Talk:Northumbria (modern)

Deletion

I strongly am against the deletion of this article, and I can try to improve it and add sources. Also the objection to removal "For example, one assertion claims "culturally distinct from other English people", however it cites a whole book generally, rather than a specific line or page of the book", however the seventh page of the book says "This is a book about Northumbrians, and what makes them distinct.".--ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 11:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

For the purposes of disclosure to the viewers of this page, I'll re-answer the points of our discussion here. The seventh page of the book does not say 'what makes them distinct' as a people. It talks about accent and other subtle linguistic differences, it does not claim (as you have claimed it does in your recent edit) that Northumbrians are "distinct from other English people". You also claimed on our discussion on your talkpage that it was actually page 'Vi' that is evidence of this 'distinctiveness from other English people', however as I've pointed out if you are using 'Vi' to support that claim, you're engaging in WP:SYNTH. We don't have any other pages for the people living in other regions of the UK (there are no pages for Yorkshiremen, West Countrymen, the people of Lothian etc), I question why this specific article has encyclopedic value, when we don't have pages for the others. There appears to be few, if any reliable sources that supports the claim that the people of Northumbria are uniquely ethnically distinct from the rest of England. Alssa1 (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

We have articles for subgroups for many people in Wikipedia. And that distinctive part was taken away. If we believe that subgroups shouldn't have articles, then the rest should be deleted as well. This should include the Russian subgroup: Pomors and all the Finnish subgroups like Finns proper and Savonians. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 06:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The line regarding Northumbrians being uniquely distinct from other English people may be removed, though I don't see why that invalidates the existence of the whole article. You are right that there are no articles for other British regional cultures but there are articles about regional subgroups from other countries, as ValtteriLahti12 and I have pointed out. If possible, I would be willing to compromise and move this article to Culture of Northumbria, in the same light as Culture of Yorkshire. --DogOfDoom (talk) 09:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I understand that we have articles for some other subnational groups, but that does not legitimise this specific page. If you are willing to compromise to include this content in Culture of Northumbria, in the same light as Culture of Yorkshire, I would also be willing to accept such a compromise. Alssa1 (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I am happy with this compromise. I will move the page to Culture of Northumbria later today and rewrite the article accordingly. --DogOfDoom (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Removed template

Having fixed the purported issues with sourcing I have removed the deletion template. Regarding 'the encyclopedic value in having a specific page for an apparent regional, yet ethnic identity of England', there are other articles on Wikipedia for regional subgroups e.g. the Zans and Sandomierzacy.

--DogOfDoom (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Some other regional subgroups that have articles are the Finns proper which I am part of --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Politics

The politics section is messy due to the inclusion of the Northern Independence Party, a that doesn't care that the name Northumbria is already in use, or that the average person in Liverpool, or Sheffield doesn't care about Northumbria, and has no love for the name unlike the people of the North East. ThéGB GeorgeF (talk) 00:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Persisting with you personal "hobby horse" won't get you anywhere on Wikipedia. It is entirely based on fact not opinion or personal analysis. Take a look at WP:OR and feel free to ask if you don't understand. If you have factual content about a political party that can be backed by reliable sources WP:RS then go ahead and add it, but don't add it to the exclusion of existing sourced content. If you have seen Monty Python's Life of Brian then I make no apologies for suggesting that so far are like the people arguing about the People's Front of Judea vs. the (splitters) of the Judea People's Front. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I updated the article replacing the Northern Independence Party with the North East Party, a party that actually has councillors, and I included a source, and it was reverted back to the Northern Independence Party, a party that has won no seats, and is supported by less than 1% of the entire Northern population. ThéGB GeorgeF (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

If you had added NEP and left NIP intact then you wouldn't have been reverted and wouldn't have ended up blocked. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The Northern Independence Party shouldn't have been included in the first place. ThéGB GeorgeF (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

That's your personal opinion, yet they are there in the article and the entry is supported by a reputable source (the New Statesman). Look at the NIP article and you'll see 35 separate references adding up to an organisation notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopaedia - many of which could also The NEP by contrast doesn't even state how many members it has (NIP as 1500). Plus the NEP scored fewer votes than the NIP in the 2021 Hartlepool by-election. "I don't like it" is not a valid reason for excluding something from Wikipedia. Keep arguing that and you won't last long as Wikipedia is based on consensus. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Woah, I didn't say "I don't like it", and I'm not in censorship, but this article is about North East England, and NIP is based around Northern England, and would be better suited to be mentioned in the article about Northern England, or the Northumbria article. The inclusion of NIP in the article is contextual out of place, and the only thing they have to link them to the article is the name Northumbria. ThéGB GeorgeF (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

NIP is out of context of article.

The Northern Independence Party is out of context for this article, this is because the article focuses on the Northeast of England, and not Northern England. The Northern Independence Party would be better mentioned in the Northern England article. ThéGB GeorgeF (talk) 03:41, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

It is clear from your past comments that you have a personal issue with this party. I think it is reasonable to list any/all notable parties that are involved in campaigning for regional issues, thus including NIP is justified. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

First, the North of England is an area not a region, and second, that's a hollow answer, especially considering they are the only party mentioned in the politics section. ThéGB GeorgeF (talk) 12:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Well mention other parties then, if you can demonstrate their notability. You've been told this already and that the problem with your edits is not the addition but your removal of the NIP solely on the basis that you disagree with them. Inclusion is based on notability not credibility or rectitude. Their use of the term or concept of Northumbria at least points to relevance to the article, irrespective of whether - or even potentially because - the use may be a load of rubbish. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The Northern Independence Party does not belong in this article because they have no connection to Modern Northumbria, other than the use of the name, and the occasional use of Saint Oswald's Banner, they don't even use symbols of the either the old Kingdom, or the modern region, instead opting to use stereotypical symbols of a generalised North, such as Greggs, and whippets. ThéGB GeorgeF (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Their claimed connection is enough. If that's what they are, dubious claims of connection to a concept of Northumbria would seem to actively enhance reasons for inclusion. Do you have reliable sources discussing their claims on the matter, dismissing them or otherwise? Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Several sources, listed in the article since today, show that the party's link to the area is strong, not least because it fielded a candidate in the by-election and scored more votes than the other regional independence party. 10mmsocket (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

County Northumbria

I have heard people use County Northumbria in person, however I can't find any sources online, other than a few online stores. County Northumbria is a name used either for the region, or for Northumberland, depending on the person, but it's seems like it's mainly for the former, not the latter. ThéGB GeorgeF (talk) 12:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)