Talk:David Lammy/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about David Lammy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

POV

Would it be NPOV to put in the view amongst commentators that labelling a politician a future PM is a near guaranteed way to write off their chances of reaching that post? Timrollpickering 12:17, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article format

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think this article should be split up into various sections Background, Politics etcetera. Someone has added he voted for the Iraq War right at the end of the article which is a fact but its placement very much reflects a POV i.e. that it is of negative political consequence. In this case it should be placed under a politics heading. I don't recall seeing HE/SHE VOTED FOR THE IRAQ WAR at the end of other articles on M.Ps.

I added that comment and am trying to add it to as many MP pages as possible. I think with such a contentious war, it's a valid point that should be made. Whether or not this bestows negative or positive values upon the MP, is up to the reader.

I have replaced it with a more NPOV analysis of his voting patterns and a link to the Aristotle database, which I hope will satisfy both of the (anonymous) posters above. I note also that the original poster of the comment, 195.93.21.72, has a very lengthy history of Wikipedia vandalism. Iridescent 17:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

History of slavery

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Could you please add a paragraph regarding Mr. Lammy's Ghanaian Slave Ancestry - for the purposes of highlighting his support for the campaign to award reparations to the decendants of Black slaves in the UK?

Comment : The following para. was added -- "Lammy has commented on Britain's history of slavery, both in his role as Culture Minister to mark the 200th anniversary of the end of the slave trade in Britain[2][3] and because he suspects there were slaves amongst his ancestors."

But isn't that a somewhat absurd paragraph? Lammy 'suspects' his ancestors were slaves? Aren't all West Indians descended from slaves, taken from Africa? Black people were not given a wage when they were shipped there from Africa and made to work on the plantations you know. So why write he 'suspects' his ancestors were slaves? It is like writing of an American that he 'suspects' his ancestors immigrated to USA, or, like writing about a Los Angeles Korean , that he 'suspects' his ancestors came from East Asia.

When asked why there should be reparations for slave ancestors David Lammy said something racist - source Diane Abbott. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.143.226 (talk) 09:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Rewrite anyone?

I can't find any references for him supporting actual reparations, I'm afraid. I'll add something on the subject though. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Political voting

Latest comment: 16 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion

Please stop adding the pointless list which is ripped off from theyworkforyou.com. It adds nothing to the article, its importance is not explained and only serves as trivia with in the article.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Trivia? He's an MP! A voting record is a voting record! It is so wrong to call it a "theyworkforyou.com summary" and therefore remove the whole thing! All theyworkforyou have done is compile the voting record on 'key issues' - and anyone can do that!! If an editor thinks a particular vote is not 'key' (and thus not worthy of the article) then just say so, or simply remove the extraneous vote. The Wikipedia process of consensus will dictate what is notable and what is not. This is simply not the kind of list that is a 'list too far'!

Other politicians on Wikipedia have their voting records for us to see (eg Margaret Beckett) - as it is nothing less than the most meaningful information about the politician you can find! It is not just spin and dodgy rhetoric - it is how he/she has actually voted!! I don't understand why you have twice-reverted the record saying "it is not for Wikipedia" to give this information. Where does it say that on Wikipedia? The reverts just look like blatant censorship to me - perhaps out of embarrassment on Lammy's behalf (but life is life - he votes how he votes). --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the Voting record has been up a while - and you are removing it (I didn't include it myself, but am supporting it). I don't want an edit war, or to 3RR (and it would not be fair should I be in that position). --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The criteria used for the compilation of the information is not widely explained anywhere in the article. The information provided is potentially POV. It is not meaningful as the person is a minister within the government and will most likely have voted the way a whip has told him too. The information provided does not enhance the article in any way and the information just serves as an add on to the end. If you really want that information add it as an external link to the bottom of the page and you can find it there. The information though does not belong in the article as it is completely meaningless.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Lammy doesn't have to follow the whip. Many MP's don't when something is personal to them - which is why the Voting record matters so much - ie. there are often 'diversions' (even for the most steadfast 'whip voters') - which are often very revealing. This is perfect encyclopedic information for Wikipedia - and simply shows (in the most concise way) where he has voted on the major issues, like the Iraq war etc. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion of the information is not widespread so there is no real consensus for inclusion as few MPs actually have this information included on their pages. The information is not on Tony Blair's page or Gordon Brown's page or for that matter Ian Duncan Smith's or William Hague's. High profile MP's without this pointless information.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

People tend to know where the bigger names stand on the key issues (you have mentioned four Party leaders) - though I would still have the list for them too... Consensus exists within articles, not over articles! I will look at addressing Voting Records that are missing or have been removed on other MP's - political decisions must be shared with the people, and not hidden from them - this is far too important for me to pass by.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus in this article it is just you and me on the different sides of a small part of the article. I strongly believe the inclusion of the information violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE specifically section 4. If you are determined on its inclusion please give a reason why the information should be included as a dumped list at the bottom of the article and not as an external link. The inclusion of voting records is pointless and meaningless as ordinary users will not understand what is being talked about, reducing the accessibility of the article. if you believe there is strong support for this please initiate an request for comment.--Lucy-marie (talk) 01:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You have gone past 3RR now - changing it to your own paragraph very much IS classed as a revert, I'm afraid (see the rules on 3RR). I will have to report you as you have removed the Voting Record from a number of other MP's articles (including Margaret Beckett who I some time ago used as an example in an edit-note to you - you went and removed it from her article!!). This simply cannot go on. --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If you report the actions of myself you will have to report yourself as well as you have gone round and reverted that edits which I made and we have both violated the 3rr in you opinion on this matter. I am afraid your reversion is more blatant than mine as no constructive editing was even attempted. If you are serious about this not continuing can you please address the potential policy violation that the information covers and establish actual consensus for the inclusion of this information, perhaps by starting a request for comment.--Lucy-marie (talk) 02:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are a list of a few random MPs without the information dumped in the article and the information only available in a link at the bottom. This is list is illustrative only Clive Efford,Peter Bottomley, Tim Loughton, Derek Conway, Daniel Kawczynski, Kenneth Clarke these are just a few I could find very easily. The information dumped at the bottom is not in widespread use.--Lucy-marie (talk) 02:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Political controversy subsection

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

What a rubbish section this is. He called George Galloway a carpetbagger for changing his consituency. The link to carpetbagger is something about building societies, nothing to do with what Galloway did. The only reference for this is a Youtube clip, which as a copyvio shouldn't be used. Can we do better than this? Totnesmartin (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Without getting involved in an edit war, can someone explain why Lammy's and Starkey's comments were so different? Both placed some of the blame at gang/gangster culture. Is the problem because Starkey went one step further and mentioned the roots of this gang culture? Heywoodg 09:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Lammy did not say that "whites had become black", for example, a clear suggestion that gangs are a product of "black culture", whatever that is, and if whites had not been exposed too "black culture" they would not have joined gangs. Starkey said a lot of other things that Lammy didn't say. In fact, Lammy has repudiated Starkey's remarks (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/seealso/2011/08/daily_view_david_starkeys_comm.html). If they were "similar, he would hardly have done that. The fact that they both blamed gang violence for part of the problem does not mean that you can imply that all of what both men said is "similar". The issue is not that gang violence was involved (something both did say), it's that Starkey said that gang violence is a product of "black culture" (whatever that is). Thus blacks are responsible. That is what people are objecting to, and it is certainly not what Lammy said. Remember this is a BLP (as is Starkey's article) so extra care is needed. Harry the Dog WOOF 10:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Harry. I won't comment further on here as the discussion has happened on the David Starkey discussion page. Heywoodg 11:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Appearance on Mastermind Section

Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

Is there any justification for including this section? So he gave stupid answers to a couple of questions, but has it really got anything meaningful to say about him? I propose deleting it, unless anyone can give a good reason for why it should stay. Daveofthenewcity (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, very embarrassing it may be, but it is notable information. The answers were not stupid, but did indicate a shocking lack of general knowledge for someone who was, and may one day again, be in charge of young people's university education in the UK. Mastermind is a famous TV programme in the UK, and there were articles about this in several national newspapers.Straw Cat (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree. For one thing it was 'Celebrity Mastermind' which like all the 'celebrity' versions of programmes is far less serious than the ordinary version - it is entertainment, pure (or nor so pure) and simple. It may be lack of general knowledge, but is sounds to me much more like 'mind gone blank when put on the spot in front of the cameras'. Yes of course it was discussed in the newspapers, but it gives it far too much prominence to have it here in this very short entry on him. Daveofthenewcity (talk) 11:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

What you may think caused it is your POV, and in fact may strengthen the case for its inclusion; politicians - and lawyers - are expected to think on their feet and in front of cameras. (Lammy was judged to have notably failed when he had to give a major speech to Parliament, introducing leglislation as a government Home Office minister). The Mastermind incident was reported in serious papers like the Guardian. The article is balanced by examples of his more thoughtful speeches, like that on the recent riots. It is not supposed to be hagiography. Straw Cat (talk) 11:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles can't contain everything about someone (even everything reported in the Guardian), so there is inevitable POV in what you choose to include and what you choose not to include. It is your POV that this is relevant enough to include. If Lammy "was judged to have notably failed when he had to give a major speech to Parliament" then why not include that in here, rather than his appearance on Celebrity Mastermind? Daveofthenewcity (talk) 12:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

What is included in WP articles is not based on anyone's POV, but on verifiability - which is the core principle of the project. The section cites reliable sources. I have restored the section. (Which is incidentally, the only critical item in the article, which is unusual for an article on a politician.)Straw Cat (talk) 23:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

But I repeat "Articles can't contain everything [verifiable] about someone". It is ludicrous to argue that just because something is verifiable it should be included. You refer to it being reported in The Guardian. Search for 'David Lammy' on the Guardian website and you get 797 hits. Search for David Lammy + Mastermind and you get 4 hits, so you are arguing this 4/800 = 1/200 of possible facts is one of the few important ones to include. It is your judgement of what is relevant material against mine. There is no reason why I should bow to your judgement on this, but I don't want to go through a loop of me deleting and your restoring it repeatedly. Wikipedia presumably has procedures to deal with this situation. You seem to be more active in Wikipedia than me, so do you know the way forward? Daveofthenewcity (talk) 12:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Nothing more been said to justify keeping it, so I'll delete it again. Daveofthenewcity (talk) 12:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on David Lammy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Oxbridge students

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It was on the news tonight (October 20 2017) that information passed on to David Lammmy indicated that relatively few students at Oxford or Cambridge universities come from ethnic minority backgrounds, from the north of England or from deprived areas or households. Could this go in the article, or would this make the article too much like Wikinews? Vorbee (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Citation tag

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have added additional citations and fixed some of the typos. Is it OK if I remove the citations needed template?Purple flowers by default^t@lk 11:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

My recent edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Here I explained that I removed a bit about Stephen Pollard's criticism of Lammy, and that I would give my reasoning here. This is because the original source for his criticism was https://www.mynewsinc.com/stephen-pollard-shame-on-you-david-lammy/, which (a) I don't believe is a reliable source (a search for "mynewsinc" returns very little about what this website actually is; (b) it appears to be a dead link, with no archived version at the Internet Archive; and (c) the only other sources I could find for it was a Daily Mail article (which per WP:DAILYMAIL1 shouldn't be used if possible), and a Tweet of his just linking to this Daily Mail article. If anyone disagrees with me removing this, please re-insert it with reliable sources / explain here why you think I'm wrong. Thanks. Seagull123 Φ 16:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Timeline

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

We know what he did prior to 1994 and 1997 onwards. It is unclear what he did in between. With what chambers he practised, or indeed if he practised at all in that time. This info should be filled out, if anyone has it. Lord Law Law (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

British or English politician

Latest comment: 8 months ago39 comments6 people in discussion

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^[1]
The Guardian about the argument on LBC that is linked in the tweet ^[2]
The Independent talking about his drive to have Black English on the census ^[3]
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

^ https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/1376522685073735683?t=wtVnB5jz87dohGNWTL7p2A&s=19 David lammy on twitter
^ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/29/david-lammy-praised-for-response-to-lbc-caller-who-said-he-was-not-english David Lammy praised for response to radio caller who said he was 'not English'
^ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-lammy-black-english-census-b1895736.html? Labour’s David Lammy questions why ‘Black English’ is not an option on census

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)

There is no such thing as an English politician since the Act of Union and merger of the English and Scottish Parliament in Westminster.
Lammy has identified as a Londoner, English, British and European.
Lammy has stated he backs British Unionism. He is against separatism.
An English lawyer exists because they practice English law.
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)

You just stated there is no English MPs.
MPs are politicians.
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

Latest comment: 1 year ago18 comments5 people in discussion

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)

British or English politician

Latest comment: 8 months ago39 comments6 people in discussion

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^[1]
The Guardian about the argument on LBC that is linked in the tweet ^[2]
The Independent talking about his drive to have Black English on the census ^[3]
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" [2] 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

^ https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/1376522685073735683?t=wtVnB5jz87dohGNWTL7p2A&s=19 David lammy on twitter
^ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/29/david-lammy-praised-for-response-to-lbc-caller-who-said-he-was-not-english David Lammy praised for response to radio caller who said he was 'not English'
^ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-lammy-black-english-census-b1895736.html? Labour’s David Lammy questions why ‘Black English’ is not an option on census

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)