Talk:Classification of ethnicity in the United Kingdom/Archive 1

Merger proposal
Hi. I'm suggesting that we merge United Kingdom Census 2001 Ethnic Codes into this article. That way, we might be able to make one decent article out of two poor ones. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Somalis
I have removed "Somalis" from the section about proposed Arab classification, for the simple reason that Somalis are not Arabs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.87.228 (talk) 20:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Confusing "Ethnicity categories" table
The table in section "Ethnicity categories" is liable to misunderstanding as there is no correspondence beteeen the columns on the same row (e.g. in one row we have "Bangladeshi | Chinese, Chinese Scottish or Chinese British | Black / African / Caribbean / Black British", which patently do not correspond). In reality the three columns are three tables (or rather lists); or alternatively, as some categories have clear correspondences we should leave gaps in the table elsewhere. I am not sure which is the better alternative, hence I am being WP:CAREFUL. Si Trew (talk) 09:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point. At first glance, it should be possible to align the lists using merged cells as Help:Table. The sorting capability would probably have to go - would that matter? NebY (talk) 09:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I was bold after all and done it. I hope it's accurate. Yes, the sort had to go; one can force the sort order I think, but it's not helpful anyway, in my view, so I removed it. (It was only sorting alphabetically anyway, so was hardly genuinely useful.) Si Trew (talk) 12:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A brave attempt but in rationaling / simplifying the table some errors have crept in, partly through conflating 'ethnic categories' and 'ethnic groups' but also in assuming categories and /or groups under different jurisdictions have identical definitions. Suggest you take a look at the following section on the ONS website, What are the differences in the ethnic group response categories? -. Bear in mind though this is only a summary of what is in reality a more complex situation. Each statistical authority have more detailed explanations.Tmol42 (talk) 20:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Origin of this classification?
Does anyone know where this classification scheme originated? (As in, what think tank, policy discussion, etc came up with it?) Although the first time I saw it was in the 2001 census, I've seen it used many times since (sometimes with slight variations), including the last organ-donation form I filled in (which, given that it was asking the question for the purpose of improving compatability of donors/recipients, seems particularly daft to use a scheme that a) is based purely on self-identification, and b) is ambigous as to which box to tick if your origins are east of the Urals/south of the Black Sea, but are not Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, or Chinese). Wardog (talk) 20:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Good question. The article should probably cover this, but I haven't gotten around to it. This source (I don't know if you're a student, but if you are you should have access to JSTOR via your university) suggests that the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys trialled ethnicity questions starting in 1975. They were trying to find an alternative to the previous system, which involved imputing ethnicity from parents' country of birth. This was obviously problematic (think of African Asians, or white people born to British parents serving in the empire). Several questions and classifications were tried until one was settled on and used in the 1991 census. This and this might be of interest regarding ethnicity classifications and health. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That said, I'm unsure exactly why there was a change between 1991 and 2001 and how the 2001 classification was decided. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Some details on this are available here. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hopefully - and some years later! - the article now starts to answer your question, Wardog. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Scottish government
As the table on page 20 here shows, the 2007 cognitive testing by the Scottish government was just one of several waves of such testing. Scotland's New Official Ethnicity Classification for Scottish Official Statistics and Recommended for Scotland's 2011 Census factors in all of these various consultations and testing sessions. It concludes instead that: "Consultation, research and question testing demonstrated,repeatedly, that there are opposing views on the acceptability of colour terms as ethnicity descriptors. Some people are in favour of them, whilst others are opposed to them. This was particularly the case regarding use of the term 'Black' to describe people with 'African' or 'Caribbean' ethnicities. People from both these ethnic groups expressed opposite views, with opposition to the term 'Black' tending to be stronger among people of 'African' ethnicity. Relatively few people expressed a view just on the use of the term 'White': most were opposed to the use of any colour terms." Middayexpress (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I'm not sure why you insist on starting the description of the Scotland testing with "Official consultation, research and question testing conducted by the General Register Office for Scotland (GOS), the Office for National Statistics (ONS), the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG), and the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) between 2004 and 2008 undertaken for the purpose of planning the 2011 UK census found...". The summary that follows is just based on the GOS testing (see the note at the bottom of that table: "ONS & WAG findings will not be available until their classification is finalised and published towards the end of the year. Therefore they cannot be provided in this report"). Tmol42 reverted you on this, so might have some input. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, the testing wasn't just in Scotland but throughout the UK. This is why the table is titled "20 KEY EVIDENCE INFORMING THE NEW ETHNICITY CLASSIFICATION", and then notes various official consultation, research and question testing by conducted by the General Register Office for Scotland (GOS), the Office for National Statistics (ONS), the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG), and the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) between 2004 and 2008 undertaken for the purpose of planning the 2011 UK census. This is also why it indicates that "there are three UK census offices including: GROS, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) who work in partnership with the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) on census development and the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA)", and that "the review team contributed to decisions about all the ethnicity classifications being developed for the UK censuses through membership of several UK groups, led by the Office for National Statistics (ONS)". The GOS doesn't work in a bubble; it is, after all, part of the UK. Middayexpress (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, testing was undertaken in all parts of the UK, but the tests that the report is summarising (and which you have nicely summarised for this article) are just the Scotland ones (see my quote from the note above). Cordless Larry (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the fact that the GOS classification was informed by various other workshops by the the Office for National Statistics (ONS), the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG), and the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) between 2004 and 2008 should be noted. The ONS classification was also published after the GOS one. Middayexpress (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case, let's just say that the testing being discussed here was for Scotland, and that the other agencies had an input. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's what I just tried to do, but you knee-jerk reverted for some reason. Middayexpress (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You didn't just make that change alone. Perhaps you could change the wording of the GOS part, and then continue to seek consensus on the discussion below? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Those were changes I had made earlier, and which you reverted under the (incorrect) pretext that I was misrepresenting the GOS. At any rate, per your suggestion above, I've fixed the GOS part. Now, kindly explain why you believe that the ONS material should be placed above the GOS workshops, when it was actually published after it (as you yourself note above). Or don't you? Middayexpress (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just because that seems to be the norm on UK articles (I guess because England and Wales accounts for such a large majority of the total population). See United Kingdom Census 2011, for instance. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, that's doubtful since you also tacked on a redundant and contradictory GOS workshop statement after the later, official GOS classification (and that's after you had thanked me for my edit, which makes me wonder if that was sincere). If I wanted to, I too could tack on a contradictory ONS workshop statement after the later, official ONS classification. But you would probably, by contrast, take umbrage at that. At any rate, I've fixed this redundant workshop, as it was already factored into the GOS' official classification. I'm not convinced by that positioning rationale vis-a-vis the ONS classification, but I'm willing to let this go for the sake of compromise. Middayexpress (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I thanked you because it was a good edit that summarised the research well, but I thought it could still be improved. I presume the "redundant" edit was my addition of this: "Nonetheless, for most people their choice of response was not informed by an objection to the word "Black", and many respondents used this term spontaneously". That was sourced and I think it's important to add. It doesn't seem contradictory to me, either. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That was indeed the redundant phrase. It was taken from a GOS cognitive question testing workshop in 2007, which was just one of several such workshops that the GOS indicates informed its final new ethnicity classification (table on page ten). The GOS' actual, final classification, which encapsulates all of these various consultative workshops, concludes instead that: "Stakeholders and data providers expressed a wide variety of views about many aspects of ethnicity. Some of these views were polarised or opposing, for example the acceptability of colour terms (particularly 'Black') and classification of 'Sikh' and 'Jewish' as ethnic groups[...] most were opposed to the use of any colour terms" . Middayexpress (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

IC forensic database
The IC database containing microsatellite (short tandem repeat) profiles is used in forensic (legal) work, not in an academic setting ("We use two approaches to estimating Fst, which differ according to the choice of reference population: a direct method that is appropriate for forensic applications, and an indirect method that reflects current population genetics practice. In a forensic setting, Fst is used to account for distant relatedness (coancestry) between the queried contributor (Q) and the unknown individual X that replaces Q in the defence hypothesis" ). Middayexpress (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The authors are academics based at UCL and KCL, and it's published in Annals of Human Genetics, which is an academic journal, so it's not inaccurate to describe it as academic research. The authors clearly regard it as such: "One motivation for this research is to guide forensic practice" (emphasis added). I'm not sure that calling it "official legal work" is accurate. That suggests that they're lawyers working for the state. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is inaccurate to describe the forensic database as "academic research", as that implies use in a school or university setting. The authors clearly indicate that the microsatellite repository is instead used in a forensic setting. Forensic science is scientific method of gathering and examining information about the past which is then used in a court of law. Middayexpress (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Academics frequently conduct research for use in applied settings. That doesn't mean it's not academic research. We can describe how they intend for the results to be applied, by all means, but it's not "official legal work". Cordless Larry (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What it is not is academic research; the researchers do not indicate this. They instead indicate that it is a forensic database. Also, please see their Choice of population database for forensic DNA profile analysis . Middayexpress (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Academics conduct research into forensics, so that's not mutually exclusive. I'm not sure what your definition of academic research is, but academics conducting research that is published in an academic journal would meet most definitions! Cordless Larry (talk) 17:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Neither link indicates anything about the database being even in part aimed at academic research. That is a misrepresentation of the repository's purpose. Rather, the researchers are quite explicit that it is a forensic database, which is used in actual forensic practice ("in current forensic practice, when the ancestry of X is unknown, it is common to consider multiple population databases and choose the one that generates the lowest WoE[...] We have recently published worldwide FST estimates appropriate for forensic use"). Middayexpress (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * They're academics conducting research that has a forensic application. That doesn't make it "official legal work". They don't work for the state, for a start. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, forensic practice means "as used in the forensic profession". Per the researchers, that is the actual purpose of their work. That is why they allude to defendants, reporting in court, etc. ("one motivation for this research is to guide forensic practice" ). That is not academia. Middayexpress (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Plenty of academics want to guide practice and policy, but that doesn't make their research "official". They don't work for, and weren't commissioned by, the state. Perhaps we could just call it "research intended to inform forensic practice"? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I got here through a note posted at WP Academic Journals. The Annals of Human Genetics is a scientific journal (that's more specific than "academic journal", which includes social sciences and humanities). It doesn't publish "official legal work" (whatever that may be). The scientists working on this database would certainly be mightily surprised if they would see their work described as such. I would change the word "academic" with "scientific", though. --Randykitty (talk) 10:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Randykitty. That's a good suggestion for a more specific wording. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just so it's clear, the passage did not indicate nor did I suggest above that the researchers publish "official legal work". I wrote that the database is intended for official legal work since the researchers make it quite clear that "we have recently published worldwide FST estimates appropriate for forensic use". As such, the database is not merely meant to inform forensic practice, or to be used in general scientific research. The phrase should therefore read "the IC code system has also been customized for use in forensic practice". Middayexpress (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Do we know whether the estimates have been taken up for use? "For use in forensic practice" might be taken to suggest that they are being used, as opposed to just having been proposed for use (I don't know which is the case, but it's not clear from the journal article alone). Cordless Larry (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. "Scientific" can work here, I guess. Middayexpress (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Write-in option
Hi User:Middayexpress. I was a bit confused by this edit. Yes, people who don't consider themselves black could write in their own response, but the same is true of people not considering themselves white or Asian. What's the reason for highlighting this specifically in relation to the black category? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, this possibility existed before 2011. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * For the simple reason that the rest of the paragraph was largely about the "Black" category, of course. I know that the possibility existed before 2011. It is indicated earlier ("The tick-boxes used in 1991 were "White", "Black-Caribbean", "Black-African", "Black-Other (please describe)", "Indian", "Pakistani", "Bangladeshi", "Chinese" and "Any other ethnic group (please describe)""). By the way, your post above (which was made 28 seconds after my edit) was also uncannily quick. Middayexpress (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * My concern is that the paragraph you added it to is discussing changes that took place for the 2011 census, though, which might lead people who only read that paragraph to think it was new. I don't get the 28 seconds point - the time difference between your edit and my comment was five minutes. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Midday - this edit usefully clarifies the situation. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The 28 seconds was after my last edit. At any rate, no prob. Middayexpress (talk)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Classification of ethnicity in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/BSPS/annualConference/2006_localgov.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC) –   Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  05:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Classification of ethnicity in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040619124235/http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=455 to http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=455

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:58, 25 November 2016 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  05:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)