| Revision as of 02:42, 26 February 2014 editMatt Lewis (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers9,196 edits my latest wonderful experience here← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 03:02, 1 February 2024 edit undoMatt Lewis (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers9,196 edits ←Blanked the pageTag: Blanking | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| :::So what now is wrong with my nice new edit now? (you should see what was ) | |||
| ::::The census of 2001 was criticised by many in Wales for not offering 'Welsh' as an option to describe their national identity.<ref name="Census row (2001)">{{cite web | url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2288147.stm | title=Census results 'defy tickbox row' | publisher=BBC Online | accessdate=February 23, 2014}}</ref> Partly to address this concern the 2011 census offered a list of choices. It asked the question "How would you describe your national identity?" and underneath was a direction to "tick all that apply". 80% of the participants in Wales ticked one box, with 57.5% ticking 'Welsh' (65.9% in some combination), 11.2% ticking 'English' (13.8% in some combination), 0.5% ticking 'Scottish' (0.6% in some combination), 0.13% ticking 'Northern Irish' (0.15% in some combination), and 16.9% ticking 'British' (26% in some combination). 3.4% filled out 'Other', which included 0.4 instances that are the same as those above. The largest 'Other' was 'Irish', with 0.3 ticking 'Irish' (0.4% in some combination).<ref name="2011 identity">{{cite web|title=2011 Census: KS202EW National identity, unitary authorities in Wales (Excel sheet 126Kb) |page=3 |date=11 December 2012 |url=http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/key-statistics-for-unitary-authorities-in-wales/rft-table-ks202ew.xls |publisher=] |accessdate=28 September 2013}}</ref></blockquote> | |||
| ::::Identity was also the theme of the following question, which asked "What is your ethnic group?" The most-chosen option was 'White: Welsh / English / Scottish / Northern Irish / British' at 93.2%, a fall from 96% for the equivalent option of 'British' in 2001.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.esds.ac.uk/government/themes/ethnicity/sb53-2004.pdf |title=A Statistical Focus on Ethnicity in Wales |publisher=National Assembly for Wales| page=1| year=2004 |accessdate=10 February 2012}}</ref> The next most-chosen option was 'Asian or Asian British' at 2.3%, followed by 'Mixed race' at 1%, 'Black or Black British' at 0.6%, and 'Irish' and 'Other' 0.5% each. The figure given for 'Total Black and minority ethnic' people was 4.4%, a significant rise from 2.1% in 2001.<ref name="ethnic group question">{{cite web | url=http://wales.gov.uk/docs/statistics/2012/121217sb1262012en.pdf | title="What is your ethnic group?" question from 2011 Census | publisher=Welsh Government | date=December 17, 2012 | accessdate=February 23, 2014}}</ref> | |||
| :::I also had a bash at clearing up the surrounding mess, updating information, putting disjointed parts together etc... a decent-enough I thought. Of course it was all instantly removed. Hmmm, isn't this suppose to be a collaboration? Looks like I'll have to 'discuss' its merits.. | |||
| :::Around that time I said this someone's talk page (talking specifically about the Welsh/UK national articles): | |||
| ::::''"The problem with taking anything directly to Talk is that it immediately gets radically changed into someone's 'version' - that new version is then voted for by about 8 accounts, and a conclusive 'consensus' is claimed that people will point to for years to come (ok Misplaced Pages has probably permanently jaded me, I'll admit)."'' | |||
| :::And just few days later in Wales Talk this one-option suddenly happens! | |||
| ::::Option A) Only the existing 'non-policy' article text that I at least managed to convince them has to be changed by us to some degree. (if not about the level of dubious ] in it.) | |||
| ::::Option B) The local chieftain's version! (hardly any different at all, and with a small bit of my work added to it). He says; ''"I don't think that further discussion is going to prove helpful.... If most editors think it is an improvement, it should go in."'' | |||
| :::The poll was made '''''less than 30 mins''''' after I made the following comment: | |||
| :::::Summarising (the way you want to) just isn't possible with this data, not unless you are willing to write a whole critique of the process, including all the variations and criticisms, and then it just isn't a summary anymore. And somehow I don't think that would be found suitable here! This data can always be interpreted by politicians of course, but not by encyclopedia writers. | |||
| :::::Saying ''"No British national identity was indicated by 73.7%."'' is still ']', and the line reads a bit like those people are not British citizens too. It is a simple fact that the words 'Welsh' and 'British' are mutually inclusive: they are both legally and culturally the same thing to all/most/many of us. This literally-singular question was not intended to be an analysis of Britishness, and we can't act like it was. It was just a clumsily-realised answer to a complaint about the census before it. We know that more people than 73.7% in Wales see themselves as being Welsh and British. Whatever you feel about the "truth" motto, that really does need to be taken into account. | |||
| :::::''<u>''Why did they compose the question like this?''</u>'' | |||
| :::::The census compilers actually went from one extreme to the other. | |||
| :::::In 2001 the census for England and Wales had us both as 'British', but a separate census in Scotland allowed for the option of 'Scottish'. People saw it as both silly and unfair and they complained. | |||
| :::::In 2011, while addressing the complaints, the census-makers gave us a 'simple' list, allowing people to tick as much as they want. They began by suggesting that you can only have one nationality in the UK (How would you describe your nationalit'''y'''?), but then allowed for more than one box to be ticked. The problems are to do with interpretation: they effectively presented a question where putting 'British' could (by certain people) be interpreted as not being 'Welsh' or 'English' at all. And where putting 'Welsh' or 'English' could be interpreted (by some people) as not being British by default. Did they actually mean to give an option of 'British' that didn't include Welsh or English? '''No.''' Did they mean to say that to be Welsh or English and still be British you have to put them both? '''No, absolutely not.''' Where they saying the Britain is not really a nation, but the others are. '''Of course not!''' | |||
| :::::It really is simple: They simply had to give what people are most likely to put. That meant putting British, Welsh, English etc and allowing them to say if they have two or more, as people often do in Britain: but not to the exclusion of everything else! And not with the focus exclusively on 'British' either. But that created immediate analysis issues for those who wished to interpret the data more deeply than was intended. I think it could well explain why the compilers of 2001 decided not to go this way at that time. In 2011 there ended up being a token dumbed-down question to appease all the many people who complained about the the issues with the census before. '''The biggest fault was in the actual question: how can you ask for "your nationality" then give the option of ticking more? After that they gave options that can mean the same thing both legally and culturally. It makes summarising the data in terms of what people "are" in any exclusive sense simply impossible to do.''' | |||
| :::::Ultimately, it could be argued that both of the censuses has issues in this area to some degree, and the much-maligned 2010 census cost Britain half a billion pounds all told. But they did say they were trying to make the whole census as simple as possible for all types of people to get through, and that isn't an easy thing to do for a census this inclusive and large. As it turned out, over 50% of us still found it confusing and hard to fill. | |||
| :::::A way of doing a genuine '''''To what degree are you British?''''' question is to offer a set of direct choices with single answers (along the lines of "I feel Welsh but not British." etc - there are a few ways of doing it). But that just wasn't their intention at all. The question just wasn't about studying 'Britishness', as the way they dealt with the following 'ethnicity' question clearly shows. It was just about being able to say 'Welsh' and 'English' etc, that was all the census question was about. Me, 21:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::He didn't give people much chance to read it - less than half an hour. It took me longer than that to write the thing. And nobody was around commenting either. Pure gamesmanship. I just don't know how they still get away with it to the degree they do. It's why you so rarely see new faces in these places; they all get spear-prodded away. | |||
| :::Still, it's nice to know that Misplaced Pages still tells the world that a country that in-reality is somewhere around 90% 'British' in outlook, supposedly claimed via a 2011 census that it had barely any British national identity at all. In fact, Misplaced Pages has 'helpfully' worked out that 73.7% of those in Wales simply don't see themselves as British at all. But Misplaced Pages is not about the 'truth' these people squeak! Yeah, it's not supposed to be about anti-British bias or 'Original Research' either. | |||
| :::As I said to them earlier in the discussion, it's easy to say "No" to everything someone says, but really hard work to constantly come up with arguments like the one I did above (and God knows any number of others). These year-by-year talk page denizens, they make you repeat everything scores of times. Then when they've worn you out they make one of their horrible little polls. In the talk pages of the hapless 'UK-NATIONAL' articles. That they've been allowed. By Misplaced Pages's cynical ring-fencing admin. To almost completely control. Goodnight. | |||