Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force/CArchive 1

A proposal
That HighKing, before he removes BI from any article, raises it on the article's talk page first, and seeks consensus. ðarkun coll 23:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * and that Tharky, if one of his edits is challenged also agrees to take it to the talk page rather than edit warring ....   -- Snowded   TALK  05:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I notice that HighKing hasn't yet responded to this proposal, though he has made edits elsewhere. ðarkun coll 11:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh dear. Still no answer. ðarkun coll 11:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)I have to question why Tharky chose to open this discussion here. Instead of having several discussions in more than one place, take this proposal to WQA or open your own WQA. This page is for discussing the draft by the task force. --HighKing (talk) 11:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It was you who wanted to discuss it on this page. Shall I take it from your continued evasion that the answer is no, then? ðarkun coll 11:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Discuss taskforce related topics. Not editor-related issues. --HighKing (talk) 11:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I asked you a simple question. Do you intend to answer it? ðarkun coll 13:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope British Isles isn't being added/removed or altered by Tharky/HK while this discussion is ongoing. If it is? I just might leave this discussion. GoodDay (talk) 14:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

When I say Tharkuncoll/A proposal on my watchlist, I thought this was an answer to my question above! - ie a genuine proposal! I'll repeat the question as an answer would be genuinely useful:

Tharkuncoll - do you think the term should be used in any situation? (eg in the "the aid workers are from the British Isles" example?) Surely without some kind of rules/guidelines for things like this (even unwritten rules) we will have anarchy, as in 'anything goes'. There are often choices of representation regarding the UK and Ireland ('British' or 'English'? etc) - these kind of guidelines help people to find the best one. Why don't you draw up what the you see the limits of the term are? That would certainly be helpful to others.

I just want to know if there is anything you would compromise on at all? And (on a related subject) what do you think of WP:IDTF? This is the place to voice it if you do, because there is every chance that something will eventually get through. You must have had some general idea when you signed up for this - what was it? --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Matt - compromise? From what I've seen, the problem is with HighKing; He simply will not compromise. Others have invited him to do so, whilst agreeing that they will do so themselves, but he never will. I think it is absolutely appalling that he is apparently an active contributor to a task force set up to clarify British Isles usage and related issues, but at the same time he goes merrily on applying his own guidelines, or should I say guideline (singular). That guideline is to remove British Isles wherever it appears. He states that in some cases use of the term is justified. I wonder then, how many of his edits have involved insertion of the term? MidnightBlue   (Talk)  15:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * (e/c Thakuncoll) This has nothing to do with the current edit conflict as far as I'm concerned - whatever that matter/article is. I'm not even looking at the wikialert etc, as I'm concentrating on the taskforce. My above question about the taskforce.


 * Regarding HighKing - surely it's up to him whether he wants to actually insert the term or not. There is no reason that he should insert it, or even favour it. He says he is removing it where it doesn't accord to the current guideline proposals - if that is the case (and I see not reason not to trust his word) then I would support him, as I support the current proposed guidelines. As for going into the detail of the articles in question, I don't have the time for that any more. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * (Reply to Matt) The term British Isles is a perfectly legitimate and normal part of the language, and its use is therefore appropriate wherever it happens to be correct. Other factors are brevity - being strictly accurate, we could say, for example, "Great Britain and Ireland plus their surrounding smaller islands", but this would be an absurdly ridiculous abuse of the language when there's a perfectly good term for what we wish to say and so, again, is unnacceptable (as are any other variations thereof). Language abhors a vacuum, and the reason the term British Isles exists in the first place - just like any other term - is that is fills a linguistic need. Some may wish a different term existed to fill this need, but the fact is that there just isn't - and it is most certainly not Wikipedia's job to promote one. ðarkun coll 15:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * We could add something about brevity to the guideline (although we are a comprehensive and typically inclusive encyclopeida). The Britain/Ireland example of aid workers still stands though. Is it really briefer to use "British Isles" than "Britain and Ireland" (or "England and Scotland" etc)? What do you save? Here it would just be the word "and". I would really appreciate it if you went through the guidelines commenting on the points you particularly disagree with.


 * Do you have a stance on Ireland, by the way?--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * A stance on Ireland? In what context? ðarkun coll 16:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:IDTF - in relation to the BITASK proposal with 'Ireland' and 'Ireland (island)' (instead of the first one which has options of ROI, Ireland or a piped ROI). Of the two proposals (misgivings over content aside), which would you more be in line with? --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, our guide here is language. "Ireland" means the island, always has done, and no further specification is needed. I'm aware that the state that occupies ¾ of Ireland also calls itself "Ireland", but we, as writers of a universal encyclopedia, need to be a great deal more clear than that, so Republic of Ireland - a phrase that appears in its own legislation - is obviously the one to go with. I can't really understand why there's any dispute here - it's not as if "Republic of Ireland" is an insult, is it? ðarkun coll 16:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The fundamental problem with 'Republic of Ireland' is not that is insulting to some here - it's that different uses of the word 'Ireland' causes havoc with so many articles. We simply can't force people to use 'ROI' (any more than I can force you to go through this guideline!), and when they use 'Ireland' (which is both a geographical and a political article) too many articles break down, especially when Northern Ireland is/isn't involved. Check out the list of confused articles at WP:IDTF - that is only the tip of the iceberg.


 * You keep saying 'our guide is language', though I'm not always sure what you mean. I certainly believe in language. Can't we create a guide that uses language to detail how the term can be used? I've always supported the term and was one of the first to criticise HighKing specifically removing it, though it was always depended on the context/article. But he and I both broadly agree on this guideline as it stands - if you add your input it will go a long way into staving off future problems. People like yourself actively inserting the term make this guideline doubly needed.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have "actively inserted" the term into a tiny handful of articles, three or four that I remember. How many articles has HighKing removed it from? I have stated my position very clearly. If the term is useful, it has a place in the article. ðarkun coll 22:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I said that it's not about you versus HK for me - its about building a guideline. You can't deny that when a term is being added and removed some kind of guideline of use is needed. And you do re-add a lot of removals when the term does not really improve the article (it is fairly rare that the term, when not used technically, is an genuine 'improvement' - though it certianly must be used in certain situations). You may not like it - but if re-adding the term creates an edit war, and it isn't an improvement on the last edit, then that is a form of 'adding the term'.


 * I have to also say that your comment "If the term is useful, it has a place in the article" is not 'clarity' as far as I'm concerned, because it relies only on your future judgements - ie what you personally see as 'useful'. It also denies the concerns of others. Consideration may be a 'ready' characteristic of yours (we all have our personalities, myself included), but working with others is built into Wikipedia Policy, in the form of discussion and consensus.


 * Ignoring so many of the plain questions that are asked you is not being 'very clear' either. It seems to me that your actual stance (if you were being clear about it) is that you plan to do what you judge to be 'right' at any given time: so if you want to ignore a question, you will ignore a question, if you want to use the term 'British Isles' you will use the term 'British Isles'. That is fine for you but a complete pain in the arse for everyone else! You might be planning to kick up a fuss at the eleventh hour over this proposal - but if you were wise you would get your input in now, because your backround doesn't favour you being taken all the seriously if this picks up momentum and gets to the verge of going through. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Going through where? This taskforce cannot alter Wikipedia policy. In fact, it's just a talking shop. I shall indeed continue to use the English language free of any political considerations, and there are quite a few editors who feel the same way, too. ðarkun coll 00:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The aim is to make an official guideline - I thought you knew that. Haven't you seen the amount of work that's been put into this? --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * And that's just the point - I haven't got time to read a 10,000 word essay on what I'm not allowed to say. As I said, I shall continue to use the English language without regard to political considerations, and I urge all those who care about truth and freedom of speech to do the same. ðarkun coll 00:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It has to be said - people who rally to "truth and free speech" in these type of circumstances are usually out to control something. Look at those who so fiercely advocate the free market - how dare people try to remove their freedoms and regulate them! The next step is too take all of their freedoms and turn them into Communists, they persistently cry! They rave on about their 'freedoms', when what really care about is unevenly massive profits - which usually keep other people in debt. If you think you have free speech on Wikipedia (or anywhere) then try and swear your head off and be a neo-Nazi etc. You simply don't have all freedoms you are claiming, so rallying to them is pointless. Wikipedia (just like life) is full of rules.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * In my experience, it's those who wish to curtail freedom of speech that wish to control something, namely, the thoughts of others. ðarkun coll 00:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Twisting words - you do have a bagful don't you? I have some sympathy for your stance (and am pro the term, as you know), but the more I experience your rhetoric, the more I see someone who is effectively oppressive, but is so full of himself that he just can't see it. You should try trading some ego for wisdom: if you really think about that comment it sounds like you are advocating the word 'British' politically. And some anti-social poeple do need to be controlled - try looking at grey areas for a change - it's not all black and white. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we're heading towards Arbitration, gentlemen. GoodDay (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Over the edit wars? They are not that bad, surely. (I admit I haven't really looked at the latest ones). --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Because of what's is supposedly behind the edit wars. Hints of Irish & British PoVs, which can't be prooven or entirely dismissed. GoodDay (talk) 00:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of hate-filled, vitriolic attacks on the British on this and other talk pages. But I've never seen the opposite. ðarkun coll 00:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Do ya agree, that Arbitration may ultimately be the only solution? GoodDay (talk) 00:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with nothing that censors my right to use my own language. ðarkun coll 00:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "Censorship" - that's another classic. Wikipedia is a controlled environment whether you like it or not. It's extremely hard to understand why you won't compromise when the term is so often utterly inessential (not always, but very very often). It does make me wonder whether you'd feel as strongly as you do if the term was "Frippish Isles" - would you revert an equally good sentence put in its place? (though it is pretty clear that politics appears on both sides of this argument, especially in a defensive way). Wikipedia works on consensus, so we have to listen to each other - it's simply the rules.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Go and tell that to HighKing. It is he who has refused to even answer a simple question I put to him. ðarkun coll 09:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I fear your sail on these waters will only get rougher (which I regret). If you're capable of ignoring an AC ruling (if it went against you)???... GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The conversation above does not belong here - take it to the WQA page or individual's Talk pages. Can someone archive and roll it up please. --HighKing (talk) 11:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)