Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 21:40, 22 August 2024

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 no consensus.. CitiCat 23:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

White British

White British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

No such thing as a White British ethnic group and certain editors are using the page to bring about ethnic revisionism by perpetuating this misguided notion. It is only a census classification and has no historical basis. A redirect is desired to the census, or to a disambiguation page linking to the native ethnic groups of the United Kingdom Michael 01:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

*delete merge some of it in the rare event there's anything good in it, because, all the 'meaty' bits of this are surely already in Demography of England. It even stops discussing one classification, and discusses all the others.Merkinsmum 01:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and merge anything useful with Demography of England. What is encyclopedic about an ethnic classification used in a census? - Dean Wormer 02:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - The Commission for Racial Equality disagrees with you that there is "no such thing as a White British ethic group", so, irrespective of the article's current contents, seems notable. Compare and contrast with White American, which seems to be a similar sort of article, or Black British. -85.210.30.61 04:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The commission explicitly denies the existence of the English, Scottish or Welsh ethnic groups through its lack of recognition for them. A denial of history, and the rewriting of it, something that this article also seeks to do. "White British" is simply a reaction to the newly-created "Black British". Michael 04:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

"White British" is a term used on the census and acknowledged by the government's department for racial equality. Why shouldn't it exist, even if just for regurgitating census facts and/or to explain the term? I don't see why it's a "denial of history" at all - by that sort of reasoning, would you be against all similar articles based on the fact the human race originally evolved in Africa? It's a term used /right now/. I completely disagree with you. -85.210.30.61 04:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a term that has its origins in government bureaucrats, not in history or heritage, and certainly not in recognition of ethnicity. It should be defined for what it is: a (misguided) census term, and nothing more. Michael 04:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, well, a straw poll of me alone, I would describe myself "White British" above anything else regarding my ethinicity, so I disagree that it's misguided, and even if it /was/ misguided, surely the existence of the term, as used by the census and at least one major government body, is enough to justify an article explaining its existence and related statistics? To me, this nomination seems to be based primarily on your own personal distaste for a term rather than anything else. -85.210.30.61 05:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete, Per Dean Wormer. Merge useful info with United Kingdom Census 2001, and other such articles if need be. Article is pointless and a magnet for content disputes. Especially bad is that article writer has turned a government neologism into an "ethnic group" article complete with template, origin narrative and prominent historical members such as William Shakespeare and Isaac Newton to whom "British" would have meant a Welsh person, which is borderline violation of WP:OR. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The term "White British" is an official term used by the British Census. It is reified in police reports which defines whites as light-skinned Europeans, excluding dark-skinned Europeans. The term "white" is widely used as a racial descriptor in Britain (source), so the term is not unique to the UK Census.----Tea© 08:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The article is White British, not White people in the United Kingdom. Your argument therefore crumbles to a pile of rumble. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete For reasons already stated, regarding the term's lack of historical or ethnic basis. Michael 08:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Very strong keep, with the increasing racial diversity in Britain, White British are becoming a more and more distinct group, and certainly one worth an encyclopaedia entry --Phral 08:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

But it isn't an ethnic group, it's a census classification. Ethnic groups are the English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh. You can't masquerade a census classification as an ethnic group; it's illogical.

As for, "increasing racial diversity" and a "more distinct group", it's a artificial grouping by bureaucrats, not an established ethnic group, with genealogical, historical and cultural characteristics. Michael 08:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I do see that Britons is exclusively about whites so I'm not hyper-concerned about this distinction. However "British people" redirects to "Britons" which I don't think is accurate and "British people" should probably have the content of this article. To my understanding of the terms, "Britons" are the indigenous people of Britain, and "British people" are members of all the primary white ethnicities found there, and asian and negro immigrants are none of those - they are at most "British citizens". So my proposal would be keep this article but move it and redirect "white british" to "british people" and remove the redirection of "british people" to "britons". Something along those lines. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 08:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment User:Dark Tea is canvassing for votes, in violation of WP:Canvassing: messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise those discussions and are generally considered disruptive:

  The White British article is being proposed for deletion by anti-white forces. Please help as soon as possible.- .

• This has resulted at least in the votes of User:Fourdee and User:Phral. Presumably User:KarenAER will add her say soon. Regards, ⋅Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Notifying others is not necessarily canvassing if it's not large scale spam (although the tone of the message sounds a bit like it). To tell a few people whom you know will be interested that an article is up for deletion is appropriate. I actively edit articles on this sort of topic. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 08:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
    • comment I did not know of WP:CANVASS, since I don't usually do AFDs. The policy says "after engaging in cross-posting to promote some vote, be sure to remove those cross-posts after it is over. " I will delete my canvassed posts.----Tea© 08:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

    See WP:Canvassing: messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise those discussions and are generally considered disruptive, and then compare wording quoted above . Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

" ...anti-white forces. Please help... " pretty much gives away the fact she's trying to influence the outcome. Michael 09:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, besides WP:CANVASS, comments which, whether meant that way or not, imply holders of a certain position to be racist ("ant-white") are very serious contraventions of WP:NPA.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I sense a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT amongst some of the deletion calls. Ethnic groups are not always as clearly defined and uncontroversial as some of the above posters seem to be implying. Take for example the above statement: "Ethnic groups are the English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh" - well for a start that's left out the Cornish! "White British" is an official term used by the census and other bodies to describe a defined group. Yes there are defined sub-groups within it - the 2001 census in Scotland had "White Scottish" and "other White British" as options - but this is the overall grouping. That it is used by several key bodies in the field (and the census classifications are used by a lot of other organisations for their own data) is evidence that the term has currency. It is clearly of encyclopedic note. If the term is contentious then this should be covered on the article, not have the whole thing deleted to satisfy one POV. Timrollpickering 09:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The idea of it being a census classification is not disputed—it's accepted. But as an ethnic group, it is nothing of the sort, and must not masquerade as one. Dark Tea's illogicality has brought about all these nonsense articles on Misplaced Pages, and she and her comrades seem to be under the illusion you can get a race (a colour), stick it somewhere, and hey presto!—a new ethnic group.

My recommendation is for it to be a disambiguation page stating that it is a census term, with links to the native ethnic groups (Welsh, English, Cornish, Irish, Manx, Scottish, etc) of the United Kingdom. Michael 09:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I, as philosophical matter and as pertains to this article, definitely support retaining the actual ethnic group names as distinct. As I mentioned above I think we have a broader issue with this, which is that "british people" is being treated as a synonym (by redirection) for "briton" which is definitely is not. British people means something like what this article "white british" covers. I think White British should perhaps be kept as a reference to the census category, British people should have more or less the remainder of the content from this article, and Briton should discuss britons to the exclusion of later immigrants to britain (while redirecting readers to british people for a discussion of all white natives of the british isles). At any rate there may be some solution that can be drafted without going through with the article deletion process. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 09:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Can I suggest:

• White British to be a disambig as I stated earlier
• Briton to carry information on the native peoples, their movements, history, etc (overview)
• British people to redir to Briton

Michael 09:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

A "Briton" could be a Welsh-speaking person before the modern period. Usage of the term to mean modern British people is pretty new and confusing. "Briton" should be a dab page. Everything "ethnic" about the supposed modern "British ethnic group", which has almost no existence outside wikipedia, should be on British people. Census stuff should be on United Kingdom Census 2001. There's no need to replicate the contents of those articles for nothing more than a POV content dispute magnet. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You're correct. Horrible terms to define, as anybody can apparently be a 'Briton' these days. Michael 09:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The White British content can't be merged into British people. If the British people article only deals with indigenous British, then all the UK Census sources can't be used. The UK Census sources do not define a White British as only the indigenous peoples of the UK. The UK Census defines a White British to be the indigenous British in addition to whomever else thinks they are white as a write-in response.----Tea© 09:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The UK Census appears to be one that is incorrect when it comes to identification, whitewashing (ho ho) the identities and nations of the indigenous people. Agree with Deacon's suggestions. Michael 09:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This article seems to be mainly about demography and not about any ethnic group, as any reading will confirm. Ethnic group articles are different to articles about demography. We have an article about the Demographics of the United Kingdom. Besides which we also have an article Briton, which is a (disputed) ethnic group article. Use of the term "White" seems to exclude this article from being about any ethnic group because ethnic groups are socio-cultural concepts, for example a Black British person may still identify and be identified as a Briton or British person. So the ethnic group would be Briton, the demographics of the UK do not represent an article about an ethnic group. This article does not even attempt to discuss what social, cultural, linguistic or religious factors are important in identifying this "ethnic group". Alun 10:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• comment lets try and stick to whether this is worth an article rather than arguing the issues.:) (As a white British person myself, I don't see how anyone can say we don't exist, surely it's just as accurate as the phrase black British used to describe those who are black and living in the UK, no matter what their family's previous country of origin, but still.) The thing is that a lot of this article's info is in other articles. However, it does feel as though seeing as how we have the article Black B, why not white B? I agree with the person above that a person can be black B and a lot of other identifications too, but Black British has an article. However a lot of the info here is in Demographics of the United Kingdom.Merkinsmum 12:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. We've already seen from the link posted above the Commission for Racial Equality consider this an ethnic grouping. Term is widely used in documents relating to racial equality (e.g. ) and in newspaper reports about racial issues. JulesH 13:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 17:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Racial paranoia police strikes again. JRWalko 17:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep! - 'tis a construction, but that is no reason for exclusion! ●Farenhorst 17:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Appears to take simple census category and present an elaborate novel narrative about how this is actually some completely distinct ethnic group that is now experiencing "racism." The Behnam 23:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strongest possible keep - verifiable, broadly used term and/or ethnic group. Used by CRE, police, ONS, media, and certainly not original research. Very worth while to keep as an article regardless of if people identify with the group or not... we have articles on minor Star Wars characters - White British really should not be considered for deletion as an encyclopedic entry! Jza84 23:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless a reliable, verifiable source can be found that says it is anything else than a census definition. Census definition do not necessarily correspond to any ethnic or social definitions. It should also preferably be a secondary source, as opposed to a primary one.--Ramdrake 00:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Like the Home Office's Self Defined Ethnicity codes? Or in the media? Jza84 13:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    • These are more census definitions and uses of census definitions. No encyclopedic value in and of itself, except maybe in List of census definitions in the United Kingdom.--Ramdrake 13:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
      • If this article is to be deleted then so should British Asian, which is merely a census category that includes the ethnic groups Pakistani, Indian and Bangladeshi (which could be further sub-divided into Punjabi, Kashmiri etc.) in the same way that "White British" includes the English, Scots and Welsh. I do not see why a group made up of 50+ million people should not have an article dedicated to it whereas a group of 2.5 million people does. Romper 15:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Then, name it for deletion. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't usually a good argument for keeping an article. I stand by my argument that a census definition by itself isn't of encyclopedic value.--Ramdrake 18:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep they used it in the census as a classification, so its notable. whether it has any real ethnological or even political basis does not concern us, DGG (talk) 04:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete: Per nom. Or merge to Demography of England. This is only a census definition. There is a White people article that is also striving to make it White Europeans. White British is not a distinct group. There are more white people, British or otherwise, in the world than any other "color". - Jeeny  05:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you regard White American as a distinct ethnic group? Or Black British? etc etc -81.179.151.230 13:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
    • No. - Jeeny  15:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Why? Jza84 16:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
        • I will not explain why, because it would clutter this page, as this is about White British.
          • But you're conjecture is flawed and confusing. I'm probing for greater understanding. Jza84 13:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
            • It's a statistic, a census definition, that people can chose whatever they self-identify with. Also, census forms are ignored by many people, so either do not send them back to the government, or refuse to participate. It is not mandatory to comply with census. So census attempts a "sampling", rather than an accurate count. Also, census data is not only to identify race, in the way some people, I feel, think it does. Census data is for many reasons including representation of in government for citizens, health issues, infrastructure, etc. I am certainly not one of the "anti-white forces", as few others say is the reason for motives of other's support for deletion. JSYK. - Jeeny  02:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
              • Just for the record, in most countries you're legally obligated to comply with a census else get a fine. -81.178.126.124 19:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
                • In most countries, you're legally obligated to fill out the census survey. That doesn't prevent you from choosing whatever census category you feel you're a best fit for, neither does it change the fact that census categories, insofar as I'm aware, are distinctly un-encyclopaedic.--Ramdrake 19:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
                  • Even in the US there is a small fine (on paper only), yet I doubt ever enforced nor imposed, for those who do not fill out the forms. (off topic) Also in the US it's against Federal law, (fine of $50), to stand in front of the yellow line of a bus. (There's a big sign stating so). I don't know about now. But when I grew up in Boston, and the few times I actually used the bus, when the buses were more often so crowed that not only were people bunched and mashed together over the yellow line, but on the steps leaning on the door!) but let me tell you, no one, I mean no one, has been arrested, nor fined for it. lol. (Back on topic) The race or ethnicity of British people is to assure equal opportunities for minorities is but ONE reason for the census. I do not believe that White British is a minority. See: Why have a census? - Jeeny  20:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - could we not simply Redirect this to the White people article (obviously merging in any properly-sourced, balanced, non-POV material at the same time)? Just a suggestion... --Mais oui! 06:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletions. -- Mais oui! 06:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unnecessary. Content overlaps with too many other articles.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 10:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, and modify ethnicity is not, as some seem to suggest, an exact science. It is basically nationhood with a common geneological link. Since the white people in the UK are a fairly ethnically homogenous group and certainly can be and are identified as a nation, there is no reason to exclude this ethnic group from discussion. "White people" on the other hand are not an ethnic group in of themselves as they have no common national identities. On another note though, the article does overlap somewhat and discuss areas far broader than its scope; as such it should be altered.--Breadandcheese 13:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and either redirect to demography of the United Kingdom or recreate as dab page for British Isles nationalities. A census term is not an ethnicity and is not in itself deserving of an article.--cj | talk 13:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Simply because it is a census category does not mean it is not an ethnicity however. A quick Googling reveals the term to have much wider usage than simply the census. --Breadandcheese 14:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Article relates to an official category in widespread use Romper 15:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. Perspicacite 02:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Many people seem unable to realise that "White" is a racial definition and not an ethnic one; again supporting my view that this is a fake 'ethnicity' or 'ancestry' conjured up by the British public service. Michael 03:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'd go farther and say that White is not even a racial definition, it is a very plastic and amorphous concept, with different meanings to different people. I think the confusion is with relation to Black British and White British, but these are not comparable terms. As I understand it Black British is an ethnic concept because for a long time the overwhelming majority of Black British people were African Caribbean people with their own ethnic identity. White British is more of a "none of the above" category used to classify people who don't fit into any other group. I read that there is going to be a change to the way ethnic groups are designated in the next census, for example White English, White Welsh etc. All the best. Alun 05:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. While 'White British' as an ethnicity is a nonsense, it is an official UK government classification whether we like it or not. The census classifications are really about race rather than ethnicity, but they don't seem to want to use the former term. Deleting an article because you disagree with the government's classification is daft, though.--Michig 14:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Yes, it is an official census definition. I am just questioning the encyclopaedicity of a census definition as the subject of a WP article.--Ramdrake 15:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Besides just because it's an official census category (it is not defined is it, anyone can self identify as White British even if they are neither White nor British by social convention, after all it's an "ethnic group" according to the census bureau) doesn't mean it should have it's own encyclopaedia article. Given that the article only contains demographic data it can easily be redirected to Demographics of the United Kingdom. Alun 16:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The whole ethnicity industry is a nonsense, but this category is now routinely found on its lousy forms. Beorhtric 16:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Not used that much though is it. Take a look at the a google search of "White British", the first two are wikipedia Demography of the United Kingdom articles, the fourth most popular web page search for "White British" is the "Official Website for the British White Cattle Association of America." Hmmm. Alun 17:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as proposed by Michael. This reasons for deletion appear to me to be much the same as for the deleted article Ethnic English. 'White British' is a supremacist neologism used to promote a form of triumphalist ideology by which members of certain racist organisations use to view themselves as superior to the rest of society on the basis of their self-proclaimed ethnic origins. The term is not used officially outside of this context, as it runs contrary to enlightened state policy of Multiculturalism, by which citizens of the United Kingdom can have parity of esteem, regardless of their origin. --Gavin Collins 10:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Are you serious? The term is used officially by the UK government, to differentiate citizens by race/ethnicity for the purposes of equality monitoring, etc. It has nothing to do with white supremacy. The issue here is whether White British is a valid article, which I believe it is as the whole 'ethnicity' classification system used in the UK is worthy of explanation, and explaining all of the categories to any depth in a single article would make that article too large. --Michig 10:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Quite right Michig, people should be more aware that an "ethnic group" is not the same as a "race", and if something is "ethnic" that also doesn't mean it's exotic (like African or Asian)! An ethnic group is just a set of people who identify with one another, or are identified by others as a category or sub-category of people, ususally from political boundaries or heritage. A race is a taxonomic socal construct that attempts to categorise people based on morphological traits (like skin colour). Thus, I could be considered ethnically Northern, or ethnically Mancunian, but still Northerners and Mancs are not races of men!!!! Even if this article is deleted on grounds of misunderstanding what an ethnic group is, and what the very practical and official term "White British" means, please guys learn about ethnicity if nothing else, as this misinfomation is spoiling Misplaced Pages, your lifeskills and possibly our "ethnically diverse" communities! Jza84 00:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep If this term has an official existence, I don't see anything wrong with it. Wedineinheck 07:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strongest possible keep I have decided because why not White British when we have Black British which describes an equally diverse group? It would be positive discrimination towards one group over another. As to 'britons' I don't know anyone who uses that term to describe themselves, only to describe the ancient britons, So that's a different article.Merkinsmum 20:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment to those stating "Strongest possible", etc. Your argument is what carries the weight, not your bolded text. I personally tend to view those who use "strongest possible" or CAPS as being too emotionally involved to be reasoning their views fairly and rationally. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 21:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

we have only used the formatting of bold everyone else has used to start the comments/opinions. I for one have not used caps. Of course we have strong views if people are trying to write out mentions of important parts of our identity. But that doesn't mean we are irrational. Your comments are very rude, and verge on 'having a go' at others, IMHO.Merkinsmum 19:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete this odd expansion of a category on a census form into a full scale article is undue weight at the very least, and appears to be a form of POV forking. If found necessary, merge anything appropriate into Demography of England, although I wouldn't worry too much about it. KillerChihuahua 21:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep TharkunColl 22:57, 24 August 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.