Talk:John Edwards (Labour politician)

"John Edwards (English Labour politician)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect John Edwards (English Labour politician). The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 7 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. GPinkerton (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 8 September 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved to (Labour politician). DrKay (talk) 15:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

– None of these men had anything to do with English politics; rather they were representatives in the British House of Commons. The sources are silent on their ethnicity, and it is WP:OR to have page titles assigning them anything other than UK nationality and involvement in British politics. "English Labour politician" is especially bad, since it ambiguously suggests "English Labour" exists in a similar way to present-day Scottish Labour or Welsh Labour which it does not (and neither of them did in the pertinent time period). (Alternative proposals using "MP", party name, or "constituencyname MP" etc. are welcome too.) GPinkerton (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * John Edwards (English Labour politician) → John Edwards (British Labour politician)
 * John Tilley (English politician) → John Tilley (British politician)
 * Joseph Harper (English politician) → Joseph Harper (British politician)
 * Support - as they were members of the British Parliament & members of a British political party. GoodDay (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose - No such thing as the British parliament. See the article on Terminology of the British Isles sign 89.241.196.77 (talk) 09:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the page linked supports this stunning claim. Not only is there a Parliament of the UK, which is unquestionably British, but there are also other parliaments that are British, not least the Scottish Parliament. GPinkerton (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Based on what's in the articles currently, it's pretty obvious why they have "English" as a disambiguation. John Edwards was born in England, he was educated in England, and he lived in England his whole life. John Tilley was born in England, was educated in England, and lived in England his whole life. Joseph Harper was born in England, and lived in England his whole life. Ethnicity has literally nothing to do with it, and I don't see why you'd even bring it up. These men were Englishmen. And "English Labour politician" doesn't imply anything about the existence of an "English Labour Party". It's just more specific than either "English politician" or "Labour politician". Here's a helpful essay you should read before making any more edits like this . You appear to be attempting to unify all descriptors of UK members of parliament to "British", a task that is completely useless, reduces the amount of information available to readers, and enjoys no consensus. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 11:30, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Please review what is actually happening rather than what you imagine: You appear to be attempting to unify all descriptors of UK members of parliament to "British" is not accurate at all. The rationale is to ensure the article titles 1.) comply with the subject matter, and 2.) conform to the way the people are described in the sources. I have yet to see a single source that describes any of these people as "English". I have already read that essay, and it offers no guidance on not moving articles whose titles are widely at variance with their content and sources. You first say Ethnicity has literally nothing to do with it, and I don't see why you'd even bring it up. and then you go right on to assign an ethnicity to three men whose articles offer no support for that assumption with your unsourced and unsupported claim that These men were Englishmen, a claim which you have yourself identified as OR based on assumptions of what part of Britain they happen to be born or raised in (it looks like a guess because the articles don't say anything of the sort. Who told you they were Englishmen? What reliable source says so? GPinkerton (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * England isn't independent. It's a part of the United Kingdom. The lad was born in the United Kingdom, educated in the United Kingdom and lived in the United Kingdom his whole life. As for the essay-in-question? it's only an essay. The parts of the UK shouldn't be getting special treatment, compared to the rest of the world. GoodDay (talk) 12:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Would you apply that to Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs too?
 * They're all British, aren't they? Last I checked, neither Scotland or Wales are independent. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong support if sources describe them as British politicians, so should WP, which is based on reliable sources not WP:OR. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And are there any sources describing him as British? None evident from the article. I dare say sources on obscure Congressmen for say Idaho don't bother to specify that they are American. Is it OR to say so? Johnbod (talk) 13:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If the politician is in the Idaho State Senate or holds another state office, I think the dab should be (Idaho politician) not (American politician) because that is more accurate (they are elected in the state of Idaho, not a federal office), and not longer than necessary. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  08:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a different issue. Answer the questions please. Johnbod (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * if sources describe them as British politicians They don't. As far as I can tell, none of the sources say anything about their nationality. There is no reason to prefer British over English. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Red Rock Canyon, including their note that no sources apparent here describe any of these politicians as "British." In this specific context, "English" is more specifically descriptive of these individuals than "British" and I do not see a reason to remove this specificity. --Pinchme123 (talk) 20:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Please look again at the sources, which describe John Edwards as British or as representing the United Kingdom, whose demonym is "British". I am yet to see a single RS describe the ethnicity of these men, and not one mentions England or English. Their nationality, as is plain, was British. President John Edwards has a street names after him in Strasbourg, but while the UK has long been a member of the Council of Europe, that organization's formation postdates the existence of a sovereign England by some two and a half centuries. Neither is it only Anglophone sources that so describe him: here's a French language RS that unambiguously calls him British: Let's see some WP:RS, or else this ethnic label is utter WP:OR. Who says they were English? GPinkerton (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't read French. Aside from that, you've provided only the one alleged RS to support your case, which allegedly refers to only one of the three individuals whose pages you want to rename. For your claim, President John Edwards has a street names after him in Strasbourg, this would be OR and I see little relevance between this point and the discussion at hand. As to your statement, this ethnic label is utter WP:OR. Who says they were English? You didn't suggest moving these pages to titles without their parenthetical descriptors, in which case this argument might hold some water with me. You suggested new parentheticals entirely. So I see little support for choosing your (potentially-as-much-OR) parentheticals over the ones currently there. Finally, as for your claim Let's see some WP:RS, you are the one who opened these moves, so you're the one with the obligation to provide RS supporting your request. One non-English alleged RS for one of the three English-language pages is almost as far from an acceptable amount of RS as not having any sources at all. Until you can point to actual quotations from English-language RS, I see no reason to support these move requests. --Pinchme123 (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * One doesn't need to be much of a polyglot to see that "M. John Edwards (travailliste britannique)" means "Mister John Edwards, British Labour". Look at these sources, in which Edwards is described as British or as representing the UK. None of them mentions England or English people. Several mention the fact that Edwards, who represented Britain at the Council of Europe and the Western European Union and who was President of the parliamentary assembly of the Council, has a Boulevard Edwards named for him at that organization's seat, a fact which if very far from OR. Unlike this uncited claim of Englishness. See:
 * GPinkerton (talk) 07:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Once again, I do not speak French. To make my point, in Swahili – a language I do speak (I am in fact a polyglot) – "United Kingdom" and "British" are both translated as "Uingereza". "Uingereza" is a specific kind of word formation, from the concept -ingereza, which can be described as the concept of "Englishness." In another formation this is Kiingereza, which translates as "English (language)." In some historic uses and specific circumstances, Uingereza translates narrowly as "English." Without knowing proper context, including historical period, seeing the phrase mtu wa Uingereza, one would translate this as "British person" even though it contains the word that relates to the concept of "Englishness." It takes knowledge of the language to know this translation may be wrong, depending on context.
 * All this is to say, without knowledge of the language, one cannot look at a phrase and claim to know what it says. So, I cannot look at the only quotation from a source you've provided - a French sentence - and claim to know what it in fact says. If your assertion that these individuals should be referred to in the way you want is so rock-solid, you should have no trouble providing multiple English-language sources to support this assertion.
 * So, as for your list of sources, care to point out the specific portions of each/any of them that support the claim that the three individuals whose pages you want to move should *not* be referred to as English? Or that English is less appropriate than British? That you haven't provided specifics is damaging to your argument, in my opinion.
 * --Pinchme123 (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * GPinkerton (talk) 07:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Once again, I do not speak French. To make my point, in Swahili – a language I do speak (I am in fact a polyglot) – "United Kingdom" and "British" are both translated as "Uingereza". "Uingereza" is a specific kind of word formation, from the concept -ingereza, which can be described as the concept of "Englishness." In another formation this is Kiingereza, which translates as "English (language)." In some historic uses and specific circumstances, Uingereza translates narrowly as "English." Without knowing proper context, including historical period, seeing the phrase mtu wa Uingereza, one would translate this as "British person" even though it contains the word that relates to the concept of "Englishness." It takes knowledge of the language to know this translation may be wrong, depending on context.
 * All this is to say, without knowledge of the language, one cannot look at a phrase and claim to know what it says. So, I cannot look at the only quotation from a source you've provided - a French sentence - and claim to know what it in fact says. If your assertion that these individuals should be referred to in the way you want is so rock-solid, you should have no trouble providing multiple English-language sources to support this assertion.
 * So, as for your list of sources, care to point out the specific portions of each/any of them that support the claim that the three individuals whose pages you want to move should *not* be referred to as English? Or that English is less appropriate than British? That you haven't provided specifics is damaging to your argument, in my opinion.
 * --Pinchme123 (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * --Pinchme123 (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. For Westminster MPs, we always prefer "British politician" over "English [etc] politician" unless there is more than one of the same name and they come from different countries. A look at the categories will confirm this. However, Edwards should just be at John Edwards (Labour politician), as he is the only one, and our third choice is always "[Party] politician". -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support John Edwards (English Labour politician) → John Edwards (Labour politician). Leaning oppose on the other two. BD2412  T 20:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.