Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 72

Calling for a movement to eliminate British spelling on Wikipedia
As I understand it, this issue has been discussed before, but like some old resolved cases in the Supreme Court that get reopened and resolved with a different result, this case needs to be carefully scrutinized. I also understand that it seems the majority of Wikipedians are British, are offended by hearing this, and therefore have a personal agenda to follow in contradiction to this. Wikipedia is about NPOV, so anyone who has personal agenda should not be part of this movement. Here is a post I made in the American/British Spelling Differences Article that just so happened to get deleted by a British person soon after I posted it:


 * FYI, it was deleted by an *American* person---yours truly. &mdash; JackLumber /tɔk/ 19:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

"This is a very serious issue that needs to be confronted. It is not professional, non-NPOV, and inconsistent that we have some articles with British spelling, and others without. There are even some articles that deal with something thats exclusively American, such as the White House for example, that have some words spelled the British way. This should not be, and there should be some uniformity if we wish to have a professional and reliable encyclopedia.


 * The MOS deals with this issue see WP:ENGVAR there is no reason why the spelling of the article on the White House should not be exclusively in American English. There is no reason why an article on 10 Downing Street should not be in British English. Indeed the MOS recommended this. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Britian is the only English-speaking country that uses their own unique variation of the English language, and in British contexts, that's usually fine. But every other English-speaking country used the standard spelling, which is generally based on how the word actually sounds, and that should be the standard that Wikipedia uses. It makes absolutely no sense to use one country's variation of dialect, no matter how BIG, important, or "popular" it is, and completely disregard the rest of the English-speaking world's orrect usage of the language.


 * Britian is not the only English-speaking country that uses their own unique variation of the English language. See Commonwealth English, Canadian English and American English. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. Comonwealth English doesn't exist; there's an American spelling system, a British spelling system, followed more or less to the letter by all other English-speaking countries except Canada, whose spelling system is somewhere between British and American.  *Variations* of the English language means different *dialects*, and this has little to do with spelling. &mdash;  JackLumber /tɔk/ 19:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * PoidLover, if you’re favoring consistency in “the correct usage of the language”, then I guess we Americans will have to relearn English. It was Noah Webster himself who altered spellings in order to ‘Americanize’ English spelling and distance it from the British standard.  Askari Mark (Talk) 19:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Webster is responsible for many differences, but by no means all. &mdash; JackLumber /tɔk/ 19:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

In fact, pretty much every article that contains a word that differs between the two dialects, the British version is favored. This, also, makes absolutely no sense. If the majority of a population speaks and/or writes a certain way, then it's institutions, endorsements, and websites should speak/write that certain way, too. It is understandable if this website was: www.wikpedia.co.uk, because that assumes that this is a primarily UK website. But, this website is: www.wikipedia.com, so it should follow the standard dialect that other ".com" use.


 * I don’t believe it’s actually the case that British English tends to get favored (or favoured); in fact, just the opposite, according to my experience. While most Wikipedia editors seem to take in stride the MOS recommendation that articles on “British” topics employ British English and those on “American” topics use American English, everywhere else there’s a tendency for a slow-roll supplanting over time of British usage by American English – even though the MOS recommends that an article follow the article’s original author’s usage.  In articles where it’s unclear what the original author’s preference might have been, you can bet that sooner or later the article will end up following American English. That this website isn’t “www.wikpedia.co.uk” rather misses the point; this is the English Wikipedia – “en.wikipedia.org” – not the U.S. Wikipedia.  As someone who, by grace of God, has leave to use Southern terms like “y’all” as “standard English”, I’m quite comfortable leaving MOS as it is. ;-)  Askari Mark (Talk) 19:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This isn't in any way some sort of hate movement or opinion. This is an encyclopedia, and in encyclopedias, information must be consistent and reliable. Please take your time to think about this issue, for the uniformity of this encyclopedia will help ensure that the current and future quality standards will be upheld."

Now, right after I made this post, I realized that alot of the factual information was either misleading, or just incorrect. In any case, it's not enough to invalidate my argument. Though some of the "evidence" may not be accurate, the main argument stands, regardless. You can look at my page, or my talk page to see what I have written, what people have written to me, and what I have written back to people. Please everyone, one again, ANYBODY who has a personal agenda to oblige to, you should not have any say in the final decision and do NOT post here. This is for people who are looking at this from an OBJECTIVE point of view, something that is inherent in encyclopedias. And also, please, no "rough" comments, I'll be as polite as I am treated.--PoidLover 16:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Quite simply: no. There's no reason why "American English" should be used on, say, Jeeves and Wooster, and no reason "British English" should be use on American League. Completely eschewing one for the other is silly. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 17:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You said it yourself, pal, your post is mostly "either misleading, or just incorrect". Best wishes, --Guinnog 17:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am fully in support of this movement. I am very much in favour of eliminating Biritsh [sic] spelling. I wasn't aware that it was Wikipedia policy to encourage such typos, but if it is, it should certainly be stopped. Someone has corrected the typo in the heading, so my comment now looks even more stupid than it probably did before. So I'll say it straight: the mixture of spelling styles is a positive benefit on Wikipedia. Let's absolutely not change it. Snalwibma 17:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There's nothing more trivial or superficial than spelling differences. The booklet International English: A Guide to the Varieties of Standard English by Trudgill and Hannah is comprised of 153 pages, only 4 (four) of which are about spelling differences.  &mdash;  JackLumber /tɔk/ 20:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose this movement. In the stance that if we actually check factual history, English as a language was born in the British Isles. Hence, I would state that we need to use it. IMHO, I feel that the entire encyclopedia should be written in British English. But I totally agree with the guidelines given in the manual of style. As for Britain being the only country using the "British" spelling, that is definitely not true. In fact, British English is the form in use in my country - India. And seeing that that's 1/6th of the World's populace... If we're swinging for a worldwide majority, British English is a clear winner. However, I do feel that native/national articles should maintain the style/spelling of the English of that particular region. This would introduce more varied cultural elements to the encyclopedia. a JC freak   y A k B a K  18:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Please say "British spelling" not "British English." In my humble opinion, the best solution would be to use Oxford spelling---with regional vocabulary and syntax (British, Canadian, American, Australian). Then again, using only one spelling system would be utterly impractical and impracticable. Come on, think about it for a moment. &mdash; JackLumber /tɔk/ 19:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC) 2007 (UTC)

Why argue so passionatly over the spelling. Its the information provided within the article which is important. Surely your time would be better spent making sure the information is correct. As said above "British English" is the dominant form of the language, while "American English" is also widely spoken so the descision is difficult. In a majority verdict my arogance of my own laguage dictates I hope the British form would win. Interestingly does anybody know what form is taught in European schools? Why argue? Is it really what Wikipedia promotes?Chalky17 19:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * British English is by no means the dominant form of the language, the very idea. How the heck can you guys say that?!? Two thirds of native speakers of English are American! According to John Algeo, British or American English?, Cambridge University Press, p. 1 "...American has more native speakers than British and is rapidly becoming the dominant form of English in non-native countries other perhaps than those of Western Europe. Much European established academic bias favors British as a model; but evolving popular culture is biased toward American." &mdash;  JackLumber /tɔk/ 20:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that the U.S. gives more words to the language than all the other English-speaking countries combined. &mdash; JackLumber /tɔk/ 20:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Someone brings this up once a week or more. It's not going to change. — Omegatron 20:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

British Spelling vs. American Spelling
Ok, I am putting this under a new heading because obviously, people arenot takning this as seriously as I am. You people are putting your responses in the middle of my paragraphs as though it was just some sort of wall that needed to be tagged (by "tagged", I mean graffiti'd on). Even the person who agreed with me did this, though I believe he was just copying the pattern of the rest of the impolite responses, which I think is fine, I guess. Anyways, under THIS heading, I would like everyone to be organized and NOT to put their responses in the middle of someone elses, but to put it under the previous one, which IS Wikipedia policy. Ok, now for my rebuttal:

JackLumber: Are you a moderator of some sort? If not, I am going to report you for vandalizing my post, as I understand it, we are not to delete each others' posts. "British Spelling", in my opinion, is inerchangeable with the term "British English", and both those terms are interchangeable with many others. But for the sake of unification, which IS the main issue here in this argument, I am asking that people say "British Spelling", because appearantly the British prefer this term, and we don't want to be offensive in any way; this isn't a "battle of the dialects". Maybe the change might be a tad impractical, but then again, so is enforcing many of the other rules and settings Wikipedia is bound to. To make a reliable online encyclopedia in which PRACTICALLY anyone can edit and make new articles would be impracticable, but it has been done, and it is called Wikipedia. To ignore this issue simply because of impracticality or impracticability is not a decent reason to ignore this issue. Imagine if we stopped enforcing every rule here on Wikipedia just because it is "impractical" and "impracticable", do you think that would be a good thing. Regardless of your opinion, it's not. Also, the dialect necessarily has to do with spelling, so you're wrong on trying to strike me down on using the term variation. In fact, that's not even an argument, you are just trying to reduce the value of my apparently my making me seem "uneducated", which in term reduced your OWN apparent credibility due to the fact that you are using phony methods of logical argument.

Philip Baird Shearer: Hey man I don't know what to tell you, but using double, and even triple-negatives will not strengthen your argument, but will make it uninteresting and invalid. But let me try to understand what you are trying to say here: You're saying that the "White House" article should be in American English, right? And you continue to say that the "10 Downing Street" article should be in British Spelling, right? Well there are many problems with the your argument, besides the fact that you used double/triple-negatives. The main one is you have absolutely no logical basis for what you've said, so I have nothing to argue against! It's really that simple, NEXT! P.S. - What's MOS, and what does he/it have to do with this issue?

Askari Mark: Mark, I don't favor consistency in the "correct" usage of the language. If I said that, then you're quoteing me out of context. What I'm in favor of is consistency, and following a certain pattern of logic, the American English is the standard that logic denotes. If you wish to argue with me about the logic behind this, feel free to do so, but don't quote me out of context, it just makes us go in big useless circles, ok? So your so-called argument that we need to relearn English is 100% irrelevant to this issue, and is just wasting time. It's pretty obvious you follow the presuasion of those who are personally afflicted with their British Spelling, and if you are, please leave this argument. This is a place for objective reasoning, not personal opinion. You can't imagine how much Noah Webster has absolutely NOTHING to do with this issue, but it's a whole lot, trust me! I don't know how often you search Wikipedia for random, but thoroughly researched facts, but I do it quite often, and almost EVERY article where there is an opportunity for British Spelling to prevail over English, then it does. I still don't know who/what MOS is, but whatever it is, but regardless of what he/it thinks about this, me and others want to change it! If we have to change MOS's mind, then that is what we intend to do! What does the author of an article have to do with the dialect in which it will be spelled? So if a British person created the White House article, then it should follow British Spelling? That makes absolutely NO sense! So if a Ugandan person who speaks Ugandan wrote an article in English Wikipedia, then the article must be in Ugandan? NO, that's nonsense! One main argument here is that this encyclopedia, just like a normal printed one, needs to follow certain standards, as if it were written by ONE person! You don't see a printed encyclopedia that uses both dialects interchangeably, and randomly, so why should Wikipedia be any different? You're quite comfortable with leaving the MOS as is, but you don't have any real reason, other than "the MOS see's it fit, so so do I!", which isn't a reason at all! Please, come here with logic, not emotions.

EVula: I'm not exactly sure what you're saying "quite simply: no." to or about, but I assume you're not just being foolish and you are using this in line with the context of at least a portion of the issue here. If you have any arguments other than "it's silly", then please post. If not, please do not come here with nonsense. You seem to not take this issue seriously, so neither will I take you seriously. This could be a HUGE change in Wikipedia, and all you have to say is that "it's just silly"? Now, that's just, well, silly!

Snalwibma: Thanks for supporting this movement, and like you, I was baffled when I found out that Wikipedia is actually actively ENFORCING this. At first, I thought they either just let it happen, or just never really noticed it. But for all inents and purposes, please, if you have any additional arguments or supportive statements, do post them, for some of these people just don't seem to get the seriousness of this issue. Again, thanks for being supportive.
 * DO NOT POST IN BETWEEN PARAGRAPHS! POST UNDER THE MOST RECENT ONE!
 * SORRY to disappoint you. Did you not understand? I was being sarcastic. I do not support this ill-conceived and ill-informed "movement". Snalwibma 22:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC) -- This clarification was deleted by PoidLover. Now reinstated. For good measure, and to make it abundantly clear, I have now also scored thorugh the rubbish s/he wrote about what I said. Snalwibma 22:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

aJCfreak yAkBaK: "In the stance that if we actually check factual history, English as a language was born in the British Isles.", this is utterly irrelevant. The invention, intervention, or intention of the language has nothing at all to do with this issue, so please abandon this notion. "IMHO, I feel that the entire encyclopedia should be written in British English", feelings are equally as utterly irrelevant. This issue needs to be addressed by objective measures, not subjective emotion. So why, in a LOGICAL sense, do you believe that the article should be all in British Spelling (keep in mind, "British Spelling" is the only term we're using here, so please don't say British "English", it's all for the sake of consistency)? Please answer this question. OK, British Spelling is what is in use in India, on 1/6 of the world's population, but are you saying that 100% of India's population speaks fluent English? I'm pretty sure a very small portion of the country's population speaks English, very, very small. Part of the reason India is so populated is because it is a very poverty stricken country, and generally in poor areas, there are higher rates of birth. If you disagree with the fact that there are more Indians in the lower caste(s) than in the higher one(s) is ridiculous, and pretty much contradicts the inherent pattern of the social caste system, which follows the pattern of a pyramid. So in that case, British Spelling is by no means the majority dialect used by the ENGLISH SPEAKING world. "However, I do feel that native/national articles should maintain the style/spelling of the English of that particular region. This would introduce more varied cultural elements to the encyclopedia". If one were to desire to learn cultural elemnts, then they would go to the American/British Spelling Differences article. People should be able to choose the information they receive at their OWN careful discretion, not somebody ELSES! If you have some logic to back up this argument, then by all means present it. Based on what you wrote, you don't STRONGLY OPPOSE this movement, you just merely disagree with it. You oppose it as strongly as anyone else

Guinnog: Why are you quoting me out of context? I didn't say that my post was MOSTLY "either misleading, or incorrect", and neither did I say that the misleading or incorrect portion of my post was the bulk of it. I was just referring to that couple of paragraphs that I put between the horizontal lines. The rest is neither incorrect, nor misleading. Please do not join this movement, regardless of which side you are on, because you are just adding to the nonsense and are just bashing, which has no logical basis. Obviously, you yourself believe that most of my post(s) are either incorrect or misleading, so why can't you include why you believe such a thing? This goes for everyone: If you make a claim, please provide comprehensive evidence that supports it!

All in all, it lookS like this movement is actually going somewhere. However, there is a common pattern amongst those who whish to keep British Spelling in Wikipedia: they all state their opinions, some of them somewhat irrational, without have any logical basis to defend them. Also, those of this persuasion tend to show that they have some personal feelings about this issue, therefore use these feelings to rationalize their personal agendas. Let me state the main issue once again, as comprehensively as I can:

"Wikipedia is a database of information, and as a database (and also an encyclopedia), there must be a standard setting, language, consolidation, unification, etc., so that the information is clear, proper, and concise. In order to acheive this unity, there must be a standard for which all other articles are based. It makes no sense not use the dialect that the majority of the English-speaking world uses, and to use one that a minority, regardless of quantitative value, uses. Therefore, since the majority of the English-speaking world uses the so-called "American-English" as the standard, this is the one that Wikipedia should use."

I could have further elaborated, but this will do for the moment. And again, please people, 'Do not, I repeat, do not write in between someone elses paragraph! Everybody will have their turn, and there is no need for resentment or rudeness! Please put your post under the previous one, and follow every other Wikipedia policy and standard!!!' --PoidLover 20:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed and re-discussed approximately 3.2&times;1054 bazillion times. Nothing is going to change.  You're better off just dropping it. — Omegatron 20:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC) (American)


 * And please don't shout. --YFB ¿  20:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * To answer your question What's MOS, and what does he/it have to do with this issue?, MOS is Manual_of_Style and Manual of Style (spelling), which state the guidelines which have developed over the last 6 years. Since you are commenting in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style it was not unreasonable of people to expect you to already realise this. Your argument has been made many times before, and not been accepted. -- Arwel (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Omegatron : "This has been discussed and re-discussed approximately 3.2×1054 bazillion times. Nothing is going to change. You're better off just dropping it.", "Someone brings this up once a week or more. It's not going to change.". Oh man, that's a sound argument with necessarily agreeable logic behind it, wouldn't anyone say? His argument here is that since this has been argued about many times, that's reason enough to let it be. So, during the days of Slavery, do you suspect that people just got tired of trying and just said "forget it, it'll never change", or how about the civil rights movement of the '60's? This is not an issue about whether or not this is argued about alot, this is an issue of whether or not we should change certain language standards in Wikipedia for good. I hate to say it again, but please, everyone, don't post anything unless you have a logically supportive argument behind your post. If you want to post about how this has been argued about many times and how this is futile, then put it under your own heading, this is the space for rational discussion. Omegatron, if you have anything that can serve useful for the purposes of this issue, regardless of which position you take, then by all means post it.

Arwel: Same thing to you, you are not posting a logical argument for either side, although it is quite obvious which side you take, which isn't a good sign. OK, this issue may have been raised times before, but I can assure you the arguments behind them are different. People may have said "remove British spelling because I think it's annoying and I hate it because it's not what I use", but my arguments, nor my personal affliction, is anything remotely close to this. I am not going to repeat my argument for I have had to do so many times before, so just look at some of the past posts. And wow, trying to reduce my credibility by making me seem foolish, that's something that the people of your persuasion have very much in common. OK, I didn't make the connection between the abbreviation MOS with Manual of Style, my bad, sorry! However, this has NOTHING to do with the issue and we're going in circles! Please, I advise you not to post again unless you are going to make a rational argument.

People, we are just going in circles, cheifly because people who believe Wikpedia should remain the way it is make the same logical fallacies and also argue about things that are incredibly irrelevent. Here's some more guidelines to keep this discussion from not going anywhere:


 * only post relevant information
 * if you make a claim, defend it using logic
 * no personal attacks, or you will be reported and possibly banned from editing
 * do not post between paragraphs. post under the previous post only

If we follow these rules of thumb, then what we will have is a comprehensive discussion about the issue. Please people, we are all rational beings, let's behave.--PoidLover 22:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Know that guidelines must be based on WP:CONSENSUS.
 * Count the number of supporters for your cause.
 * Draw your conclusion.
 * It's that simple. Phaunt 22:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi PoidLover - I am perfectly entitled to post between paragraphs, and it seemed (and still seems) appropriate to do so immediately beneath a paragraph which contains a factual inaccuracy that needs correcting. You, on the other hand, do not have the right to delete my comment in order to make it appear that I said the opposite of what I did in fact say. Snalwibma 23:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeesh, what a waste of space this section is. We all know that the policy will stay the way it is. Don't bother arguing, no matter how stupid the points are. Strad 23:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Listen, Strad, before you go on and post here, please at least have the common courtesy to read ALL the comments. What you've posted has no logical merit, and therefore is utterly irrelevant to the issue. Like I've said before, if you wish to comment on how much YOU think this is a waste of time and space, then put it under your own heading. Otherwise, just stop wasting your time and our space. Phaunt, thanks for your input, it was well deserved. The thing is, there hasn't been nearly enough time for me to draw supporters, for it seems like all the people on the side of leaving everything as is seems to be more attracted to this articles talk page. I honestly doubt that the number of people of that persuasion who have seen this talk page is equal to the number of people of the opposing persuasion. My conclusion has been stated many times, and is also on my Talk Page. My goal here is to change the current consensus on this issue.

Snalwibma, you may be techinically entitled, but for all intents and purposes of keeping this article organized, it is much better for BOTH sides to see this "thread" in chronological order. Yes, there are time stamps, but that doesn't compensate for the messiness that leaving comments under paragraphs adds. And if you KNOW that you are entitled to do so, then please show me the article where it says it. Not that I think you should even though you techinically can, if you continue to do this without being allowed to, I will report you.--PoidLover 04:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Calling for a movement to eliminate American spelling on Wikipedia
Sign up here. Tony 02:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * On the grounds that Wikipedia is intended to be an international encyclopedia, with no cultural / ethnic / linguistic bias. It would seem silly, therefore, that proper English (International English, British English) is not the standard. The retention of American English is systematic bias at its height. How would one set up a 'base' for a lobby group on Wiki? michael talk 04:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Look at all the arguments. This is most surely NOT a biased movement, at least not on the side that wants to change Wikipedia. However, the British Spelling advocates are extremely biased and most of them have posted either irrelevant or unsupported comments that show the naked truth. You're right, "Wikipedia is intended to be an international encyclopedia, with no cultural / ethnic / linguistic bias", I agree with you 100%. The issue here, though, has NOTHING to do with bias. It is international, and the to think that the majority of the English speaking world uses British Spelling is absurd. Every argument, including your arguments, have already been made to support your persuasion, so either present a new one, rebut one that has been made on the opposing side, or agree with the opposing side and give a good reason why.

There is no International English, but the UN uses a Standard English, which is what some have coined "American English". Please don't make up facts. And, AGAIN, a person on the British Spelling side has not presented a decent supporting evidence to help their cause. This is so common that it proves that the retention of British Spelling on Wikipedia is bias at its height. The lobby group starts HERE, just incase you're wondering.--PoidLover 05:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot to remind you, please post under the above heading, and read all comments before. This discussion is for those who are serious about this issue, regardless of which side you are on. If you're just posting based on your own personal agenda, by all means, create your own heading and do so.--PoidLover 05:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, this person is advocating British spelling for American-related articles? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)