Template:Did you know nominations/Jainti Dass Saggar

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 21:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Jainti Dass Saggar edit

(

)

... that Indian-born physician Jainti Dass Saggar was the first non-white person to be elected a councillor in Scotland?

Reviewed: Mary Ann Kerwin

Created by Whispyhistory (talk) and Philafrenzy (talk). Nominated by Whispyhistory (talk) at 06:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC).

Article is long-enough, new enough, interesting, and very well written. No obvious copyvio and article is NPOV. The hook is sourced to the Open University, however, there is a problem in that the source says he was "the first black or Asian local authority councillor in Scotland" not that he was "the first non-white person to be elected a councillor in Scotland". While it seems the two statements are probably one and the same, the source doesn't eliminate the possibility that an indigenous American had been elected a councilor in Scotland prior to Jainti Dass Saggar, however unlikely or remote that possibility might be. Chetsford (talk) 16:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I think somebody would have noticed if an indigenous American had been elected a councillor in Scotland in the 1930s. I suppose it could have been an Eskimo who had lost his way. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

We know from John Elliott's book The Old World and the New that at least a few of the Native American dignitaries who traveled to Europe in the 19th century (Rameau even wrote an entire opera based on Native Americans he'd encountered in France) remained there. And, as the Open University has used a geographic identifier ("Asian") instead of a racial group identifier, we can't group, for instance, Algonquians as "Asian" here. While I agree that it seems unlikely that a Native American was elected a councilor in Scotland by or before the 1930s, the source being used to support the hook is very specifically written so that such a possibility is not entirely eliminated. Chetsford (talk) 16:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

No it's not, it's written that way because they only imagined three groups, white, asian, and black. Anyone who wasn't white would have been recorded, making Saggar second not first. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what the authors of the source imagined so I'm happy to defer this to a new reviewer, if you like. Chetsford (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I think that would be wise. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Chetsford, but I think your concerns are rather improbable, and from your spelling suggest a North American perspective. I think the hook represents a reasonable interpretation of the source. The source states, "... in 1936, becoming the first black or Asian local authority councillor in Scotland – and in a district where there was not a single ‘black vote’." In this phrasing, I think "black vote" would mean any non-white vote. A rather less racially sensitive time. For many decades, the standard formulation for race in the UK was "white, black and Asian". This reflected the underlying reality that the overwhelming majority of non-white immigration into the UK had been from colonies or former colonies. Numbers of Native Americans would have been tiny, and in any event, it seems reasonable to suppose that any would have been included with other "Indians" under "Asians". Edwardx (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree it is improbable which is why I said "I agree that it seems unlikely that a Native American was elected a councilor in Scotland by or before the 1930s". My understanding of the DYK review criteria, however, is that we are required to review against the content of the source without assumption of foreknowledge, and not our independent evaluation and research into historical probabilities. "... I think black vote" would mean any non-white vote. A rather less racially sensitive time." It appears the source was written in 2007 so while, I suppose, 2007 was a less racially sensitive time I'm not personally ready to assume that the term "black vote" in 2007 was used as synonymous with "any white vote." That said, I have no problem with another editor approving this as I'm 99.999% sure the hook as written is almost certainly factual, even if the source doesn't establish it as such. Chetsford (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)