This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Human Taxonomist (talk | contribs) at 22:58, 31 December 2019 (→Baseball). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:58, 31 December 2019 by Human Taxonomist (talk | contribs) (→Baseball)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | England C‑class Top‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Ethnic groups C‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 Archives | ||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Terming Northern Ireland a nation
Northern Ireland is not conventionally regarded as a "nation" so this edit is not appropriate. What's more it is notably regarded as being part of one nation or part of another by various communities. The previous wording is clear and neutral. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- Do you have a source to justify the claim that "Northern Ireland is not conventionally regarded as a "nation""? The edit you're trying to (re)insert is overturning an edit () that has been in place un-controversially since 29 January 2018. Interestingly enough, you have also made numerous edits of this page (and specifically that section of the page) multiple times since January 2018, so would you also explain why have you taken issue with this particular point now? Alssa1 (talk) 22:14, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- Take your pick from the sources included at Northern_Ireland#Descriptions.
- As you are fully aware, the issue has previously been raised, in mid-August. I am not au fait with, nor have necessarily read, every word in every article I have ever edited, let alone approved them all. I was made aware of this point when raised by @BeenAroundAWhile:. I am receptive to points of view that haven't previously occurred to me; you should try it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- Your tone is becoming quite rude and I would appreciate if you adhere to the principles espoused in WP:Civility. But that is separate from the point at hand so I shall leave it be. You are recommending an edit of long-standing terminology, it is not my responsibility to jump to another WP page, and 'take my pick' of the sources to back up your case for the amendment you want; that's your job. You need to make the case, followed by choosing the reliable sources to back up that case. But remember; what you said originally is that the Northern Ireland is not "conventionally regarded as a nation", a WP page that simply discusses the controversy is not the same as being declaring that 'Northern Ireland is not conventionally considered a nation'. You're confusing Misplaced Pages's position (an impartial position) with your own (which is very partial). Alssa1 (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Please highlight the uncivil passages. You seem quick to take offence and, I'll note, actively on the lookout elsewhere to needlessly do so on the behalf of others who aren't, (just as a consensus was emerging, from which I subsequently implemented an edit, mutually satisfactory to the parties).
- Though none of the sources in the "Description" section at Northern Ireland in any way support the use of the term "nation", I'll highlight the passages and sources which most directly dismiss it as a suitable term:
- "D. Murphy (1979), A Place Apart, London: Penguin Books, "...what noun is appropriate to Northern Ireland? ... 'country' or 'nation' are blatantly absurd" (my empahsis)
- "Unlike England, Scotland and Wales, Northern Ireland has no history of being an independent country or of being a nation in its own right."
- "The absence of a distinct nation of Northern Ireland, separate within the island of Ireland, is also pointed out as being a problem with using the term"
References
- ^ D. Murphy (1979), A Place Apart, London: Penguin Books,
Next – what noun is appropriate to Northern Ireland? 'Province' won't do since one-third of the province is on the wrong side of the border. 'State' implies more self-determination than Northern Ireland has ever had and 'country' or 'nation' are blatantly absurd. 'Colony' has overtones that would be resented by both communities and 'statelet' sounds too patronizing, though outsiders might consider it more precise than anything else; so one is left with the unsatisfactory word 'region'.
- A. Aughey; D. Morrow (1996), Northern Ireland Politics, London: Longman
{{citation}}: Unknown parameter|lastauthoramp=ignored (|name-list-style=suggested) (help) - F. Cochrane (2001), Unionist Politics and the Politics of Unionism Since the Anglo-Irish Agreement, Cork: Cork University Press
- W. V. Shannon (1984), K. M. Cahill (ed.), The American Irish Revival: A Decade of the Recorder, Associated Faculty Press
- Please cite your sources that, in contrast, support the notion of Northern Ireland as a nation. There may be some in Ulster nationalist sources but I have my doubts that they'd be regarded as neutral here. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- We did this to death years ago and there were solid references to the four nations or four countries of the UK and if anything they are becoming more frequent. The whole discussion was mediated, documented and resolved. Subsequently it was agreed to qualify NI but not remove the idea that it is a country -----Snowded 21:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- If you can point me towards the discussion in question I'll cheerfully drop the issue. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Here's a search of the Talk:Northern Ireland archive . As you can see, it's covered in detail. This debate in Misplaced Pages goes back years, but in recent times, and as a result of the Brexit madness, the terminology issue seems to have come to the fore again. Accordingly, it's perhaps worth revisiting once more. 31.52.161.140 (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- If you can point me towards the discussion in question I'll cheerfully drop the issue. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. Can see the doing to death bit, not sure about the resolution and I think I'll leave trawling through at this hour. 22:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, have drawn a blank. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Can I ask again please, where is this historical resolution to the issue? I in no way doubt the faith in which it's existence is advanced but simply can not find it and woud like to read it. I'll note that my preferred wording avoids labelling what the entity is, so surely more NPOV. Also, FWIW the contested term is "nation" not "country", which I would regard as being rather different things. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- The discussion ranged over all four country articles for example on Wales here the final process was mediated by User:Ddstretch who probably still has all the links. To be clear the agreement was on the use of country, one could be pedantic about nation -----Snowded 16:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've only just had glance over that discussion but it appears to be rather a different angle: roughly whether something can be called a country if it is not a nation state? (Depending on the case, clearly it can, I'd say.) A nation is rather a different thing to either of those and the unsatisfactory aspect of nation as a term for NI is not about it not being a nation state. Not sure the earlier discussions have much of a direct bearing here then, I'm afraid. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- There is also a key difference between being a nation and being a nation state. -----Snowded 18:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry if I obscured it but (one of) my intended point(s). Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think the difference between "country" and "nation" is mere pedantry. One of the key factors in previous discussions, I seem to recall, is that UK government sources like this refer explicitly to four "countries". They do not, so far as I'm aware, refer to four "nations" - which is a more politically loaded term. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- There is also a key difference between being a nation and being a nation state. -----Snowded 18:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've only just had glance over that discussion but it appears to be rather a different angle: roughly whether something can be called a country if it is not a nation state? (Depending on the case, clearly it can, I'd say.) A nation is rather a different thing to either of those and the unsatisfactory aspect of nation as a term for NI is not about it not being a nation state. Not sure the earlier discussions have much of a direct bearing here then, I'm afraid. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
So if "nations" is a bad or at least worse choice, options are "...resulted in all four countries having..." or just "...resulted in all four having...". Per my edit, I'd prefer the latter as no term is used, so no controversy about the term but I'd rather an indication of consensus first. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- In that case I'll remove the term. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been away and only now seen a mention of me in this discussion. Around about 11 or so years ago I proposed, and a lot of community work, was put into compiling a large list of reliable sources for as many terms as we could find which described England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales in the context of the United Kingdom. The latest version of it I can find is here. It almost entirely settled the repetitive wrangles we have about terminology for a while, until it was removed for reasons I don't clearly understand. I feel it was extremely useful and it should be reinstated in an updated form. At the time, I was away from wikipedia for an extended period of time, so I neither followed any discussion which led to the table's removal, nor was I able to comment on it. I seriously think the reinstatement of an updated table could assist the situation considerably, since it clearly lays before people the problems and variety of reliable sources of terminology and reaches a considered position about it. The issue seems important enough to do this in the article itself rather than in any talk page or otherwise "hidden" from the general reader. I'd like to propose we do this reinstatement. DDStretch (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- Reinstate it! I don't remember any discussion to remove it -----Snowded 02:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- Does it indicate a resolution for the specific discussion at hand, i.e. the use of the term "nation" for Northern Ireland?
- On a side note, I should flag this apparent attempt to influence the debate, away from scrutiny, on my talk page. I recall that the individual got themself into bother in the past in regard to their views on terminology in relation to these islands/the British Isles. The discussion on my talk page confirms that sanctions were imposed, though the individual was rather unconcvincingly unforthcoming on links to the specifics. I suspect that others involved in this thread can shed more light and have a view on whether further action is required. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- Please note, I already explained to Mutt Lunker that I was no longer interested in this article's current discussion & had requested that he not bring me into it 'here'. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- Well, you were perfectly interested with your initial approach, this only dropping when I indicated I had your number. You brought yourself into it with your attempt to get me to advance your view from behind the scenes; I'm not going to cover up for suspect tactics. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- Please note, I already explained to Mutt Lunker that I was no longer interested in this article's current discussion & had requested that he not bring me into it 'here'. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- On a side note, I should flag this apparent attempt to influence the debate, away from scrutiny, on my talk page. I recall that the individual got themself into bother in the past in regard to their views on terminology in relation to these islands/the British Isles. The discussion on my talk page confirms that sanctions were imposed, though the individual was rather unconcvincingly unforthcoming on links to the specifics. I suspect that others involved in this thread can shed more light and have a view on whether further action is required. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Since ML has mentioned me & I've given it hours of re-consideration. Indeed it's acceptable to use nation in this article (and Scottish people, Welsh people, Northern Irish people) to describe England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- The consideration that: as I'd clocked you, if I say A, you'll suddenly say B? What a transparent and petulant volte-face. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Formation of the Kingdom of Great Britain
Just to note, I mad a change in the lead of this article to reflect the fact that the Kingdom of Great Britain was created by the unification of the Kingdom of England & the Kingdom of Scotland. The previous sentence made it appear as though England became Great Britain, which isn't accurate. GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Baseball
That a related hit-a-ball-with-a-stick game named baseball existed in England earlier than the development of the modern game is apparently correct. To claim England as the source of the game, in the very lede, alongside sports where the influence is clearly more fundamental and significant to their current forms, such as cricket, football, rugbys league and union and tennis, is anomalous. One could claim an English origin for American football on a similar basis. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- Can we please discuss this at Talk:Origins of baseball? In any case, it doesn't belong here, as User:Human Taxonomist's source, David Block, says that Wales may have been an influence on p.118. Doug Weller talk 10:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- What I am addressing is that its repeated addition to this article is unsuitable, at best, and should be stemmed; the place to note that, particularly to the responsible party, is here. By all means discuss the actual question of its origin at the baseball article but I have no personal interest in that matter. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- I think the comparison with American football (a much more recent invention exclusively in the US which was only modeled after rugby, not derived from it) is without relevance. In the case of baseball, most of the form of the game as it is played now was already developed by Englishmen, in both England and the English-American colonies, in the mid-to-late 18th century. Furthermore, just because the American colonies (most of them, but not those in Canada/British North America) broke away after 1776, does not mean the game ceased being played by Englishmen either in the US, the British North American colonies or in England. Those of English extraction or origin (Yankees) in the colonies continued to be English culturally and saw themselves as such (e.g. see the Grand Union Flag, Flag of New England, etc). Even though the game continued on to be largely popular in American areas, it nevertheless continued to be played (and still is played) in England or other parts of the UK. The 'Englishness' of its invention, origin and development is impossible to take away from the history of baseball. It was not a product of the French, Spanish, African or aboriginal cultural spheres in North America, nor was the game itself impacted or developed by the late waves of other European immigration (German, Irish, Italian, Polish, etc.) in the 19th century. It was specifically an Anglo-American cultural development with English origins in the northeastern coastal English colonies.
- What I am addressing is that its repeated addition to this article is unsuitable, at best, and should be stemmed; the place to note that, particularly to the responsible party, is here. By all means discuss the actual question of its origin at the baseball article but I have no personal interest in that matter. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- The form and rules of modern lacrosse have changed significantly after being adopted by European-Americans, but no one doubts that the game's cultural origins and invention are with the aboriginal peoples, specifically those of the eastern woodlands of eastern North America (Iroquois, Algonquians, etc.). The statement in this article is about the invention and origin of sports by Englishmen and English culture. In this, there is no doubt baseball was invented by English people, first in England and then the English colonies, just as lacrosse was invented by aboriginal peoples in North America, or the origins of Gaelic shinty and hurling were ultimately in Ireland. Human Taxonomist (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
I can find nothing coherent or supported in the above but, if you feel it worth pursuing, please take it instead to Talk:Origins of baseball. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- Everything above is supported by the authoritative book by David Block, and is quite 'coherent'. What exactly is it you have difficulty with? Furthermore, I already have discussed the issue there and have not received a response in weeks. In any case, it is the article here where the edit conflict is. If no one replies or continues to explain why they oppose my edits, then as per WP I can return my original edit and indeed add baseball here, which is without question from every source shown to have been invented by Englishmen in England and then Englishmen in the American colonies. Human Taxonomist (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- Your edit has been challenged by more than one editor on this page, and I agree with its removal. There is no consensus here for you to restore it. Meters (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- I have discussed it both here and at Talk:Origins of Baseball. If you agree with the removal of my edit, then the burden is on you to explain such. Simply leaving the conversation for weeks does not mean you win the argument. If you do not continue and provide a source that the game or early game was ever developed by non-English or non-English-Americans, then you must provide a source that claims such. There is none on either page claiming such. It is merely a question as to whether the game was invented by English in England or by English in the colonies. Human Taxonomist (talk) 22:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- Your edit has been challenged by more than one editor on this page, and I agree with its removal. There is no consensus here for you to restore it. Meters (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)