Jump to content

Talk:British Empire: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→"British Isles": my latter day suggestion
Line 442: Line 442:
:::::::That's very big of you and so...ta. [[User:Catterick|Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos.]] ([[User talk:Catterick|talk]]) 10:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::::That's very big of you and so...ta. [[User:Catterick|Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos.]] ([[User talk:Catterick|talk]]) 10:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::::: No valid reason has been given for changing the current wording which has existed for over two years, ever since a legacy section has been there. It is for those who seek British Isles to be removed that must justify its removal. Again, i strongly oppose this attempt by certain editors to remove the British Isles from wikipedia, it seems like some form of politically motivated campaign. [[User:BritishWatcher|BritishWatcher]] ([[User talk:BritishWatcher|talk]]) 11:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::::: No valid reason has been given for changing the current wording which has existed for over two years, ever since a legacy section has been there. It is for those who seek British Isles to be removed that must justify its removal. Again, i strongly oppose this attempt by certain editors to remove the British Isles from wikipedia, it seems like some form of politically motivated campaign. [[User:BritishWatcher|BritishWatcher]] ([[User talk:BritishWatcher|talk]]) 11:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


As a very late entrant to this discourse, may I make some comments and hopefully bring a fresh perspective. The current version is:
* ''The UK retains sovereignty over 14 territories outside the British Isles, which in 2002 were renamed the British Overseas Territories''.

First of all, this suggests that it has one or more territories ''within'' the British Isles, which is not the case (unless one reads "territory" in its broadest possible sense and includes the Isle of Man and the CI). Hence, why is there any need to explicitly refer to the location of the territories it ''does'' have? The word "Overseas" in BOT does that work. Secondly, the history of the name of the group of territories is not something we need to get into here, so the 2002 date does not need to be mentioned. That leaves us with:
* '''''The UK retains sovereignty over 14 territories, known as the British Overseas Territories.'''''

That succinctly tells readers that, wherever they are, they're "overseas". If some people think that the Channel Islands are "overseas" in relation to the UK, that's a nice literal reading of the term but the usual reading has the implication of very great distance, not merely separated by a body of water that could be arbitrarily small.

Btw, I've seen some comments above to the effect that a particular set of words had been unchanged since 2007, and an editor asked why there's suddenly a need to change them. As if the longer a set of words has remained unchanged, the more persuasive the argument for changing them needs to be. That type of argument should never be used on Wikipedia. People come along from all parts of the known universe, read articles that have been around for years, see opportunities for improvement, act on the Wiki-injunction to Be Bold, and change them. That's how this thing works. They generally neither know nor care how long a particular set of words has been there. People who've been around an article for a while can tend to get stale, see what they've always seen, and miss what they've always missed - whereas fresh faces bring fresh perspectives, something we can never have enough of. -- [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] ([[User talk:JackofOz|talk]]) 11:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


== Two Words Causing So Much Trouble ==
== Two Words Causing So Much Trouble ==

Revision as of 11:37, 23 May 2009

Featured articleBritish Empire is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 24, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
April 2, 2007Good article nomineeListed
December 3, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
November 2, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
December 12, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
December 27, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

British rule

Its not correct to say imply that Gibraltar is 'under British rule' as the locally elected Government has competence for all things apart from defence and foreign relations. So either the article needs to state that -or- the claim needs to be removed. --Gibnews (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the level of abstraction appropriate for this article I think its fine. Explaining the nuances of different countries constitutional arrangements in this article would swamp it. The pipelink to the country article handles any further needs. Incidentally your above comment on bias has little context to it and appears incoherent as a result. Would you explain it. --Snowded (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I would disagree, BOT are in the main self-governing with the exception of foreign relations and defence. Its a level of abstraction that distorts the relationship between the UK and BOT to imply Government from London when that is not the case. Justin talk 19:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The same logic could be applied to Scotland or even Yorshire. Diplomatic and physical security define states - if an entity does not control these it is not self-governing. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No that is specious logic, Yorkshire is governed from London. BOT are not, they are governed by democratically elected Governments. It is an inaccurate and misleading statement that does not describe their system of Government. Justin talk 22:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not in the least bit specious. Yorkshire is governed - at least in the sense you mean it - by democratically elected councils who decide matters such as local taxation, the running of schools, health etc. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the word "rule" in "which remain under British rule" is problematic, I'm sure a satisfactory alternative can be found. ("...which remain British...", perhaps?) But to single out one of the fourteen territories for special mention would lead the reader to wonder why the devolutionary status of the other thirteen is not discussed. The reason for not discussing the status of any in this section is simple: as Snowded, says, that is what the British Overseas Territories article (and the individual BOT articles) are for. This article is not the place for it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with an accurate statement of how BOT are governed, the article as currently written is misleading as to the relationship between the UK and BOT. It is no longer a colonial relationship. Yes I agree that one should not be singled out but the fact they are self-governing is an important distinction. Justin talk 22:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a matter of opinion whether it is a colonial relationship. The UN disagrees with you. United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which is hardly proof, those territories were only ever listed on the UN List as they were nominated by Britain. Several other territories that could be considered colonies in the classic sense, e.g. Tibet, are not listed as the state responsible has not listed them (and China is a member of the committee of 24). And the fact they are self-governing is of relevance, the article as written misrepresents their relationship with the UK. Justin talk 22:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is your opinion, which you are entitled to. But you are an experienced enough editor to know that this does not fly when it comes down to WP:NOR. Secondly, the article says Britain "retains sovereignty". That is also verifiable. So can you please be specific about the exact wording which misrepresents the situation? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No it happens to be a fact, the former colonies on the list of the decolonisation committee are only listed because they were originally listed by the member state. That is verifiable. The article says they are ruled by Britain, they are in the main not. That is also verifiable. The populated BOT are all self-governing; their relationship with Britain has been modernised. That is also verifiable. So what is to be, a sensible mature discussion as to how the article could be improved or are you simply going to WP:OWN the article as usual. Justin talk 22:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So we should discredit the list simply because you say so? That is not how WP:V works. Anyway, that list is a side issue, I merely raised it as verifiable evidence that the status of these places is not as clear cut as you make out ("the colonial status is over"). I did not raise it as a reference for anything in the text. Regarding ownership: there are two other editors here who agree with me, so it is not a case of me thinking I own anything. I already proposed above the possibility of rewording "British rule" which shows I'm willing to discuss the matter with everyone. How about engaging with that offer instead of stooping to the level of accusing people of ownership issues, if you wish to keep the discussion mature? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An afterthought: if there is any proposal of words to the effect that these places are not colonies, NPOV dictates that the opposing view must be mentioned, and this list is a clear example of the opposing view, along with Spain's position. Also, Britannica explicitly states Gibraltar is a British colony. "Gibraltar: British colony on the Mediterranean coast of southern Spain" I would again suggest, instead of getting into that little debate, changing "remain under British rule" to "remain British". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well it would be plain from my previous comments that I wish to change it to clarify that the populated BOT are self-governing and rely on the UK only for for foreign relations and defence. That is all.
You raised the red herring of the C24, it is irrelevant as regards the proposed edit. Justin talk 23:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Red Hat does not consider the C24 a Red Herring. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read [1] by the way? "Gibraltar is an overseas territory of the United Kingdom and is self-governing in all matters but defense." The C24 is a red herring as regards the proposed edit, it is utterly irrelevant in that regard. Justin talk 23:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would it not be that Britain exercises sovereignty over those nations? --Narson ~ Talk • 00:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a big difference between rule and sovereignty the UN C24 and Encyclopedia Britanica (an American publication) are woefully out of step with modern reality, as is RTPF who believes that Gibraltar is a colony, unlike the current British Government as cited. However the bottom line is that the implication of present day colonialism has to go. It is not acceptable and nor is it accurate. --Gibnews (talk) 07:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly although the British Empire is indeed a historical curiosity some editors, still offensively refer to BOT's as Colonies although the term has been abolished and it no longer describes the relationship between the UK and the territories. In describing the current situation Wikipedia should reflect the reality and British Rule no longer applies, at least to some BoT's - not the opinion of editors living in ivory castles (or UK council estates). --Gibnews (talk) 08:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although its not strictly done how about a compromise? It seems to me (in my naievety) that they are protectorates rather than colonies in all but name. Perphaps the sentences could be left the same but one mentioning this (or words to this effect) could be tagged on at the end.Willski72 (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Map of Empire

If the map consists of all the countries that have been under British (or English or Scottish prior to unification) rule or are under British rule then the following should be added:

France (When the crown of the Kingdom of England inherited the Valois claim to the French throne sparking the hundred years war.) Afghanistan (on and off 1839-1919) Hawaii (February ~ July 1843) Germany (Lower Saxony Hamburg North Rhine-Westphalia Schleswig-Holstein during the Allied occupation of Germany 1945-1949 and the West Berlin boroughs of Charlottenburg Tiergarten Wilmersdorf Spandau) Austria (the British Allied occupation zones of Austria and Vienna 1945-1955)

(Germany, Austria and France are not necessarily considered part of "The Empire" yet still were occupied by Great Britain/United Kingdom, yet Ireland was never considered part of the Empire either and she is included.

Thankyou --Lemonade100 (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2009 (GMT)

This has been answered here. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British rule: proposal

  • Change "The UK retains sovereignty over 14 territories outside of the British Isles, collectively named the British overseas territories, which remain under British rule because of their small size, lack of support for independence among the local population or because the territory is uninhabited except for transient military or scientific personnel."
  • to "The UK retains sovereignty over 14 territories outside of the British Isles,[176] collectively named the British overseas territories, which remain British because of their small size, lack of support for independence among the local population or because the territory is uninhabited except for transient military or scientific personnel."

This avoids the issue of discussing the level of devolution and type of government in each BOT (it differs, and British overseas territories is the right place to go into detail on that), and does not carry the baggage that being "ruled" might imply (to some). Thoughts, everyone? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it is ignoring the central issue that those populated BOT are SELF-GOVERNING, those that are not are covered by the second part of the sentence. Justin talk 23:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The UK retains sovereignty over 14 territories outside of the British Isles,[176] collectively named the British overseas territories. Some are uninhabited except for transient military or scientific personnel, the remainder are self-governing reliant on the UK only for foreign relations and defence. Althought support for independence among the local population is lacking, the British Government is committed to providing it where it is desired."

That is accurate, succinct and correctly delineates the relationship wuth the UK. Justin talk 23:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not actually accurate because by using the term "British Isles" it implies that it retains sovereignty over all of Ireland (which is not true), whereas if it said '14 territories outside of the UK' it would be more accurate and more succinct. Dunlavin Green (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, no I had not seen it, and nor had anyone else (the rottweiler thing was a little joke - don't take life so seriously). I proposed on the talk page and waited for replies, why don't you do the same? You are quick to revert to what you claim is "long standing text" in the Gib article, yet here you are quick to change long-standing text. Second, you make a lot of claims yet provide no references. Third, "reliant on the UK only for foreign relations and defence" is not true: what about financial (Montserrat) or legal (Pitcairn) dependence, for example? Our favourite currency, the Gibraltar Pound, is pegged to Sterling. What control does Gibraltar have over interest rates or the value of its currency? None. So in short, no I am not OK with your edit. And we should wait til at least Wiki-Ed and Snowded give their views, not to mention the two editors whose opinion you sought out. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No you were just being your usual self, being deliberately obnoxious and then trying to pass it off a joke. You're not fooling anyone, it was a blatant and obnoxious personal attack and now it would appear you're seeking to move the goal posts. Unsurprisingly you've managed to continue the personal attack with a series of further bad faith accusations. BOT do not have financial or legal dependence on the British Government. They have their own legal systems, just as in fact all former British colonies had an independent judiciary, usually established by letters patent. Some resort to the House of Lords for the final judgement in some legal matters but then so do sovereign states such as Jamaica. They also have independence in forming their own laws; there are significant difference in many areas (for example gun control). Neither are they financially dependent upon the UK but in fact manage their own economies, set taxes, raise revenue; that is what self-government is all about. Your argument about the Gibraltar Pound being pegged to Stirling is entirely specious, many states do not have their own currency or have their currency pegged to a stronger currency. Panama's currency for example is pegged to the US Dollar and has been since independence in 1903. Ecuador, El Salvador and East Timor have also adopted the dollar and former US territories have chosen to retain it after independence. And rather than being quick to revert on Gibraltar, I have a series of pages on my watch list that I vandal patrol and endeavour to keep in line with wiki policies. In fact the principle I usually apply is WP:BRD so I will not be indulging you in the near edit war you were attempting to goad me into (and please don't insult our intelligence by pleading innocence, your tactic of approaching but never crossing 3RR is well known). I will in fact be waiting for the discussion; that was the purpose of inviting it. And before we have your other tactic of accusing editors of WP:CANVAS, we both know that Narson and Pfainuk are of independent mind and come to the party with an open mind prepared to listen to the arguments. Justin talk 01:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is verging on being a very nasty response. Please be civil. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and referring to someone as a Rottweiler is being friendly? But no this is another example of the tactics you employ, you're grossly and gratuitously offensive to raise the temperature then play the innocent. You're fooling no-one. Justin talk 20:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know very well there is NO SUCH CURRENCY as the Gibraltar pound, and this is not the place to discuss delusions. However a large number of countries use common currencies, eg the Euro and it is quite irrelevent to improving the accuracy of this article which is what we are discussing. --Gibnews (talk) 07:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever, Gibnews. Everyone was in disagreement with your peculiar wording on the currency and the article was changed to reflect what the sources say. In my several years of dealing with you (boy, time flies when you are having fun...), I recall you have rubbished, or simply ignored - when they disagreed with you - the CIA, the BBC, the FCO, the ECB, the IMF, a website maintained by your own government, an Act of Parliament, and now it's the UN. Britannica has been "wrong" on many occasions. One is always off to a bad start given the policy of WP:V when one finds oneself rubbishing, instead of putting forth, new sources to further one's argument. Yet you have a proven track record of this. Returning to the B.E., two proposals have been put forward yet you have posted twice and commented on neither. Aside from turning this article and talk page into another political platform ("Gibraltar is not a colony!"), why are you posting here if you are not going to engage? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well you did invite me to look at this article and it needed correction. You think Gibraltar is a colony and you are wrong according to members of the current British Government. The BBC and CIA World Factbook have been glaringly wrong and have readily accepted my corrections on a number of things, as whatever you say, people who live in a particular place are often better informed than foreigners. In the case of the FCO you disagreed with the wording on their website about UK Overseas Territories, and the UN C24 is officially considered worthless. As you have referred to Gibraltar as 'a colony' that displays either ignorance or provocation. --Gibnews (talk) 16:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The existence or lack thereof of the Gibraltar pound is not really relevant to this discussion.
I think the word "rule" is currently misplaced and should probably be removed if a better formulation can be found. Of the two proposals here, I would be quite willing to accept either. I prefer the flow of Justin's version because I think it works better separated into more than one sentence.
I would suggest some improvements to both. On Justin's proposal, there is perhaps an issue of de jure vs. de facto going on with the word "only". In theory, the BOTs only have to rely on the UK for foreign affairs and defence. In practice, several rely on the UK for other things as well - the currency issue, is a fair case in point. All BOT's rely on an outside country (or the EU in the case of the SBAs) for their currency system - either through a peg or by adopting a currency from outside. In some cases this outside country is the UK, in others it's the US or New Zealand. They don't have to do this, but they all do. Perhaps removing the word "only" would allow for this.
I would also remove "Although support for independence among the local population is lacking" and obviously replace "it" in the remainder of the sentence with "independence". I think the implication that there is not enough support for independence is well implied by the fact that these territories are not independent - given that we say that HMG will not stand in the way if they want to become independent.
On Red Hat's proposal, I think it might be better to split this into two sentences (with the full stop after "territories"), and would suggest that it is unlikely that the UK would deny independence on the basis of size to any BOT whose population clearly desired it. I don't like the formulation "remain British" - perhaps something along the lines of "British territory" would be better. Going further, we could also get rid of "collectively named the British overseas territories", and instead start the second sentence with "These have the status of British Overseas Territory..." - after all, we have just said that they are British, we don't really need to say it again. For the record, the issue of independence has gone to referendum in at least one BOT - Bermuda: it was beaten 73%-25% in 1995 and the issue is now dormant.
On the other point, I oppose the idea of singling out Gibraltar for special mention. It's too much detail and is unnecessary. Pfainuk talk 13:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the above comment sounds like a sensible way forward - take out "only" and it reads neutrally. Wiki-Ed (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I presume you mean Justin's proposal, Wiki-Ed? I agree on the remoal of "only", but I am still not comfortable with the neutrality of this wording.
  • How can we write, from the standpoint of a neutral point of view, that they are "self-governing" when the United Nations has them on a list of "Non-Self Governing Territories", for whatever reason that may be? Given that list is all about decolonization, and this article is about the major colonizing power of the last 400 years, how can it be brushed under the carpet?
  • Is Pitcairn self-governing when, according to the BOT article (I'm assuming for the moment it's properly referenced), "(the elected Mayor and Island Council's) decisions are subject to approval by the Governor, who retains near-unlimited powers of plenary legislation on behalf of the United Kingdom Government."
  • What about the Cypriots who live in the military bases on that island? These are not "transient personnel", but again, quoting from the BOT article, "There is no elected government".
The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 15:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also note that the UK is only pressing the UN to remove Gibraltar from the list. [2] (which Spain disagrees with, BTW - another neutrality issue there). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 15:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you read more of your reference you would find: 41. We conclude that Gibraltar's presence on the UN list of Non-Self-Governing Territories is an anachronism. --Gibnews (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are seriously missing the point. I don't deny this. I even said the UK is pressing the UN to remove Gibraltar from the list and provided a reference which supports that, the same reference you are using. My point is that for there to be any "pressing" involved, it means that it is a TWO SIDED ISSUE, and that NPOV dictates BOTH SIDES MUST BE REPRESENTED HERE. The Spanish do not agree with the view of the House of Commons. I realise you hold strong views on the matter, but this is a neutral encyclopaedia and when editing here, you need to remove your "Gibraltar" hat and put on your "unbiased" hat. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 17:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think its you that is missing the point. We are discussing an article about the British Empire, and in that context, its appropriate to mention what has become of it, and how the remaining parts are governed. It varies between territories with Gibraltar having the most modern (2006) constitution and the people of the BIOT being sold out to American interests. Irrelevent foreign irredentist claims are noted in the appropriate places and do not need to be repeated here. Whatever the Spanish think is quite immaterial. In the case of Gibraltar its what HMG and the GoG have agreed on that matters. --Gibnews (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UNINDENT

I am happy to accept Pfainuk's proposal, I haven't seen any convincing argument that negates it.

The proposal on the table is:

"The UK retains sovereignty over 14 territories outside of the British Isles,[176] collectively named the British overseas territories. Some are uninhabited except for transient military or scientific personnel, the remainder are self-governing reliant on the UK for foreign relations and defence. The British Government is committed to providing independence where it is desired." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin_A_Kuntz (talk • contribs)

You know very well that I have raised issues relating to the neutrality of the words "self-governance", and raised two counterexmples (Pitcairn, Cyprus) which blatantly do not have "self-government" which you have not addressed. To emphasise: the military bases in Cyprus are certainly not "uninhabited except for transient scientific or military personnel" yet there is no form of elected government whatsoever for the Cypriots that live there. Also, any reference to "self-government" must mention the UN list, for neutrality's sake. Furthermore, you have provided no reference for the claim "The British Government is....". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 20:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way: "Uninhabited except for transient scientific and military personnel" refers to BIOT, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and the British Antarctic Territory. It would be very odd to label the Cyprus bases "uninhabited", given that there are 7,000 Cypriots living (some farming) there and as many British service personnel. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 20:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...and... "The British Government is committed to providing independence where it is desired" - I wonder what the forcibly migrated residents of BIOT would make of that statement? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 21:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another source indicating that "self-governance" is not a black and white matter - House of Commons 2008 publication "The degree of self-government enjoyed by a Territory depends on its stage of constitutional development. Bermuda has almost full internal self-government...the situation is similar in Gibraltar...By contrast Ascension, Tristan da Cunha and Pitcairn have only advisory Councils, and the Governor is the law-making authority." Also note "Most Overseas Territories' Constitutions also provide for certain reserve powers to protect the UK Government's overall responsibility for the good governance of the OTs. These include...the power to disallow Overseas Territories legislation." The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we need a table showing the level of self=government as it does vary a lot. --Gibnews (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Such a table already exists at British Overseas Territories, which is the right place for it. But I would not be opposed to a similar mention of Bermuda and Gib at one end of the spectrum and Pitcairn at the other, if the varying nature of self-governance is clear. The document I cited would act as the reference for this text. I think the proposed "The British Government is committed to providing independence where it is desired" should be dropped though (unless a reference can be provided for that claim). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And the British Government does not seem to be very committed to providing independence in the case of Gibraltar either: In the Despatch, I will note that, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, Gibraltar's right of self determination is not constrained by the Treaty of Utrecht except in so far as Article X gives Spain the right of refusal should Britain ever renounce Sovereignty. Thus independence would only be an option with Spanish consent.[3]. RedCoat10 • talk 12:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UNINDENT

This is verging on the ridiculous. The current highly inaccurate version is justified on the basis it is only an overview but it is misleading and inaccurate. Change to a more accurate wording and all of the counter arguments are nit picking as to the level of detail about the degree of self-government enjoyed but do not dispute the fact that they are self-governing. The current proposal is accurate enough for an overview.

The revised proposal:

"The UK retains sovereignty over 14 territories outside of the British Isles,[176] collectively named the British overseas territories. Some are uninhabited except for transient military or scientific personnel, the remainder are self-governing to varying degrees reliant on the UK for foreign relations and defence. The British Government is committed to providing independence wherever possible upon request." Justin talk 09:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with the first two sentences, if you add "and" or "and are" - "to varying degrees ...and (are) reliant...". For the third time, I am not OK with the last because you have not provided a reference for that claim. Where did you get that information from? That is a statement of Government policy, and as such it needs a reference. I have never seen such a statment of policy, by the way. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 09:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can provide a cite though it'll take some digging to find it again, its in Hansard during the debate about the possibility of Bermudan independence following the C24 visit. Justin talk 09:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Such a bold, potentially inflammatory policy if it applies to all BOTs (inflammatory to Spain, Argentina), requires more than that, I feel. If such a statement of policy can't be found on any government website or publication then it shouldn't be here. (NB, a mere MP saying that in a debate does not mean that the Government is saying that).... The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 09:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about the British Empire, not pandering to the colonial aspirations of Argentina or Spain to occupy territories where they are demonstrably not welcome. --Gibnews (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See [4], the statement on British policy actually dates back to 1966. In that case it was the Prime Minister stating Government policy. In the reference I was actually thinking off it was a statement of policy by the Foreign Secretary. Justin talk 09:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The cite is 1966, over 30 years ago and is anyway qualified by "and can sustain it". That's not enough to allow that sentence. --Snowded (talk) 09:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I said there was a more modern reference and I needed to find it again. And the sentence I've proposed about is qualified by the statement "where possible" which covers the issue of Gibraltar or the smaller BOT that have limited financial viability. And anyway whatever the age that is a statement on Government policy, one that hasn't changed i.e. its verifiable. Justin talk 10:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, (i) you need a better reference (ii) I don;t see what the sentence adds the article anyway (iii) if added it will require qualification and will be out of proportion in consequence. I suggest taking Red Hats suggested variation. --Snowded (talk) 10:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, the reference of its own is sufficient but I do intend to provide something more modern. What it adds to the article is that the populated BOT have the option for independence and it counters the usual POV charge that they are still colonies retained against the will of the population; i.e. the relation that currently exists is the choice of the population. As a summary it is adequate and it is certainly more accurate than saying they are ruled from London. Justin talk 11:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Unindent) Current policy has not diverged too much from this: [5] and the White Paper it refers to. Although the third claim in Justin’s proposal is verified in the paragraph entitled “Partnership for progress and prosperity”, it is qualified with the words “where this is an option.” However, I don’t think the sentence adds anything to the article and it is speculative. We are talking about the current state of affairs and at the moment the OTs are not independent (administratively, financially, militarily or diplomatically) and have no separate international legal personality from that of the UK. The degree of self-governance is not significant when compared to devolved parts of the UK itself (and even the English regions). If that changes then we can change the article, but to suggest otherwise at the current time is pushing a POV that is not supported by the evidence. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So 2 independent sources verify the proposed edit -> but you oppose the edit because of your opinion and it is your opionion that is not backed up back an appropriate cite. Again my proposed edit is qualified because of the very point you make. So how exactly is what is proposed POV? And again the BOT are independent financially in that they manage their own financial affairs and to varying degrees they have structures in place to administer themselves. The current article states they are ruled; that is inaccurate, misleading and that is POV nor is it supported by a citation. Justin talk 12:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The degree of self-government does vary across BOT's - in the one I live in under the 2006 constitution the Governors reserve powers are abolished. We have a distinct international presence which is only constrained by Spain spending a lot of money and effort, often acting illegally eg threatening UEFA about Gibraltar's application to join. The UK plays no part in our administration, regulation or finance.
I'm happy with Justin's version in principle as it seems to describe things much better than the original wording. --Gibnews (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point about the third sentence is: it's irrelevant. Or it should be unless you're trying to suggest that independence is on the political agenda of each OT... which the sources categorically refute. And while I agree that "ruled" is not the best word to describe the relationships, the opposite is not true either. The attempts to spin the limited autonomy of certain territories (not all) as being in any way equivalent to internationally recognised political and legal independence are specious and in some cases blatantly false. Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is it irrelevant? You assert it but do not explain why,then go off at a tangent completely unrelated to the edit. It is part of establishing the relationship between a BOT and the UK. The comment about self-government is not an attempt at spin, its properly cited, verified and carefully caveated to appraise the reader that the level of autonomy varies. It is not a unique situation many small island communities have autonomy but remain linked to a larger state e.g. the Faroe Islands i.e. its not unique to the UK. I also resent the bad faith assumption in the comment thats its an attempt at spin or is blatantly false. Justin talk 16:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the phrase 'limited autonomy' applies here.
The new Constitution provides for a modem relationship between Gibraltar and the UK. This Constitution does not in any way diminish British sovereignty of Gibraltar, and the UK will retain its full international responsibility for Gibraltar, including for Gibraltar's external relations and defence, and as the Member State responsible for Gibraltar in the European Union. Gibraltar will remain listed as a British Overseas Territory in the British Nationality Act of 1981, as amended by the British Overseas Territory Act 2002. As a separate territory, recognised by the United Nations and included since 1946 in its list of non-self governing territories, Gibraltar enjoys the individual and collective rights accorded by the UN Charter. -- Jack Straw, Foreign Minister.
Although its arguable how much autonomy any member state of the EU has in practice. --Gibnews (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Justin: as far as I can see, noone here is disputing that "under British rule" can be reworded. Therefore, I have done that, per my original proposal, as a stop-gap solution until such time that we all agree on the self-governing wording. The "POV/neutrality" tags are overkill. I'm sure we can all agree that the 14 territories are "British" even if they are not "under British rule", as they are of course named "British Overseas Territories". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging is appropriate when there are no policy or source based objections to my proposed edit, rather the edit is dismissed on the basis of speculation and bad faith accusations of spin and falsehood. I've no objections to your edit provided it is a stop gap. Justin talk 22:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Justin, please relax a little. It's part of the regular argy-bargy ("argument-bargument") of Wikipedia to discuss the merits or otherwise of proposed wording. Wiki-Ed is addressing your argument rather than you personally. Anyway, with regard to this third sentence, I strongly feel that mention of forward-looking government policy is a matter for British Overseas Territory, not this historical article about the British Empire. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of the proposed edit is one thing, bad faith accusations is another, don't patronise me. I disagree that the forward looking policy belongs on the BOT article alone, it warrants at least a single summary sentence here. Justin talk 07:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not the place for a detailed elaboration on the constitution of Gibraltar. We need a short sentence covering a range of "places". I have had my own disagreements with Red Hat in the past, but on this he has my complete support. The addition of tags is petty --Snowded (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For as long as he refers to Gibraltar as a colony and asserts its under British Rule he has no support from me on that. --Gibnews (talk) 08:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually looked at the proposed text? There is no proposal for a detailed elaboration on the Gibraltar constitution and Gibnews has accepted that. Petty? I've yet to see a concrete argument against what I proposed, a lot of innuendo and bad faith accusations, not to mention a spot of petty name calling. And I have come up with an overview, one that is compact and suitably caveated to cover the various nuances. Yet it seems people just want to go down rabbit holes and concentrate on the editor not the edit. Justin talk 09:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop making silly accusations just because you are not getting your own way. There is a torrent of stuff about Gibraltar above by the way. In respect of your proposed text everything from "reliant on ..." is either superfluous in the context of this article or unsupported (the last sentence) --Snowded (talk) 11:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The stuff about Gibraltar has nothing to do with the proposed edit. The last sentence is supported by two cites. I will stop making "silly accusations" when the bad faith attacks stop. I still don't see an argument against it that is anything other than personal opinion. Justin talk 12:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UNINDENT

AGAIN, the proposed edit is:

"The UK retains sovereignty over 14 territories outside of the British Isles, collectively named the British overseas territories. Some are uninhabited except for transient military or scientific personnel, the remainder are self-governing to varying degrees reliant on the UK for foreign relations and defence. The British Government is committed to providing independence wherever possible upon request."

It does not focus on Gibraltar. Justin talk 09:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The justification for the third sentence appears to focus on Gibraltar. It is the only OT which asserts, rightly or wrongly, any kind of independence. The sentence has no applicability to any of the others and no relevance to an article focusing on a historical entity. And Justin you should possibly consider your own words before getting riled when they're thrown back at you. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No it does not, where have I said that. The only comment about Gibraltar is that independence would require some accommodation with Spain due to the Trarty of Utrecht - that the right to independence is caveated. Its an overview of British Government policy toward the independence of BOT; it applies to all BOT. And no it is not the only OT that asserts any kind of independence, Bermuda does, the Falkland Islands do, most do to some degree - that is the point they are not ruled from London. Justin talk 12:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who said you said it? Presumably there are some articles covering the independence movement in Bermuda and the Falkland Islands? Please explain how a statement that briefly mentions how a bid for independence could (not would) be treated favourably is relevant to an article covering the current status of the subject entity. Also please explain why you think an entity which does not manage its own diplomatic or defence arrangements is "self-governing". Wiki-Ed (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are self-governing to varying degrees. Bermuda and Gibraltar exercise almost total self-government, varying throughout the BOT with the Pitcairn Islands having the least amount of self-government. They are self-governing in that they manage internal affairs, raise taxes and revenues and have their own judicial systems.
As regards the final sentence it is a statement of the current British Government policy, the policy being "would" not "could" providing it is possible. Again this is supposedly a summary covering all the BOT so the language is deliberately caveated but it is certainly more accurate than previously when it simply said they were ruled.
As far as diplomatic relations goes, the British Government consults all BOT on any diplomatic matters and they are usually included in any negotiations. As regards defence many are too small to effectively defend themselves.
However, given that my edit is in fact suitably supported by citations, the onus is actually upon you to build a counter argument as to why this information should not be included or to suggest a better alternative. That is the way consensus building is supposed to work; so far all I've seen is me putting forward suggestions with no alternatives put forward other than I don't like that. Justin talk 15:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reread what you just wrote here: "...the policy being "would" not "could" providing it is possible". You contradict yourself. If independence is not an option then it would not happen, therefore it is dependent on it being possible, therefore the correct word is "could". Since the word "could" is speculative the assertion is speculative and therefore does not belong here, as per WP:BALL. In fact the only reason I can see for using it is because it might support the contention that the OT are self-governing, whereas they do not exert control over the most significant determinants of self-government at all. Your interpretation of diplomatic and military control is OR. Also, your edit is not supported by the citations - you selectively quoted the FCO source and missed out the bit that qualified the statement you were relying on; the same qualification undermines your argument.
As to suggestions: As already discussed, the paragraph would be accurate with the first two lines in place. The third line suggests some trend towards independence which is misleading and inaccurate. I believe this is tendentious editing and the sentence should be removed. Wiki-Ed (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have the read the sentence you're disputing "The British Government is committed to providing independence wherever possible upon request. It is a statement that encompasses the commitment the British Government has made, it is caveated that it is limited by practicality and that the BOT has to request it. The most recent example, the referenda in Bermuda decided against it. So I have in fact not missed out the bit you accuse me of. So what exactly is the issue???? I'm non-plussed why you claim one thing, when what is right in front of you obviously says something different???
No are my comments OR - I haven't put them in the article or attempted to - I was answering your question. Were I to do so I can supply citations to support my comments about the level of self-government and the consultations that the British Government undertakes in consulting BOT on diplomatic and defence matters. I could also have added that the BOT currently represent themselves in the UN in matters relating the UN decolonisation committee as the UK no longer bothers to attend - i.e. their own diplomatic representation.
What is OR is your assessment of what self-government means, particularly when you have already agreed to the suggestion in the first two parapgraphs.
Play semantic games if you want, the policy is to grant independence on request, a request in the case of most BOT would be a fait accompli. Its limited in the case of Gibraltar by the Treaty of Utrecht, in the case of the Falkland Islands by the fact that the second the British withdrew the Argentine Army, Navy and Air Force would come trampling all over them. There is some trend toward independence in some BOT, I would guess Bermuda can't be far away. However, the sentence is there to provide a summary of the official position of the British Government not to go into the nuances of every possible variation. Justin talk 17:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reference you inserted relating to current UK government policy contains the following paragraph (4th from top):
In conducting the Review, we asked the territories about their links with the UK. And in particular, we asked whether people in the territories wanted to retain the link. All of them said they wished to keep their constitutional ties with Britain. It is a bond that Britain values highly. None of the territories said they wanted independence. If they had, or ever do, we would willingly grant it, where this is an option. In the meantime, as the White Paper makes clear, Britain remains committed to the territories, to their defence and security, to upholding their international interests and promoting their sustainable development.[6]
You missed out the "where this is an option" element which is, admittedly, semantics on the part of the author, but which clearly indicates that the issue is speculative and not pre-determined. It also indicates who pulls the strings. (NB, as an aside, when OTs represent themselves in international forums it is because the Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs has given them permission to do so.) The official position of the British government is not quite what you think it is, hence the sentence you want to include is overly simplistic and therefore misleading. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again I refer you to my caveat, what exactly is wrong with it? I've caveated because of the point you raise. The point is made because in some respects, eg Gibraltar, independence would be complicated by other matters, eg Treaty of Utrecht. Its not a case of the UK Government pulling the strings, its more a matter of things not being that simple. And the sentence is neither overly simplistic or misleading. Justin talk 21:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


UNINDENT

As no policy based objections or citation based objections have been raised for some time, I have simply put the edit in the article. I will self-revert if I get a valid reason other than personal opinions. Justin talk 13:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've inserted the wording Red Hat suggested so it reads correctly and accurately. I've also removed the material that is not relevant to this article as per WP:BALL. I like how you only quoted part of the source; Funny that. Please try to get consensus. Verifiability does not mean the information is relevant and, indeed, by including it the article is no longer neutral. Wiki-Ed (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never had a problem with that suggestion so there is no problem. I've partially reverted you, WP:BALL is not relevant, it is the current stated policy of the British Government; i.e. there is no speculation. If you feel the citation could be improved, I would welcome a suggestion - again there is an implicit bad faith assumption in your response. Neither is the article veering toward a particular POV, it is neutral, it is stating cited facts. The information is relevant to the status of BOT and is properly cited. Unless you can come up with a valid policy based argument as to why the information should be excluded then it should stay IMHO. Not one single reason has been put forward to exclude it, other than WP:IDONTLIKE. Justin talk 15:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steady on here, Justin - why are you in such a hurry about this when this wording has been here for donkeys years? First off, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a silly accusation, because WP:ILIKEIT can be levelled right back at you. And if you read the page, it doesn't even refer to situations like this. Secondly, just because something does not violate a policy and just because it is cited does not mean it is worthy of inclusion (I can go around sticking "The surface of the sun is hot" into every article - if referenced, what policy does that violate?). Now, with regard to the sentence in question, it has the following problems:

  • One reference is from the 1960s. The 1960s. I mean, come on: how many changes of Government has the UK had since then, and changes of policy? It's ridiculous to use something from 1966 as a statement of current government policy. It wasn't even certain that Hong Kong would be returned to China back then. Whatever happens, that reference is unusable.
  • The other reference is from 1999, I think? That was ten years ago, and the UK has had two general elections since then. If you cannot find a modern reference, the best we can verifiably say is that "in 1999, Baroness Symons, Under-Secretary of State, stated that..."
  • The wording is misrepresentative of what the 1999 source says. The source says - "If they had, or ever do, we would willingly grant it, where this is an option." You have written "The British government is committed to". The two are not the same. Being "committed" to something is a stronger statement than what the Baroness said.

Please, Justin, do not place this sentence back into the article until we have reached a consensus here. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall that someone once edited wikipedia as a joke to implicate a well known figure in the assassination of President Kennedy and that error persisted for some time. What does the age of the text on wikipedia matter, when the edit proposed is supporting by two cites; it passes WP:V.
Arguing over the age of the cites is also specious, Government policy has been consistent since the '60s; to get rid of the remnants of Empire. And the Government has not changed since 1999, we're still with a Labour Government.
Your example it utterly specious, it is in no way shape or form germane to the example to hand. The sentence reflects the stated policy of HMG not some childish bit of vandalism.
The only relevant critism you have actually levelled is that perhaps committed to is too strong a word for the cite supplied. When I wrote that I had the Bermuda debate in mind and that was a paraphrase of the statement there. So if I search Hansard and find that phrase can I have the word committed? I would happily change committed to willingly if that is acceptable. What I actually resent is that rather than putting forward suggestions for a compromise edit to summarise the policy of HMG all I have seen is negative criticism with no attempt to move things forward. WP:IDONTLIKE is a perfectly valid criticism when there has been no counter suggestions. Justin talk 22:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I changed the 1999 reference to the 2008 HoC report [7] as this is more recent, it is a better reference (a written publication rather than a speech) and also supports the "varying degree of self-government" phrase. This still leaves the question of what to do about the (currently removed) sentence sourced using the 1999 Symons speech. However, this reference may also help. On page 153, it quotes from the 1999 white paper: "Britain's policy towards the Overseas Territories rests on the basis that it is the citizens of each territory who determine whether they wish to stay linked to Britain or not. We have no intention of imposing independence against the will of the peoples concerned. But the established policy of successive British governments has been to give every help and encouragement to those territories which wished to proceed to independence, where it is an option." Therefore I propose for this third sentence: "The British government has stated its willingness to assist any Overseas Territory that wishes to proceed to independence, where that is an option." How does that strike everyone? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its longer than I feel is necessary but I am happy enough about it. Justin talk 23:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the article. Hopefully the wording is OK for Snowded and Wiki-Ed. And the Man from Gibraltar. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I've probably made fairly clear, I don't think the sentence is entirely necessary, but it seems like a fair compromise to me - the emphasis sits in the right place (i.e. it allows the reader to decide what it means, as per WP:NPOV). Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest it reads: "The British government has stated its willingness to assist any Overseas Territory that wishes to proceed to independence, where it is viable". That is shorter and avoids any suggestion that independence is otherwise constrained. --Gibnews (talk) 08:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Viable sounds better than option yes. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have two problems with that wording. First, "option" is the word which the Govt uses: in the 1999 white paper, in the 1999 speech, and in this 2008 document I used as a ref which quotes the white paper verbatim. Second, semantics: "viable" carries the connotation of "physically able to go it alone" (e.g. you might say it is not "viable" for Pitcairn to survive as an independent nation, with a population of 46 miles away from anywhere.) "Option" means something different. It carries the connotation of it being a matter of someone's choice, and I cannot help but think of Gibraltar's situation, where it cannot become independent without Spain's approval. My own take on these two words, therefore, is that Gibraltar's independence is viable but not presently an option. Bermuda's is both viable and an option. Pitcairn's is an option but not viable. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 09:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Redhat. Better to quote it verbatim. I am pretty certain the word was chosen very carefully, probably for the very reasons he suggests. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RH is talking absolute nonsense about Gibraltar needing Spain's approval this is not the place to argue on behalf of Spain's unfounded irrendentist claims, although RH illogically supports Spain for his own reasons, legally Spain has no say on Gibraltar's future. --Gibnews (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong feeling either way but on balance feel it is better to go with the wording from the source. Justin talk 10:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW is there any reason we don't have a wikilink to the main BOT article? Justin talk 10:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"where that is an option". This strikes me as ambiguous. An option of the British government? Or an option in real life? If it's the latter, it's incorrect. Because the British government does not endorse independence insofar as Gibraltar is concerned, despite it being legally possible pursuant to the UN Charter (by virtue of Article 73, Article 103 annuls the Treaty of Utrecht's reversionary clause). In other words, the sentence promotes the British/Spanish government's position that an independent Gibraltar would require Spain's consent, whereas in reality, none is needed. --RedCoat10 • talk 18:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't dispute your interpretation of the matter and in many ways I agree. The problem with WP:V is you would need an external source to state that. Justin talk 20:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. The following references make Gibraltar's position quite clear [8] [9] (search for the word 'independence'). I don't think the legal technicalities are necessary at this stage, at least not in this article, but correct me if I'm wrong and I'll happily ferret out a citation. RedCoat10 • talk 20:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"where there is an option" is indeed ambiguous, but you didn't quote the full sentence. "The British government has stated its willingness to assist any Overseas Territory that wishes to proceed to independence, where that is an option." "...where that is an option" is the exact wording used, on at least three separate occasions over the last decade, by the British government. It is the British government that is being ambiguous, not us. Does it refer to Gibraltar? We don't know. This wording should probably be enclosed in quotation marks, but we should certainly not be trying to rephrase the Government's position based on personal interpretations of what we think is meant by "where it is an option". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the quote should be italicised and in parantheses to emphasise that point. Justin talk 07:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[unindent]The British Government position is subsidiary to the wishes of the peoples of the territories, and international law. I recall HMG at one time said it was impossible for Gibraltar to vote in EU elections, after the case went to the ECHR the impossible happened. --Gibnews (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is your point in relation to the article? Justin: if we all agree it should be quoted, then quotation marks should suffice. To italicize would add unwarranted emphasis (unwarranted because it's not in the quoted source). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, if no one is objecting thats what I'll do. I think Gibnews' point is that there are serious legal objections to the UK Government's position that permission from Spain should be sought. Personally I doubt they belong on the overview article of the British Empire and are perhaps better suited to the BOT article. Though they may fall foul of WP:BALL as it involves a certain amount of speculation as to what would happen IF Gibraltar decided to opt for independence. Justin talk 09:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

I was just trying to check out the citations, and I noticed that among other things, it's quite confusing to have "Ferguson 2004" as a reference when both Colossus and Empire have publication dates of 2004. Can I be so bold as to suggest a complete overhaul to the Chicago format? I'd be willing to take it on myself. Then, instead of "Ferguson 2004," the citations would be either:

32. Ferguson, Empire, 238. or: 56. Ferguson, Colossus, 112.

With the first instances of these being full format; i.e.:

2. Niall Ferguson, Empire: The Rise and Demise of British World Order and Lessons for Global Power (New York: Perseus, 2004), 38.

Thoughts? --Grahamdubya (talk) 02:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what the issue is, as if you click on any footnote it then jumps to and highlights the reference it refers to? Furthermore, "Ferguson 2004" is merely what the link embedded in the text says. We can rename it to whatever we like. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 09:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Map

Hi there. Some islands around Papua New Guinea are grey, should they be? Also, according to the Bay Islands' (Honduras) article they were British until 1860. If this is correct they should also be coloured. Many Thanks. Jambo-numba1 (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Gambia should be labeled "The Gambia" Jambo-numba1 (talk) 12:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"British Isles"

  • The term "British Isles" is a geographical one, and despite its contentious nature in Ireland, it is not contentious elsewhere. 40+ million hits on Google, 1+ million hits on Google books, 2000 hits in books with the title "British Empire"
  • Despite the policies of certain map makers and the Irish government (and whoever else), there is no policy at Wikipedia stating that any mention of "British Isles" should be erased.
  • "Outside the United Kingdom" is incorrect in this section, because the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are not a part of the UK, yet the UK retains sovereignty over them.
  • Like all other word changes here, both Dunlavin Green and Snowded should take it to talk before making changes so consensus can be agreed upon.

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 17:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both British Isles and the United Kingdom are both wrong, hence my amendment to simply say that the UK (in this case correct) has 14 overseas dominions. Unless you are claiming that the IoM and Channel Islands also own those territories the phrase is accurate. I'm going to put it back in place as its a sensible amendment, it does not assert any political point and just tidies things up. The sort of edit you make all the time without discussion (and you are right to do so). --Snowded (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not when it's a contentious change, I don't. If you look at the edit history, two editors have reverted this change (myself and GoodDay). Also, your version does not read better at all. "British", being the adjectival form for UK/Britain, is redundant in your sentence, "The UK retains sovereignty over British overseas territories". Plus you have not explained how the British Isles is the "wrong" term to use. (I have no response to your suggestion that the wording implied the IoM and CI also own these territories: the grammar does not imply that in the slightest). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 19:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see anyway in which it is contentious to remove BI and UK. They are officially called British Overseas Territories, there are 14 of them, the UK owns them. There is no reason to say "outside of" unless its some game of the BI term and I am fed up to the back teeth of both sides in that nonsensical debate. Its a Geographical term which should not be used in the modern age to describe a political entity. --Snowded (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like your change RedHat, reads well and avoids contentious terms. --Snowded (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. It is not accurate and it does not read well. The UK retains sovereignty over 14 territories outside its waters, which since 2002 have been named the British Overseas Territories. First point: "since 2002" should come at the end of the sentence. It would "read well" then. Second point: "outside its waters" are weasel words and also illogical. If the UK retains sovereignty then the waters around those territories (up to two miles) are also under the sovereignty of the UK. Therefore the BOT are not "outside its waters". The alternative might be to say: The UK retains sovereignty over 14 other territories, which have been named the British Overseas Territories since 2002. However, this could cause confusion with the Crown Dependencies. Since the BOT are geographically outside of the British Isles - as well understood and frequently used geographical term - I see no reason not to use this to describe the location of a political entity. If we start pandering to the whims of the minority there is no reason to think they wouldn't start campaigning to rename this whole article to something that didn't offend their sensibilities. I can see it now, a nonsensical debate over "former territories of the large island off the NW coast of Europe" versus "territories formely owned by the largest country in the large island off the NW coast of Europe". Let's not go down that road. It should stay as it was. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recall there's an agreement that removal or addition of the term "British Isles" should not take place. This followed a concerted campaign to remove the term from as many articles as possible. The term should not have been changed here without prior discussion and agreement at the talk page. LemonMonday Talk 11:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know of no agreement to actively remove it, which is reason enough not to, but if there is an actual agreement not to remove it then that settles it. Do you have the link to it? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's now been archived. It stemmed from a long-running dispute between User:HighKing and User:TharkunColl. The best I can do is to find a diff [10] from HighKing's edit history. You may be able to get to the actual archive from this diff, but I don't know how to do that. LemonMonday Talk 11:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the change to say when they became BOTs, but i agree with Wiki that saying outside the UKs waters is incorrect. The British Isles is a geographical term, even wikipedia says this despite some people seeking to undermine it, theres no valid reason why we shouldnt say outside the British Isles in this case. It is clearly accurate and correct but i wouldnt object if a different way of mentioning them can be found, but the current wording seems problematic. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I much preferred the succinct original wording with "British Isles" and completely agree with Wiki-Ed about pandering to the minority. Whatever the minority says, the term is simply geographical. It is preposterous to think otherwise, both in its general usage in the English language, and here on this page, where the independence of Ireland was discussed further up and there is clearly no intent to suggest that the state of Ireland is still British. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does silence mean that people are happy with the addition of the word "home" to "UK's waters"? I still vote for putting back "British Isles", given the highlighting of this prior attempt to erase B.I. from Wikipedia. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know the in-article context of this dispute, but just to note it's not just Isle of Man and the Channel Islands which are not part of the UK within the British Isles; there are also lesser ones which are private fiefs to this day, i.e. not part of the UK as such; I think Lundy is one, but can't recall - they're accounted for in Sybil Leek's A Ring of Magic Islands book (her son did the photos, David I think), which explores the lesser "ring" of smaller islands around Britain...Skookum1 (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not true - although these islands are owned by individuals, some of whom may claim sovereignty, those claims are not widely recognised - certainly not by the UK government - and islands like Lundy are certainly within the UK. Lundy is administered as part of Torridge District Council, for example. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for my intrusion/stupidity but how about saying that the UK or Britain (take your choice) still has fourteen Overseas territories around the world. This gets round part of the argument abot location etc.Willski72 (talk) 08:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, there is no reason to include "British Isles" in this at all, it adds nothing. The term is contentious, but I and others have argued the article on it should stay as it is a valid geographical term. Part of that argument has been that uses which are political, harking back to days where it was also a de facto political term are inappropriate. --Snowded (talk) 08:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis are you suggesting that its usage here was ever political? Are you seriously suggesting that it was used to suggest that the state of Ireland is still British? Are you suggesting that the British Isles article should be an orphan because all other mention of it in Wikipedia should be expunged? If so, where is the consensus at Wikipedia that this is the policy? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 09:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? Lets make this simple (i) using "British Isles" here adds nothing and no arguments have been advanced to say that it does (ii) I have defended the continued use of British Isles as a term where appropriate, and the existence of the article so words like "expunge" and "orphan" might apply to some editors but its not my position. My view is that attempts to remove the term on political grounds are wrong, but equally attempts to use it to make the opposing political point are also wrong. There is far too much argument about it all together. So where it adds nothing (and could be misinterpreted) get rid of it, where it adds something use it. Here Willski72 has it dead right. --Snowded (talk) 09:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't patronise me by using language such as "let's make this simple": that really does add nothing and is just condescending. To address both your points: (1) it is the only geographical term that covers the UK plus all of the surrounding crown dependencies and therefore what it adds is succinctness (2) again, you seem to be suggesting that the intent of its usage here is to make "the opposing political point", which is nonsense. You also appear to be dictating a policy to others here about the term, a term which has many millions of hits both on the web and in books, and which is even used in a 2008 House of Commons report on the BOTs [11] "Bermuda's bicameral Parliament, which first met in 1620, is the oldest legislature in the Commonwealth outside the British Isles". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if you thought it was patronising, that was not the intent, more a desire to get away from what seems an unnecessary debate. In the world of wiki there is a fight that I want no part of between a small number of editors who love to insert BI in articles and those who love to remove it and also get rid of the article that describes it use. The article has been the subject of multiple edit wars which are ongoing. In the context of this article the use of the term in the sentence concerned its use is unnecessary. The sentence needs to say that the UK still has 14 possessions. --Snowded TALK 04:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both here and on Talk:British Isles, you, User:Snowded, express disinterest in anything related to this subject, yet have engaged in reverting to your preferred version. Either one way or the other, but this trollish preference to speak out of both sides of your mouth at once. Chance there may also be sockpuppets at work, with that kind of dedication? I see you are wiki-lawyering, but don't want to be taken to task for inaccurate application of the rules in return. See here for more personal attacks: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Catterick&diff=cur Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 05:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey everyone why dont we just say that the UK has 14 overseas territories around the world OR the UK has 14 overseas territories, some of which are as far as x thousand miles away. Just my way round this argument that seems to be really heating up!Willski72 (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok with me --Snowded TALK 08:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that reads clumsiliy, and again, the current wording is much more succicnt. Also, "British Isles" was in the article for quite a while. Why is it suddenly such a problem? Because Dunlavin Green suddenly decided to remove it. But Snowded, you have been active at this article for a long time, so why is this such a big issue for you? I have to agree with the editor above that you are trying to appear neutral and yet are clearly partisan at the same time. (Though the sockpuppet and wikilawyering talk is nonsense). Either way, you don't have consensus for this change here at the talk page: four editors in total have now reverted the change. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 09:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to avoid needless conflict RedHat and you should have a look at the edit history of those who are reverting and you will see that you are being swept up in other conflicts without need. Willski72 has come up with a compromise and I'd suggest that is more succinct and also appropriate - maybe try and improve that? If we can't get agreement then we can layout some options and invite wider participation. --Snowded TALK 09:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a campaign by certain editors to remove "British Isles" from the history books because they dont like it. There is no reason at all not to say British Isles except for an attempt to appease certain people. Its clearly used in a geographical sense in this sentence and not a political one. I oppose the suggested change to the sentence, the current wording is accurate and clear. It is also the wording that existed when this article was promoted to featured status. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and (sigh) there is also a campaign by other editors to insert it even when it adds no value. I see the usual suspects are now assuming their usual positions ...--Snowded TALK 10:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no campaign by some editors, "British Isles" was added many months ago and clearly you didnt notice it before or have a problem with it either. People know what British Isles means, its a geographical term like Europe which gets used all the time.. i hear the BBC say it every day. This really isnt some kind of plot to say British Isles as many times as possible, its only mentioned ONCE in the article where it helps to explain that overseas territories are outside of the British Isles unlike the Crown dependencies. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on BW, Tharky's had a couple of blocks for edit warring over it and there are several others. The point is that the overseas territories are overseas, that's enough, the political context of an article on Empire alone argues for being more careful. --Snowded TALK 10:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No im sorry Snowded but the British Isles appears to of been in this article for 2 years, it clearly wasnt added on its own as a political move by anyone. All of a sudden its a problem and must be changed, that comes at the same time as people start changing titles or attempting to change titles on other articles as well. Its clear which side is on some form of campaign, im not speaking about individuals but in this case the mention of British Isles clearly was an innocent and reasonable edit, not a political one. The political edits are those seeking to remove it from the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't said it was added into this article as a political move BW, my point was that the delete/insert war has proponents on both sides over many articles and they have now landed here. Now it has been raised its a matter of deciding if its appropriate and it if could be misinterpreted. Looking at it I think it could me and there is a perfectly reasonable way of making the same point. --Snowded TALK 10:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
British Isles has been in the same sentence for two years in this article, i see no reason to change it all of a sudden and i have certainly yet to hear a better alternative. The Home waters bit was far more confusing than British Isles and clearly incorrect. I still have yet to hear the problem with using British Isles apart from some people dont like it.
This is just the same as saying something like outside of Europe or outside of North America. British Isles is a geographic term, almost every source for the British Isles in recent years is when talking about geography the same way wed talk about Europe and the sentence in this article clearly uses it in the same way. Theres no reason for change. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please everyone calm down! Why dont we put "The overseas territories are outside not only the UK but also the British Isles and should therefore not be mistaken with the Crown Dependencies".Willski72 (talk) 10:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, using "home waters" is not only weasel-wording, it is also just plain wrong. The map here [12] makes it clear that neither the Channel Islands, nor even the Isle of Man, are part of the UK's territorial waters. ðarkuncoll 11:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this weasel-wording obscures the whole implicit relationship between "British Isles" and "British Empire". Imagine the immense breadth of the Royal Navy's claims at one time, when "home waters" meant all about the British Isles, but this was the convention even before Henry II took Ireland. I think it would be more untrue or inflammatory, to state that imperial possessions around the world, were also "home waters", for that could only be honourary status. Anyways, "home waters" is something shared geographically in common, whether or not a country shares the same government. It is not about governmental possession, but as some countries share mountains, rivers, glaciers and deserts, they even also share pollution and climate. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 01:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the map but what about the Channel Islands? Are they within French Waters?Willski72 (talk) 11:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are no doubt surrounded by French waters, but have their own territorial waters. The Isle of Man also has its own waters, but in this case surrounded by UK waters. Since neither the Channel Islands nor the Isle of Man are part of the UK, their territorial waters are not included within the UK's. ðarkuncoll 14:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just for peoples reference, British isles was included in the first edit which added a legacy section to this article by the same editor who has contributed alot to the page, so clearly it wasnt added for political reasons by someone on a campaign to just mention BI everywhere. The edit took place on the 10th of March 2007, so well over two years ago but it has now only just become a problem for some people? Again there is no need for change.[13] BritishWatcher (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that would make sense, thanks for putting my mind at rest!Willski72 (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Life moves on and there have been many changes to the article since 21st May 2007 and most of the editors involved in this discussion have been engaged on similar discussions elsewhere. In this article there is no need to make any reference geographical or otherwise when all that is needed is to say that Britain has overseas territories. Home Waters was never a good phrase (I think it came from Patrick). At the moment I think it best that this discussion is suspended while the lede of British Isles is sorted out. I think there then needs to a be a protocol about when the phrase is used and when it isn't to try and create some objectivity. This article can be one of the test cases for that. --Snowded TALK 05:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fair enough. If the community at Wikipedia decides that British Isles should no longer be in general usage, like National Geographic did, so be it. Until such time though.... ps it's not Patrick it's the The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So in other words, you're trying to politicise it? The term British Isles, like any other term, should be used wherever it happens to be the best, clearest, and most succicnt way of conveying the information required. As here. ðarkuncoll 07:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All terms with the legacy of British Isles have political aspects Tharky and your playing the innocent brightened up an otherwise dull morning of report writing. Having to put up with edit wars between your form of extremism and that of the republic opposition is mind numbing at times. You resisted the mediated consensus on the article's lede as I remember it. There is a need for a protocol so the usual suspects don't turn up on multiple articles fighting the same battles disguised in different language. --Snowded TALK 07:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If by "extremism" you mean a passionate belief in freedom of speech, and a desire to avoid politicising the language in order to assuage the views of a tiny, vocal minority, then I plead guilty. If not, please consider withdrawing the remark. ðarkuncoll 08:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, and No Tharky --Snowded TALK 08:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Come on guys, take it elsewhere please. You are no longer discussing the British Empire article. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ashamed to admit, this is entertaining stuff. GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wooden Spoon out again Goodday? --Snowded TALK 16:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is one occasion where the use of British Isles is incorrect. To say the UK retains sovereignty over 14 territories outside the British Isles implies the UK has sovereignty over the British Isles. Better to leave it out all together and reword something like: The UK retains sovereignty over 14 British Overseas Territories and 3 Crown Dependencies... --Bill Reid | (talk) 16:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It implies no such thing. It would be just like saying "The UK retains sovereignty over 14 territories outside Europe" - which, if it were true, would be an equally valid equivalent. However, since it isn't true (i.e. Gibraltar), British Isles is the only correct way of putting it, and it neatly removes the need to mention the Crown Dependencies, which, being feudal in origin, were never colonies and predate the British Empire by centuries - and technically speaking it's the Crown itself that has sovereignty over these, not the UK (though the Crown delegates to the UK parliament powers to legislate for them in certain restricted areas). Because, however, the point is arguable, mentioning them in this context simply confuses the issue. ðarkuncoll 17:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bill, the use of "British Isles" is to establish a relative point of view, such as distinguishing local and distant areas in which the UK retains sovereignty. It is the same as has always been done. In some sense, the same convention was used in describing the difference between the Monarchy's rule over British islands and places like France, Holland or Hanover. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well Bill read it the same way I did when it was highlighted. So at the very least the meaning is ambiguous. This is a minor sentence in the article and we have:
Current: The UK retains sovereignty over 14 territories outside the British Isles, which in 2002 were renamed the British Overseas Territories
Proposed: The UK retains sovereignty over 14 British Overseas Territories and then a note reference to the new name in 2002.
The trouble with that is that it takes no account of the Crown Dependencies. Specifying that these 14 Overseas Territories are outside the British Isles solves this problem neatly and precisely. ðarkuncoll 23:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, because there is a vast difference between the Norman and Manx, with the rest of those islands held by the Crown, regardless of the fact that they are all under the same umbrella. There is much sense in them being categorised separately. It's not just a matter of near vs far. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 23:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not the second is shorter, avoids ambiguity and misinterpretation. Aside from the British Isles issue, its a neater phrase anyway. --Snowded TALK 18:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why, having proposed a sensible way forward given the lack of consensus here (resolve matters at the BI article, attempt to build a community decision regarding the term potentially using this page as one of the test cases) are you now regurgitating your proposal which you have already tried to insert into the article? There is no consensus to remove the term from the article which as BW pointed out has lived here happily for over two years and which was there during the FA review. It's odd that an editor who protests so much about how they are "fed up" with this whole debate is at the same time so persistent in their attempts to have an article changed in accordance with the wishes of the vocal minority! You can't have your cake and eat it you know. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 20:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pat, this type of behaviour is in conjunction to claiming that it is the "evil British imperialists" shoving their own POV down Irish throats. In fact, there has been nobody here, whatsoever, going on about how the Irish should not be considered equal enough to be in partnership with the English and Scottish use of the term "British Isles". I sense more of the "union of hearts" proposal by Charles Lennox, 3rd Duke of Richmond, coming from "British" here, with respect to Ireland. It's as though an open hand is twisted by insinuation, into a fist, but the only fists in these articles are coming from the "Irish". These "Irish" make excuses for their own personal attacks, because of the Troubles and Famine, etc, etc. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought better of you RedHat. Catterick is up to his usual tricks of putting a phrase (evil British imperialists) in quotes when its not a phrase I have ever used, or would use. I am fed up of the debate because it is never held on the facts, but ends up as some editors wanting the phrase removed at all costs, and others insisting on its retention because they have some conspiracy theory about Irish nationalist editors. I may be fed up with it, but I am going to persist in trying to get a reasonable middle way approach in which the term is used properly, and removed when it is inappropriate or wrong. I had more or less given up but then Bill provided a neat summary of the reasons why it was inappropriate and I reinforced it. I thought you at least would engage with the argument not the people. Its also misleading to say there is a consensus, its actually 3:3 at the moment. I also don't think you can argue that something stays simply because it was there during the FA review, if so a lot of your subsequent edits should go to. We have found a minor issue, where there is a possibility of misinterpretation and a controversial phrase is not actually necessary. Now I don;t expect Catterick or Tharky to address content issues in this respect, they have a political position and will pursue it. I did however think, and still hope that after your initial reaction you would/will reflect on the facts and respond accordingly. --Snowded TALK 07:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Snowded. The use of British Isles in this context is inappropriate. This part of the article is about the here and now, the residue of Empire. To link in the mind of the uninformed reader that the British Isles (composed of 2 states independent of each other - one of which is not even in the Commonwealth) is somehow part of the left-overs of empire is wrong and should be avoided by re-wording. --Bill Reid | (talk) 07:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You two, e.g. Bill and Snowded, are reading between the lines a propaganda that is not there. Ireland would be "British", whether or not England and Scotland united into "Britain" and for nothing but geography, for even though the name "UK of GB & IE" separates the two entities, the simple fact is that Albion and Erin are both British. Misuse of terminology by government and editors here is not at all surprising. If Snowded wants exact quotes of the flamebait vitriol with which "British" editors have been abused by "Irish" editors, thus eliciting angry and "ignorant, establishmentarian" responses, then he has but to examine these page histories and those of involved editors, which he will not do, glossing over those activists with whom he agrees, even as I have taken initiative to dissuade MidnightBlueMan and TharkunColl from making errors in either judgment, or historical accuracy. Of course, this is just trolling on Snowded's part, because I did not mention him, or answer his recent innuendos about "my stability", yet he is successful in drawing me out here for a response, albeit without the level of satisfaction he wishes, that is, to get me to lose my cool. Many editors here, whether "British" or "Irish", do have untrue political conceptions of the name, which do not align properly with history, but are popular and sensationalist misrepresentations, to further their agendas here. My only task, was to show how both are wrong and need to come to terms with it. Just because there are two types of definitions for the term "British", geographical and political, doesn't mean that we have to decide on one or another for Wikipedia on the whole, but only per specific and relevant articles, in proper context. Obviously, those who are just here for a fight, will remove and add all the stuff which translates as internet argument ammunition, called an edit war here on Wikipedia. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 07:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both the wordings that I've seen here are ungrammatical. Currently:"The UK retains sovereignty over 14 territories outside the British Isles, which in 2002 were renamed the British Overseas Territories." The wording of that suggests that it was the British Isles which were renamed BOTs. Obvious nonsense, but poor wording. How about: ""The UK retains sovereignty over 14 territories in other parts of the world. In 2002 these were renamed the British Overseas Territories." Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definite improvement, happy with that --Snowded TALK 07:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. Bill Reid | (talk) 08:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to it too.MITH 08:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree to it. The grammar and the usage or non-usage of the term "British Isles" are separate issues. A problem regarding the former can be fixed without removing the latter, and it's a bit sneaky to suggest otherwise. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you don't agree but you are not addressing the issue, that the use of the term is misleading and there is a perfectly good alternative--Snowded TALK 10:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Red Hat, that you lot are the ones misleading on purpose. It's a "red herring", "wool over our eyes" intention to eliminate what their activist groupthink is telling them, through some tin foil cap. A poor choice of words by me, probably punned. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 10:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Other parts of the world" is just weasel-wording, and not specific enough - the Channel Islands, being closer to France than the UK, could easily be described as being in another part of the world. Also the point above about the phrase being ungrammatical is also incorrect. The 14 territories are mentioned first and are therefore the main clause in the sentence. British Isles is both precise and correct - those 14 territories are outside the British Isles, which is exactly the point being made. ðarkuncoll 10:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know Tharky, that the CI are only a closer version of the British Isles in general, that being a European archipelago off of the French coast. Get used to it. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 10:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Get used to it? I'm not sure I follow your meaning. I'm perfectly well aware that the Channel Islands are a small group of islands off the French coast, and that the British Isles are a larger group of islands off the French coast. ðarkuncoll 10:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tharky, that's all right. Please forgive me if I claimed you were going on a tirade about the closeness of geography, but absolute social disparity with France. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Catterick: please stop posting irrelevant comments on this page and TharkunColl please don't encourage him by replying to them. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant? Why not attend Snowded for dragging his arse from BI to here, solely to cause trouble with the naming convention? I have merely echoed sentiments. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No-one has suggested any need for the words "British Isles" to be in that sentence, and I suggest that no such need exists. The term "other parts of the world" is not precise, but would be clear to the majority of readers worldwide - if anyone can suggest a better wording that would be more likely to achieve a broad consensus, please do so. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The term British Isles conveys precisely the meaning intended. ðarkuncoll 10:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
..were it not for the fact that there is comprehensive and conclusive evidence, on this and other pages, that it does not convey the meaning intended. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comprehensive evidence like Encarta and Britannica? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gmyhrtle, if you are going to join in a debate, please do everyone else the service of reading their arguments first before making pronouncements about what they have or have not said. I have already stated multiple times that it is the only term which succinctly distinguishes the BOTs from the Crown Dependencies. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And, as BW pointed out, if Gibraltar and the bases in Cyprus did not exist, we would be saying "outside Europe" and noone would even think of suggesting that we were claiming the UK had sovereignty over the whole of Europe. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please, WP:CIVIL - and don't suggest which debates I should or should not contribute to. I'll be back the next time I think I can contribute something positive. But not before then. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's very big of you and so...ta. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 10:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No valid reason has been given for changing the current wording which has existed for over two years, ever since a legacy section has been there. It is for those who seek British Isles to be removed that must justify its removal. Again, i strongly oppose this attempt by certain editors to remove the British Isles from wikipedia, it seems like some form of politically motivated campaign. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


As a very late entrant to this discourse, may I make some comments and hopefully bring a fresh perspective. The current version is:

  • The UK retains sovereignty over 14 territories outside the British Isles, which in 2002 were renamed the British Overseas Territories.

First of all, this suggests that it has one or more territories within the British Isles, which is not the case (unless one reads "territory" in its broadest possible sense and includes the Isle of Man and the CI). Hence, why is there any need to explicitly refer to the location of the territories it does have? The word "Overseas" in BOT does that work. Secondly, the history of the name of the group of territories is not something we need to get into here, so the 2002 date does not need to be mentioned. That leaves us with:

  • The UK retains sovereignty over 14 territories, known as the British Overseas Territories.

That succinctly tells readers that, wherever they are, they're "overseas". If some people think that the Channel Islands are "overseas" in relation to the UK, that's a nice literal reading of the term but the usual reading has the implication of very great distance, not merely separated by a body of water that could be arbitrarily small.

Btw, I've seen some comments above to the effect that a particular set of words had been unchanged since 2007, and an editor asked why there's suddenly a need to change them. As if the longer a set of words has remained unchanged, the more persuasive the argument for changing them needs to be. That type of argument should never be used on Wikipedia. People come along from all parts of the known universe, read articles that have been around for years, see opportunities for improvement, act on the Wiki-injunction to Be Bold, and change them. That's how this thing works. They generally neither know nor care how long a particular set of words has been there. People who've been around an article for a while can tend to get stale, see what they've always seen, and miss what they've always missed - whereas fresh faces bring fresh perspectives, something we can never have enough of. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two Words Causing So Much Trouble

To everyone who has descended here from other pages and who has been editing at Wikipedia for a long time: where were you when this article was a mess and required cleaning up, when it was missing large periods of the Empire's history, when it required references and reformatting? It always amazes me, the amount of time people spend over trivial matters when there is so much work to be done. Why don't you expend your energies trying to get the UK or BI articles to GA/FA status? That would be a much more constructive use of your time. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Its interesting that some people think changing this one sentence is going to make a huge improvement to the article, the mention of British Isles didnt prevent this from becoming a Featured Article. The more fighting over the sentence and possible edit wars puts that FA status at risk, so why bother?
Using British Isles in the sentence is accurate and simple to understand. Strongly oppose any change to the sentence and everyone should move on to other things. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_Empire&oldid=291794616"