 3. Context (location, nationality, etc.) for the activities that made the person notable. It was him being a member of the British parliament that gave him his notability. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A I myself have heard Lammy refer to himself as 'English', but I've also heard him refer to himself as a Londoner and as a 'Tottenham boy'. There are layers of identification but there is nothing about him or how RS refer to him that disputes his 'Britishness' and much that confirms it. There are no strong reasons here to deviate from the normal practice of referring to him by his citizenship, especially since he is Foreign Secretary of the UK!Pincrete (talk) 05:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A. MOS:CITIZEN is being used as a guideline for why British is appropriate, but MOS:CITIZEN contains a footnote that reads There is no categorical preference between describing a person as British rather than as English, Scottish, or Welsh. Decisions on which label to use should be determined through discussions and consensus. The label must not be changed arbitrarily. To come to a consensus, editors should consider how reliable sources refer to the subject, particularly UK reliable sources, and whether the subject has a preferred nationality by which they identify. While Lammy does identify himself as English, he also says he's black British and proud of it [39][40][41]. I do not think it can be said that he strongly prefers being described as English when he's also described himself as British. While I am aware social media isn't a reliable source, they are multiple instances demonstrating him referring to himself as British. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 11:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A. For consistency with every single other British MP, and absent any consistent rejection "British" in RS. Sources go both ways, as they do for all British/English politicians, with a majority seeming to use "British". Can't see why he'd be a unique case. Void if removed (talk) 14:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A per my reasoning above under "English politician". ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A per Pincrete. Cremastra — talk — c 20:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B per above. ~ HAL333 (VOTE!) 15:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B per ActivelyDisinterested, given that one can be British but not necessarily English. "British" includes English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish. MOS:CITIZEN also notes whether the subject has a preferred nationality by which they identify which seems to be English according to sourcing. Per MOS:FIRST it should also reflect sourcing on him being a lawyer, but not before his most notable role (politician). Symphony Regalia (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A per Khiikiat, AusLondonder, Isaidnoway et al and the good reasoning put forward by them.Halbared (talk) 12:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • David Lammy is an English politician and lawyer who has served as Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom since July 2024. That covers all four: English, British, politician and lawyer. The options the OP gives are less inclusive/encompassing. Moreover, Lammy has a strong preference for "English" (or "Black English") as per here, here, here and here. As per policy, we should usually default to the subject's own designation when it comes to British national identities. Lewisguile (talk) 10:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Comment couldn’t this problem be side stepped by separating "English" from "politician". He is an Englishman and a politician. Tinynanorobots (talk) 13:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have put forward several ways of doing this, but their is a determination to remove the description of Lammy being English from the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Lammy&oldid=1258562750"