User talk:HighKing

I prefer to reply to comments on the page they were left, so if I left a comment on your page, reply there it is on my watch list. If you leave a comment here, watch this page until the discussion is done as I will only leave replies here. Thank you.

More on Great Britain

The term "Great Britain" is a calque from French, where is was used to differentiate Britain from "Little Britain" (Britanny). It hardly ever occured in English until it was adopted by the Stuarts in 1603/1604 as part of their new title - "King of Great Britain". From 1707 it actually became the name of the state, and still forms part of the UK's official name today. Its use in English, therefore, is in origin purely political. There is a trend in Wikipedia to call the island by that name, but this is mistaken. The island is, and always has been, called simply "Britain" in normal English usage. That "Britain" is also often used as a synonym for the UK in no way compromises its original and normal meaning. I would suggest restricting "Great Britain" to political matters concerned with the British state as it was constituted from 1707 to 1801, and thereafter using "United Kingdom". For the period 1603 to 1707 it may also have some limited usage, in reference to the Stuart dynasty and related matters. It should not be used for any period before 1603, where simply "Britain" will suffice. Also, "Britain" should be used for the island and its people, divorced from matters to do with the state, up to the present day. TharkunColl (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I usually only refer to Great Britain when I'm talking about the island, and I use the official terms like the United Kingdom of Great Britain or United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or Kingdom of England, Kingdom of Scotland, etc, depending on the time period and region. Perhaps a little table should be put together. I'll work on one. --Bardcom (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay yes, that's a good idea. It's true that for the period 1707-1801 "United Kingdom" can be used - the term seems to have been in informal usage at the time, as far as we can tell, though not made official until 1801. The Acts of 1707 used "United Kingdom" and "Kingdom" interchangeably (and since all nouns were capitalised in Acts of Parliament in that period, it's not possible to tell if it was intended as part of the name, or merely a description). TharkunColl (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Response to your suggestion on my Talk page. CarterBar (talk) 10:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

British Isles

Bard, you are apparently not aware of the fact that some time back, arising from rows about the inclusion of the offensive term "BI" in 100% Irish articles a "treaty" was agreed which was that in general BI should not be added to Irish articles if it wasn't already there and/or if it wasn't absolutely necessary. Thus your argument (in an edit comment) that the issue is confined to *this* (Shannon) article is wrong. I'd ask you not to add the term to the Shannon article again. Thanks. Sarah777 (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sarah - fact is that the term did exist in the Shannon article previously if you check the history. And the consensus is that BI is a valid geographical term on Wikipedia. It's odd that I'm being blocked by pro-British-Isles editors on one hand (River Thames frost fairs, etc) and now being off for including it in this. No offense. But you *are* correct - I wasn't aware that there was an unspoken policy of not inserting if it didn't already exist in the article. On that basis, for now, I'll withdraw my edit. But this may get revisited sometime soon... --Bardcom (talk) 22:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It is constantly being "revisited". The attempts to insert the offensive POV terms into Irish articles is a major project with some editors. Eternal vigilance is called for. It has been gone from the Shannon for some time until a short while ago. Restoring the term was manifest edit warring, as is reverting edits restoring the status quo. Sarah777 (talk) 22:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I fear then that this latest action to insert the term "British Isles" and going against the "treaty" might be as a direct result of the perveived removing of the term British Isles from articles that use it incorrectly (by me mainly, but other too). You were aware of the RfA recently - you may not be aware that an alleged 3rr on River Thames frost fairs got me a block, or that some perceived "disruption" also got me a block. I intend to attempt to create some guidelines around usage of the term "British Isles" with the first step to frame the discussion - probably by using specific examples and articles. Would you be interested in this? --Bardcom (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd probably need to see your ideas first; I'd frankly have problems with what appears to be your acceptance of the term in some purely Irish-related articles; for example - nearly all the stuff I do could be classed as "geography" (towns, villages, roads, rail, mountains, rivers, lakes etc). BTW; the blocks and treatment of your appeal were clear Admin abuse (the blocker) and incompetence (the reviewer). We need to do something about that. Sarah777 (talk) 23:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

That's OK - I wouldn't expect everybody to see eye-to-eye on all issues. But I'd like to gather together some examples of usage to "frame" the discussion, and then to see what can be agreed, and what can't. Haven't decided what to do about the bits we can't agree on yet... --Bardcom (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, can you show us where this "treaty" was discussed, and how the consensus was reached? TharkunColl (talk) 08:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hebrides. Trouble is it's a crap reference. It's a Scottish Tourist Board site - What will they know about geology? Stroll on! No reference is better than a bad reference. I'm putting it back to what it was when I first came across this article, like last year. Mister Flash (talk) 13:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For keeping an eye out for disruptive edits, and dealing with such edits through the appropriate channels. You are brilliant! Johnpigg (talk) 10:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats Bard; I'd like to take this opportunity to endorse this award. Sarah777 (talk) 13:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Strange to get an award from the account where the vandalism originated...tongue in cheek perhaps? --HighKing (talk) 13:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey - the guy has a sense of humour similar to my own! Don't knock it! Sarah777 (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

--HighKing (talk) 08:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

GENUKI

Don't you ever give up!! We've had this already with you, swapping out British Isles at GENUKI just because you don't like it. As I said last time, British Isles is the preferred term for people who know about these things, namely GENUKI and genealogy. Look here - quote from the website "The UK and Ireland are regarded, for the purposes of this Genealogical Information Service, as being made up of England, Ireland (i.e. Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland), Wales, and Scotland, together with the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Together, these constitute the British Isles - which is a geographical term for a group of islands lying off the north-west coast of mainland Europe. ". Now butt out, leave GENUKI alone and go and find something else to do. 82.14.71.91 (talk) 13:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see myself responding favorable to this intellectually challenging argument... --HighKing (talk) 13:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I want to dissociate myself from the unwise inflammatory statements made by this anonymous IP user. However, I do want to comment on some of the changes you have made today. You have replaced the term "British Isles" or a phrase which includes that term by other statements. However, the problem is that you were correct to view the use of "British Isles" as being in need of scrutiny, because of the connotations it has with some people, and so, it is right to ask for verification or change of it. But what you have done is merely replaced this unverified term with other material that is equally unverified. I think you need to adopt a different tactic to be more persuasive. I think you should consider either tagging the material, or asking for clarification on the atlk page of the article. If you are doing this to many articles, it may be an idea to set up a slightly more formal "taskforce" charged with the job of identifying all instances of use of "Bristish Isles" and then either clarifying them by finding out and inserting verification by means of suitable reliable sources, or else replacing the term with more acceptable yet verified terms. That way, I think you will have a better chance of being persuasive and of gaining more widespread support for your aim of increasing the verification of material concering this one issue. It would also help deflect the many instances of personal attacks and inflammatory messages I see you have had aimed at you in the past, because it would be a group effort under a properly constituted taskforce. Do you think setting up a taskforce would be a good idea? It would have to apply the rules of verification impartially, and so I can see that entrenched positions on either side of the issue may be unhappy with some of its decisions if it came into existence and proceeded properly with its work. If you agree, you need to consider under which project it might operate.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I advised you what to do about the film Joseph Smith: Prophet of the Restoration, but you have merely reverted my change and placed your wn unverified information back in. Do not do this again. I have placed an appropriate tag for the disputed information, which should not be removed unless it is replaced with either verification, or with a different fact that has been verified.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I've reported your actions at Wikipedia Administrators' Noticeboard (sorry about the initial incivility). 82.14.71.91 (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

New Zealand British

Since all Irish people were British in the 19th century, then almost all settlers on New Zealand were British (whether English, Irish, Scottish or Welsh). ðarkuncoll 16:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)