Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethnic English

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as a POV fork. The fact that the article creator has been POV pushing in this AFD discussion does not help his case, and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. --Coredesat 05:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic English

Looks like a heap of handwaving, or at best a "POV fork". I redirected to English people but that's been undone. The author says he created it due to "University studies" but it seems to contain little information and very little that is sourced. Perhaps it should just be deleted. --Tony Sidaway 10:ef02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

  • [assumed keep]. No - it starts to investigate the term Ethnic English and its position in UK Law and its grwoing relevance in the UK aurrounding Census and other matters. Tony Sidway simply does not understand the subject. It prossibly does noy conform to his POV - so he wants to delete it rather than discuss it properly. Toxteth34 10:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Ethnicity is defined under UK law both in the race relation act and in other documentation. The English have been defined as a Ethnic Group since 1965. They are NOT a nation however - depending on what you define as a nation. But their ethnicity is English. hence a trial 2007 Census for the UK.Toxteth34 10:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to Ethnic classification in the UK, if not already covered. -- RHaworth 11:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Tone and content appear to me as being one step removed from being labeled as Racist..--Gavin Collins 12:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect to English people. I too have misgivings about the tone. Note that the author removed the AfD tag, which was reinstated by another editor. BTLizard 12:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • keepQuote Tone and content appear to me as being one step removed from being labeled as Racist. NO once again you do not know what you are talking about. The Ethnicity of English people has been recognised since 1965 (RR Act.) As is being furter recognised by changes in the 2007 Census. Try and look at your won predjudices if you think this way. The article is a matter of fact look at the term Ethnic English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toxteth34 (talk • contribs) 2007-05-29 12:43:17
  • Delete per above. I'm not as worried about the (really rather non-existent) tone as some of the other editors, but this is a rambling, redundant mess that doesn't "investigate" much of anything at all and looks like a WP:OR violation. Editing and defending this article is the sole Wiki activity of Toxteth34, its creator.  RGTraynor  13:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm curious to know where this idea of a "2007 census" comes from. Census in the United Kingdom occurs every 10 years, the next to occur in 2011. The idea of a "2007 census" appears to come solely from a picture hosted on a lobbyist web site — which also appears to be the origin of the particular idea of "ethnic english" being propounded in this article. Uncle G 13:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • There we are - we have it - you do not truely know the subject matter - there is a change to the Census rules by the Government and introduced by the Government. The Term Ethnic English is now with us - having been dormant for about 30 years. Don't put a delet if you do not know what you are talking about. There is a change to the 2011 Census to better reflect the population mix of the UK. Ethnic English is a government term and has been is use by lawyers for some time. It is going through a trila Census in 2007. Way it is. the term is now being used/ Toxteh34 13:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The 2007 trial is a small voluntary survey to test the census mechanism in preparation for the 2011 census. You can find out about it here. It's of no particular relevance to this discussion, however. BTLizard 13:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I had already found that. It makes it clear that the design of the 2011 U.K. census is still being developed. Both above and in the article, however, Toxteth34 (talk · contribs) writes of a "2007 census", pointing to a lobbyist web site. Given that as 89.243.63.240 (talk · contribs) — apparently the same person going by the edit history of this discussion — xe has also written about that very lobbyist web site at Steadfast, it appears that these particular ideas of "ethnic english" and a "2007 census" are all coming from a single source, and simply don't exist outside of it. Uncle G 13:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I have just now looked at the Steadfast site. It very much strengthens my qualms as to the agenda behind this article. BTLizard 14:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • If I am reading it right the Steadfast site is a charity.Toxteth34 17:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. Correction, they've got UK registered charity status but that means next to nothing. My school was a registered charity. tomasz. 11:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • With respect it does have relevance as you are all going to be asked your ethnicity in coming years which means we ae all going to have to understand what the term means. So are you Ethnically English will be a question the gorvernment puts to you and really we should be having this debate on the discussion page of the article. Would make good reading as a debate. Took me a little time to get my head around it. But it is a term that has relevance. very much so.Toxteth34 13:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I suggest that you think a lot more carefully about your assertion that all Wikipedia editors are going to be asked questions by the U.K. government. Uncle G 13:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The above comment still doesn't make the 2007 trial have relevance to this article, though, and as Uncle G already pointed out, this article is irrelevant in the face of this and this. tomasz. 13:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • No - once again you do ot know what you are talking about - the way it is being looked at is changing. By 2011 the census questionnaire will chnage. That is why I put previous examples on the article. To show the change. It takes a vit of a thought leap but I am sure people will get there. Or what is going to happen is that by 2011 people will not understand what the Census is saying. Forget the 2001 Census - this is now 7 years on. Toxteth34 13:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • 2007 − 2001 = 6 Uncle G 13:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • How can we have a lengthy debate on a relatively new term and it not be an article? Toxteth34 13:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:No original research. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a forum for hosting a debate. Uncle G 13:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. i don't think you've read the 2001 census article properly; there's already a sub-section on the proposed changes to the census which covers all this. quite apart from that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so if there's significant change in the way the political system is administered we can document it when it happens as opposed to creating new pages of speculation. P.S. once again please consider adding any scrap of verifiable evidence to support your claims instead of just starting all of your responses with "No - you don't know what you're talking about" or some variation thereof. If this is indeed such a massive political change as you seem to imply, it sounds like you'd be able to amply source the whole thing from the government's own website. Off you go. tomasz. 14:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
      • No - here is evidence of the changes - read up above on one of the previous comments it is already there 2011 article Toxteth34 14:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Quote above Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, precisely - and this is a relatively new term - Ethnic English - just like Ethnic Irish etc etc. It is here to stay. Can Wikipedia cope with a new term?Toxteth34 14:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Cmt. The page you provided does not mention the terms "ethnic" or even "English". It does say that there are some proposals for the new census. Big wow. All this is doing is making the whole idea look like original research. And anyway, if this is a "new term" as you've just said, how does that square with your earlier claim that "The Ethnicity of English people has been recognised since 1965 (RR Act.)"? and you still need sources (ones that directly back up what you said rather than referring to an incidental part of a side argument). tomasz. 14:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Can Wikipedia cope with a new term? If there are reliable, published, independent, third-party sources. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance.  RGTraynor  14:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Is anyone understanding that whilst not exactly new it is a newly deployed term - so my reasearch is original? Once again see 2011 article Toxteth34
  • This is an encyclopedia so this is a term in use.Toxteth34 14:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • "not exactly new but newly deployed"? sorry, but that's self-contradictory. "This is an encyclopedia so this is a term in use." that's not a rule, actually. tomasz. 14:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • OK have a look at this page of the test census PDF os 2007 Trial Sample Toxteth34 14:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It clearly shows the term Ethnic English by asking the question. Toxteth34 14:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. To me it just says "English". is the word "ethnic" invisible or something? tomasz. 14:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Or something - check out section 13 of PDF of 2007 Trial Sample it specifically asked for your Ethnicity - English / Irish etc etc. Way it is Toxteth34 15:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeh, that's the section i was talking about. It doesn't say "Ethnic English" anywhere. It says "What is your ethnic group? Choose one section from A to E, then tick the box to show your ethnic group". Then the list of checkable boxes like so:
      • A White
      • English
      • Other British
      • Irish
      • Any other white background, write in
      • See? no "Ethnic English" anywhere. So i take it we can look forward to further interesting articles entitled "Ethnic Other British" and "Ethnic Any other white background, write in", then? Or is this just a quibbling point reading too much into a minor change in self-classification in the census? i think you know my view. tomasz. 17:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • It says tick the boxes to show your ethnic group - one of which is English - i.e. Ethnic EnglishToxteth34 19:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • keep I see what he / she is saying - and looking at the term Ethnic English it is definitely real.TimberWeald 16:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete close to being a POV fork with the introduction looking like original research but certainly duplication of information from other articles. Anything about the English as an ethnic group should be on the English people article. Anything about the ethnic and census classifications should be in the Census 2001 Ethnic Codes and Ethnic groups of the United Kingdom articles. An article on Census 2011 Ethnic Codes however could be created around the proposed classifcations for the next census. Davewild 19:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Look at section 13 of PDF of 2007 Trial Sample it clearly asks you to tick if you are Ethnically English. The term means alot more in law than say 'English People'. And sort of whether people like it or not the Government says so. So like Ethnic Irish or whatever which I presume no one has a problem with it is the same. Some of you may not get it - but it exists in Law. Toxteth34 19:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment To quote from the top of English people "This article is about the English as an ethnic group." I am not denying that the government uses and will use the term 'ethnically english'. However there is now need to have a seperate article from English people and Ethnic groups of the United Kingdom which can cover the topic fine. We do not need a seperate article with the same content but a different title. As per Scotland - Scottish ethnicity redirects to Scottish people, see no reason why English ethnicity cannot do the same. Davewild 20:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The term English People or Scottish People is virtually menaingless nowadays. It simply does not rack up in terms of new terminology / the law / what is current thinking. Ethnicity is the official position. Toxteth34 22:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - A google search just points to some bizarre looking Nationalist sites. As per "new terminology" - I have never heard of the term before. A few blogs and the insane rantings of a few far right groups does not coin a "new term".
    • The Editor Toxteth34 might want to consult his/her dictionary. In terms such as Ethnic Albanian or Ethnic German the definition is described as "denoting origin by birth or descent rather than by present nation." (Oxford Dictionary of English 2nd Ed 2005), thus used in the sense of a diaspora community. I can't see that the article has any value. Although some of the ethnic background lists were of limited interest. Mike33 02:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. There's no reason why we need separate English people and Ethnic English articles, the "English people" article is about the English ethnic group. At best this is a POV-fork. Any information regarding the census and ethnicity can surely be included int he English people article. Alun 04:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Quote above - "denoting origin by birth or descent rather than by present - nation." - that is correct - the English are NOT a nation under law but are an Ethnic Group under law. Their Ethnicity is defined by the RR Act - so as a term it has more relevance than something like 'English People which means virtually nothing.Toxteth34 05:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment. You've offered that reasoning umpteen times now. Might i suggest you try and prove it or at least offer a decent source for it? Don't offer me section 13 of the proposed 2011 census document again, we've already established that doesn't back up your claim. tomasz. 07:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • and upteen times I have told you to look at section 13 of the government website test census and upteen times you fail to do so. So once again look at section 13 of PDF of 2007 Trial Sample and read in properly. It is government stuff and is their in light blue and white. So once agin it proves thid party bona fide what I am sayig. Like it or not the test has already happened and the term is out there in law and in use. Way it is.Toxteth34 08:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Stop ignoring the fact that Section 13 of that document does not in any way back up your argument. As i have already explained above, it does not contain the phrase "ethnic English" (the very title of this article!!). The form says "ethnic" and it says "English" in vaguely the same area, but to use that as a source to prove an independently existing concept of "ethnic English" is OR by synthesis and therefore the source does not back up the claim. Furthermore, this document does not support any of your other claims. "the test has already happened and the term is out there in law and in use" >>> then there should be ample journalistic and statute evidence to document this. "the English are NOT a nation under law but are an Ethnic Group under law" >>> again, proof from the law books for this, please. Offer the same disproved meanderings again if you want, but without actual decent sources you're on a hiding to nothing. tomasz. 08:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • All you have done is prove you do not know what you are talking about and are thus not able to counter argue. Plus you are not reading Sect 13. End of discussion. You simply do not know the subject matter and thus should not be in the debate. Like it or not the term is there and being used. I wanted to start an article to reflect this. Bye.Toxteth34 10:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. You've done it again. tell me WHY you think i don't know what i'm talking about. i've read all of Section 13 and explained to you precisly why it's an invalid reference. You're not going to do well as a lawyer if you consistently ignore the arguments that aren't yours and just bludgeoningly repeat the same disproven misconceptions again and again. Whether you or i "like it or not" is irrelevant, you're just not providing any proof. tomasz. 11:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment More reference to English Ethnicity from the Commision for Racial equality. CRE Website

Commment. Again not mentioning the phrase "Ethnic English" anywhere (which you'd think would be crucial given that's the name of the article), this is just a web form version of the oft-referenced and still irrelevant Section 13. Read what original research means. Familiarise yourself with the difference between a primary and secondary source. Try a different tack. tomasz. 11:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The debate between myself and tomasz. is finished has he refuses to read government literature properly and is starting to re-edit my comments on this page to make it appear that I am debating with him. The comments on the cliassfications on the CRE website are for general consumption see: CRE Website The term Ethnic English is here and is being used. Toxteth34 13:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Actually, Toxteth34, you were the one who moved my comment, as a cursory glance at the edit history will show. i don't care what your reason was, but in any case i actually was debating you, insofar as you can have a debate when one side refuses to answer all the reasons the other has given as to why the sources they provide are bunk. Anyway. You're right, the debate between me and you is over. You seem to be an editor who loves to have the last word but seems more reluctant to have the first clue. This is for the community now. tomasz. 13:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


Comment - more reluctant to have the first clue - personal slight = indicates POV behind argument from tomasz. Toxteth34 14:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

no, not POV. you're thinking of incivility, stupid. tomasz. 14:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: (shrugs) I don't know ... while a technical WP:CIVIL violation -- and I strongly suggest reining in the invective -- I would be frustrated myself if I'd asked repeatedly to see sources for the term "Ethnic English," only to be shown PDFs or websites that hold the words "ethnic" or "ethnicity" and "English" somewhere (but never together) within the same document. This article seeks to establish "Ethnic English" as a valid term. So far there has been a great deal of chatter, but zero actual documentation backing that assertion up.  RGTraynor  14:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete we have found no use whatever of the phrase. The article will not be judged by the intensity of the arguments. Its not a question of primary or secondary references, or how many references, or the quality of the references. There is scope for an article on "English " as an ethnic group, if it isn't covered adequately elsewhere. But this particular phrase simply does not exist. Its not a neologism--this WP article seems to be the first and only use. Not OR--just imagination. I notice the evidence for Ethnic English was that there exists the term Ethnic German. DGG 02:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment My use of Ethnic German, was in the sense that Ethnicity is essentialy how people are categorised (or categorize themselves) outside of ones (or ones grandparents) homeland. In real terms (not weasling) it means more about language. Essentially, articles like this and edits to English people represent a seige mentally over a much disputed "anglo" people living in the UK. The Editor can argue forever about Wikieditors not understanding law, but the law uses the term Ethnic broadly; Certainly, not in the same way the editor wants us to beleive. Mike33 05:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

no, not POV. you're thinking of incivility, stupid. tomasz. 14:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC) and I was thinking of 'intellectual peanut.' We have a few in law. Signing off. Toxteth34 15:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

    • I've been thinking about this term "Ethnic English" for a day or two now. As I have said in my delete proposal. The concept is POV in its whole essence and just a con-joining of two mismatched words. Wikidictionary does consider some very new phrases, (i think the rule of thumb here is that if a phrase appears 40,000 times on google it maybe notable) so there could be a cause for a definition in wikidictionary. The Steadfast Trust might be an area the editor might consider writing about and discuss the use of the term Ethnic English there. Afd is not a place for POV, and I hope that the reviewing admin won't be swayed one way or another by a few careless grande mots'. Mike33 19:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.