Jump to content

Talk:David Lammy

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


Labour Friends of Israel in the "Other political affiliations section"[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is clear consensus against including Labour Friends of Israel. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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

Yes, per the reasoning I've set out the discussion directly above this. Helper201 (talk) 00:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - after reading the discussion above, I see no reason to leave it out. It is an explicitly political group which Lammy is a member of. Remagoxer (talk) 07:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. Did you really start an RFC over this? I'm sure it's something that could have been worked out by discussion.
Lammy is a member of a group, I'm sure he's a member of many different groups and we wouldn't count such as "Political Affiliation" even if the group had a political aspect. He is not politically affiliated to an internal Labour work group, he is not politicallly affiliated to the inter-party Faith and Society group (even though he's the secretary of that group).
That he has a supposed allegiance is a product of the current times, and not a reality. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, you said "I don't think we going to agree on this, hopefully another editor will have some input". I opened the rfc to get that input from other editors. I don't see a problem with that. Helper201 (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of other ways to resolve disputes without jumping all the way to having an RFC, per WP:Dispute resolution and WP:RFCBEFORE. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. I don't think this is necessary and would just add unneccessary clutter. What if there's a Labour MP who's a member of the Socialist Campaign Group, Labour Friends of Israel, Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East, Labour Friends of the Forces, Labour Friends of Taiwan and possibly other Labour parliamentary groups as well? There'll certainly be politicians who are members of several groups, at which point surely we wouldn't just add a long list of mostly irrelevant political affiliations to their infobox? If we are to use the other political affiliation section in the infobox of UK politicians (Lammy isn't the only one who's had LFI added in recent weeks) then it should be something specifically noteworthy to that politician. For example, Tony Benn was a founder and chair of the Socialist Campaign Group, so it would make sense to have that group added to his infobox since it's of noteworthy relevance to his career. Afaik, Lammy is merely just a member of LFI. He's not a founder or a prominent member; it has no noteworthy relevance or bearing on his wider parliamentary career. It's just a bit of unneccessary trivia to add LFI into the infobox.
Former prime ministers Gordon Brown and Tony Blair are also members of LFI, yet it isn't mentioned in their infoboxes either. Former PM Liz Truss is a member of the Conservative Growth Group and the Free Enterprise Group, yet none of these are mentioned in her infobox. Michael Foot was a member of the Tribune Group, yet that isn't mentioned either. I could keep going. I just don't see any reason why any group, including LFI, should be included in Lammy's infobox unless, as I've said, they are noteworthy to his career. Lammy's membership of LFI is a minor footnote to his career and therefore should not be mentioned in the infobox due to its irrelevance. Same with other politicians. ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That isn't the case with this person in terms of belonging to a long list of groups. Nor is there going to be many politicians that belong to a long list of groups. Regardless, this could easily be resolved by using group abbreviations e.g., for Labour Friends of Israel use LFI. The Wikipedia notes system could also be used to resolve this if it ever becomes an issue. I.e., there are multiple ways this could be resolved if an issue arises from it but it’s not even an issue for this page anyway. I'd certainly argue this is very much relevant in terms of Lammy given he's the Shadow Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, one of the most senior Shadow Cabinet positions and the most senior in regards to foreign affairs, of which this strongly relates.
In regards to Brown and Blair and those other examples, that is WP:OTHERCONTENT. Helper201 (talk) 20:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As you reinstated this into the article saying that this is the way it's used at Jeremy Corbyn that seems to be a bit of an about face. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. It is unnecessary for the reasons stated above Michaeldble (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. It is not necessary to include all of a politicians affiliations to groups within their own party. If we were to routinely do that then the list would be a dozen items long for almost every politician. If some politician is on the Green Party Working Group for Procurement of Sustainable Paperclips then that does not belong in the infobox. If it is notable then it can be covered in the body. If we are to decide that Labour Friends of Israel is a special case then we had better have a very good reason for singling them out over all the other internal Labour groups that could be listed. As I see it, this field is primarily for people who represent different parties at different levels (e.g. one party at a national level and another at a transnational level) or where a person represents more than one party (e.g. Labour and Cooperative). I see the point that the field might be used for organisations other than parties but I see something like a sponsoring trade union as a much more legitimate use than some selected specialist group within the party already listed. Bloat and arbitrariness are not the only considerations here. Adding groups may give an impression of divided loyalties, even when that is not intended. My first thought when I saw it added here was that this was exactly what was being insinuated, although I quickly realised that it wasn't when I checked the editor's other contributions. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No one has said it's necessary to put all political affiliations in the infobox. We are talking about this instance on this page. Even if we were talking about multiple affiliations in this section its easily doable via abbreviations. What is "necessary" is entirely subjective. This case has an exceptionally good reason for being in the infobox being it’s a group specifically centred around foreign policy with this person in a Shadow Cabinet position role presiding over foreign policy. Helper201 (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. It is not necessary to include … a politicians affiliations to groups within their own party, and mere membership indicates 'interest' rather than 'affiliation'. The underlying logic of this is somewhat McCarthyite "Are you or have you ever been a member of the Friends of …". If and when WP:RS describe some solid reason why an individual politician's 'memberships' become important - then it can go in the body and perhaps the infobox if WEIGHT allows. Pincrete (talk) 09:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC on David Lammy[edit]

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

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

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

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

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] Erzan (talk) 14:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Survey[edit]

  • No. Lammy is an English person representing an English seat in the UK Parliament. He (correctly) describes himself as English as well as British. As such, "English" is preferable because it is more specific, equally correct and more consistent with the way we write about other English politicians. "English" automatically implies British so there is nothing lost by saying "English" instead of "British". I see no problem with the word British being used in other parts of the article but the primary description of him should be as English. Ezran has not advanced any argument that English is wrong, only that British is also correct, which is true but irrelevant. I do not know why Ezran is so keen to change this. I do know that some previous editors of this article have attempted to make the same change and have made the claim that English is an ethnicity and hence black people can not be English. That is just racist claptrap and deserves no further consideration. To be very clear, I am not accusing Ezran of holding that position. Nonetheless, we should avoid wording the article in any ambiguous way that might be misunderstood as supporting, or leaving space for, such an idiotic position, even inadvertently. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no such thing as English citizenship and saying that an MP sits for an English constituency and is therefore English makes no more sense than arguing that Kamala Harris is a Californian, but not an American politician. The description 'English politician' has not been in regular use for 100s of years. 'Scottish politician' as a term makes sense, not because of place of birth or residence of the politician, but because there is 'Scottish-specific politics' and there are politicians and Scottish parties who seek independence from the UK and who habitually identify themselves, and are therefore ordinarily identified by sources as 'Scottish'. There are no significant English independence parties or politicians. No source AFAIK ever calls Lammy an English politician. Pincrete (talk) 07:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A politician who is English is an English politician, that is just how English works. Someone who is Scottish and a baker is an English baker.
    The occupation of being a politician is not the same as saying some one is an MP, there are many politicians who are not MPs. So whether or not he is an English or British politician has nothing to do with with the nature of Parliament.
    The situation in the UK is not the same as the US, see WP:UKNATIONALS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    David Lammy

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

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

3. A member of the British Labour Party.

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

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

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

I propose an offer of compromise.

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

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

OK. Clearly you have been unlucky in that you are making the same suggestion as those other people I mentioned but for very different reasons and some of the annoyance that they caused may have affected the responses to you. The last time I looked, the majority of English MPs were described as English but I'll have another look. DanielRigal (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I offer an even bigger compromise.
In the personal life section or something similar, only mention him being English additionally. I won't touch it. I am not asking for British to be mentioned any other places than "British politician" in the lead.
Thank you for also acknowledging my concerns. Erzan (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just been clicking on articles about MPs pretty randomly and the English ones are mostly listed as British now. The Scottish and Welsh ones are still mostly listed as Scottish and Welsh. I'm not keen on that inconsistency but it does mean that changing it to British would not be inconsistent with other English MPs. I'm still not sure that changing it is necessary but I no longer think that it is objectionable. I'll strike out the appropriate parts of my !vote above. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. @ActivelyDisinterested do you agree with @DanielRigal and if so would you like the offer of compromise as well? Erzan (talk) 09:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that the difference is that Scotland and Wales have their own devolved parliaments, unlike England. An English politician who sits in Westminster is perhaps better described as a 'British politician'.  Tewdar  09:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1/. There are many sources for both.
2/. Politician as an occupation isn't the same as being an MP. A local councillor could be an English politician, even if they were a councillor in Scotland.
3/. If the sentence at question was about his membership of the Labour party this would be relevant, but the sentence isn't about his membership of the Labour party so its not.
4/. Yes he does the question is which one to use.
5/. How other articles are setup doesn't dictate the wording in this one.
Who you are, or who I am makes no difference is this discussion (On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Can you explain why David Lammy's article should go against the standard of other similar articles? The vast majority of British MPs are called British politicans.
Can you explain why the numerous sources repeatedly have David Lammy call himself British should be ignored?
Can you explain why the numerous of sources that describe David Lammy as a Biritsh politican should be ignored? Erzan (talk) 16:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you WP:DROPTHESTICK and stop WP:BLUDGEONING? This is a RFC and editors aren't required to satisfy you. Nemov (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"English" is not a nationality in the ordinary sense of the word - like French, German, American etc. It is a cultural identification somewhat akin to ethnicity. Charlie Chaplin described himself and was seen as being "English", rather than "British", but most people born in England are described as British, rather than English. George Bush was Texan, but does that mean he was a Texan politician? Originally perhaps if he was solely involved in Texan local politics, but even then WP would describe him as American. Why would we want to use the more parochial term? The bottom line is, do sources describe Lammy as an 'English politician'? Because, I thought he was the (Shadow) British Foreign Secretary! Pincrete (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

  • English as per self identification in the sources on the article. I don't see any of the arguments given as a good reason to change it. The fact that other articles have been changed isn't an argument for changing this one, that's just fait accompli (The English ones are mostly listed as British now.
    The situation in the UK is not the same as the US, nationalitylies in the UK ate not the samr as being from a particular state of the US (WP:UKNATIONALS).
    There was a question of the misuse of "English Member of Parliament", which would be wrong but that isn't what the lead says. If Lammy was Scottish and a baker they would be a Scottish baker. Someone who was English and a baker in Scotland would be an English baker who works in Scotland.
    The occupation has nothing to do with the nature of the British parliament, this is as silly a notion as the idea that an English lawyer is English because they practice English law. Someone who is English and resides in England, but works long distance in American law doesn't become American because of their occupation.
    "English politician" is still very commonly used for disambiguation of individuals, in those articles however the lead has been changed to say "British politician" something that should be undone until an RM is done so article title and article text match. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • procedural close per Nemov's suggestion below. When viewing this at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies it only shows as "Do the balance of these sources assert that David Lammy, the MP for Tottenham, is a British politician?" with the sources 1 to 19. This is a badly worded RfC. TarnishedPathtalk 01:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TarnishedPath The RFC has been reworded if you wish to amend your comment. Nemov (talk) 18:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • British politician I would consider that MOS:CITIZEN, by referring explicitly to citizenship and nationality, indicates British is generally more appropriate. "In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory where the person is currently a citizen, national, or permanent resident." There is no English citizenship, only British and England is not a sovereign state. I have always found "English politician" to refer to a politician active in national politics of the United Kingdom as awkward and misleading; there seems to have been a recent shift away from that wording. Wouldn't it seem inaccurate and weird for Rishi Sunak, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, to be described as an "English politician"? The issue of consistency is relevant here; most other national politicians are described as British politicians. If Labour win the next election, will Lammy be the English Foreign Secretary or the British Foreign Secretary? AusLondonder (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is this breaks down when it comes to Sinn Fein politicians who are elected to parliament. They would very much disagree with being called 'British' politicians, while DUP politicians would be equally be upset by not being called British.
    Again the sentence does not say he is an English MP, so it wouldn't say he would be "the English Foreign Secretary". An occupation is not the same as a job title. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For instance good luck changing the lead of John Finucane. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that Finucane is an Irish citizen and not particularly active in UK-wide politics (he doesn't take his seat in the House of Commons) I don't see the comparison. But are you suggesting DUP politicians are referred to as British politicians? AusLondonder (talk) 01:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't find any mention of Finucane being an Irish citizen in their article. He was born in the UK and was elected to the British parliament. These are the same arguments being used for why Lammy should not be identified as English (note I definitely don't believe Finucane should be labelled as British).
    DUP politicians are are generally described as British as that is how they identify, see Jeffrey Donaldson the current leader of the DUP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You must be joking thinking a Sinn Féin politician is a British citizen? I'm guessing you're not familiar with this but anyone born in Northern Ireland is entitled to Irish citizenship. As of 2022 nearly half of people born in Northern Ireland held an Irish passport, with the number holding citizenship without a passport presumably notably higher. It would be utterly inconceivable for a Sinn Féin politician to be a British citizen. Linking David Lammy to the issue of identity in Northern Ireland seems like a bit of a red herring. AusLondonder (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You must be joking thinking a Sinn Féin politician is a British citizen? I'm not saying that (as I specifically noted). I'm saying that even though Finucane was born in the UK and was elected to the British parliament, it would be wrong to call him British. Those facts don't change that he's Irish. I did say I didn't see anything in his article to show that he's taken Irish citizenship.
    nearly half of people born in Northern Ireland held an Irish passport absolutely and it's why it not possible to have a simple one size fits all for all people in the UK. The fact remains that there are four nations of people inside the UK state
    Finally as this seems to be getting missed repeatedly you don't have to be British to be a Member of Parliament in the UK. As in you don't have to have British citizenship, you can be born in Ireland to Irish parents, only have Irish citizenship, life in Ireland and have spent your whole life in Ireland, and still be elected as an MP. The same is true for any commonwealth country, so being elected to the British parliament is not a reason to be called British. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • British Based on the sources, Lammy tends to identify as British more than English and is a UK unionist (in comparison Englsih/Scottish etc separsits).  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 01:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • British - as he is a member of the British Parliament. AFAIK, there's no such thing as a devolved English Parliament, that he was a member of. GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • British per MOS:CITIZEN and per the balance of WP:RS. TarnishedPathtalk 00:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • British Parliament = British Politician I have been reading the comments here and looking at related sources. It is abundantly clear that the term "British Politician" on this website is meant to associate the politician with the British Parliament. Members of Parliament like David Lammy are British Politicians in that sense.
Lammy has described himself as "British" and "English" like any other politician listed in this article's infobox. From what I am reading from this website, these terms are not meant to describe how they personally describe their nationality. As others have noted, there is no "English Parliament", rather constituents of England and the other countries represented in that one single Parliament that meets in that famous building in London, that governs the entire UK.
One must be careful when comparing with US politics indeed. First of all, the MPs are all in the same branch of government as the PM. Whereas in the US, Kamala Harris and George W Bush were previously state politicians (and remember "states" in the US are more like formal jurisdictions rather than separate countries in the UK). The UK does not really have the separate legislative and executive branches the US has so that when Harris and Bush went to the executive, "US politician" does make more sense perhaps for the same reason that "British politician" makes more sense for Lammy because Harris and Bush are in the federal executive at that point, and not any state government. Likewise, Lammy is an MP in the British parliament as opposed to a politician in an English jurisdiction.
Also, as others have noted and according to England#Politics: There has not been a government of England since 1707
And so, please do not single out this British MP. He's a member of British parliament, hence a British politician Ender and Peter 06:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • British per “why is this important” + “readers can infer he’s also English from his birthplace”. I don’t really support treating sub-national countries as nationalities. Is someone from Yakutia a “Yakutian politician” or just a Russian politician? The latter, obviously. Dronebogus (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • English, it necessarily implies that he is British no?--Ortizesp (talk) 14:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, well, being born in England implies English. Bit of a Buridan's ass, no? Dronebogus (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really, if we say he's English it covers both bases, while if we say he's British someone will have to go all the way to the infobox to confirm... Ortizesp (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • British, a person born in London migrated to Sydney & became an MP of the Australian Parliament, you'd call them an Australian politician. Despite being born in England. Because birthplace isn't the determined factor, citizenship & the geographical jurisdiction of the institution they are a member of are. An English citizenship, Shadow Secretary & Parliament doesn't exist. So, applying the same logic to David Lammy, he is a British politician. Erzan(talk) 17:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • English, largely on the basis of STATUS QUO. The MOS accepts either form (see WP:UKNATIONALS), Lammy self-identifies as both and the sources refer to him as both. Given there is no other way to split it, leave it alone. Many of the other arguments are dismissed on that page too (consistency with other politician fails WP:UKCHANGE, for example). - SchroCat (talk) 10:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is like calling the minority deputy leader in the US House of Congress, a Californian politician. So if he becomes Chancellor of the UK, we're going to call the UK Chancellor, an English politician? I am trying to understand the logic here. Erzan (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone has said above, there is no need for you to BLUDGEON people. You’ve made your comment, so let other people speak without repeating yourself.
    It is nothing like describing an American: it’s a different country with no similarities in how the country was formed. (The very rough equivalent to ‘California politician’ would be ‘Hampshire politician’, not a country designation). See also note A of mos:NATIONALITY: “There is no categorical preference between describing a person as British rather than as English, Scottish, or Welsh”. - SchroCat (talk) 05:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a open discussion and people are free to ask, as others have done above. The UK & USA are sovereign countries, California & England are sub-national units. The UK is equal to US. England is equivalent to California. Hence it is the UK & USA who are UN members, not California or England. This is why I asked because there's fundamental misunderstanding of politics and law being applied here. Erzan (talk) 14:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest you look at some books on the UK to find out what it is - because it's not what you describe. England is not equivalent to California - something children learn in schools here. The "fundamental misunderstanding of politics and law" isn't by me (a Degree and Masters in Politics and Government here, and this is entirely clear in my mind, let alone in any number of reliable sources). California is not a country, England is. That's why - in a differing example - there is no California football team at a World Cup, but there is an England team, (as well as sometimes/potentially a Welsh, Scottish and Northern Ireland one). If you could learn a bit more about the UK and it's constituent countries, you may understand the difference (it's clearly outlined here and the first paragraph here). Feel free to take note of BLUDGEON as part of your reading, and then not reply, that would be great, thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. You're under no obligation to reply but the reason the UK doesn't compete as one team in FIFA is the historical decision by the leaders of the UK football sports teams in that organisation early inception, it has nothing to do with England not being the sub-national unit of the UK like California is the sub-national unit of the USA. The information you linked also backs this up, it literally explains what I am saying. Hence the UK competes in most sports as one team, Team GB. Hence the UK and only the UK can join the EU, UN, NATO, IMF & WTO. Erzan (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m sorry you are unable to understand some basic points on the make up of the UK. It’s seems you cannot differentiate between a nation and a nation state. I’ll step away from this, as WP:COMPETENCE and WP:ICANTHEARYOU and joining BLUDGEON to an unfortunate degree. - SchroCat (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again please do not be sorry. You mentioned FIFA which is 1 sports organisation and not the authority on the independence and statehood of country. So I was confused why that was used. Again, no need to reply. Thanks. Erzan (talk) 20:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    England and California are not equivalent, it's widely recognized that England is a country within the United Kingdom. Very much not the case with California. Ortizesp (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The word country is synonymous with state or land. It’s an old word used before Scotland & England came together to make the UK. How several states make 1 state in the US, several countries came together to make 1 country & named it the United Kingdom.
    England and California are politically, geographically and legally recognised as equivalents. They are sub-national regions of a sovereign state. The UK Supreme Court & UN has made that clear. Erzan (talk) 07:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don’t make up such rubbish. As you’re unable to grasp something so basic as this, I don’t think you have sufficient COMPETENCE to be dealing with questions on what nationality someone else is. - SchroCat (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SchroCat please refrain from engaging in WP:CIV. There has been comments made towards me that are belittling and personal WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL. If you wish to construct a persuasive argument all you needed was citations or ask for clarification, I would be more than happy to see what the UN or Supreme Court have said otherwise for example. Thank you. Erzan (talk) 06:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Questioning competence isn’t uncivil for a project that requires competence. Things like you leaving a message in my talk archives, rather than on my talk page, tend to reinforce my opinion. - SchroCat (talk) 07:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

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

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

Criticism section / Comments attracting criticism section[edit]

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

I've deconstructed the criticism section and moved the different parts elsewhere in the article, apart from the part about white smoke and the Pope which I removed per WP:BALASP as it seems to have had no lasting importance. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Lammy&oldid=1233609136"