Talk:December 2004 in Britain and Ireland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Main page for UK&Ireland?

Should we set up an alternative main page for ourselves? Seabhcán 11:04, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Purpose

What's the purpose of this page, really? Shouldn't just one current events page for the world be enough? If not, then should each country of the world get its own current events page? ωhkoh [Т] 12:15, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm... I don't think all of these stories are non-local enough to warrant inclusion on the main current events page. This seems like a good idea for local (i.e. Britain and Ireland) news. zoney ♣ talk 14:49, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This seems pointless and stupid to me! ♣ --195.7.55.146 10:17, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is quite unwise to put all British news in this ghetto. – Kaihsu 16:57, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)

It's perfectly OK I think, stories important enough in a world context can be placed on the general current events page.
Of course, it would be nice to create a US current events page and maintain the main current events page free of their local stories. (As people are endeavouring to do with In the news)
zoney ♣ talk 17:12, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] My 2p worth

All too often Wikipedia is seen as a local encyclopedia to the United States of America and "In the news" and "current events" are no exception. Local stories that have no relevance to anyone else in the rest of the world often appear in the current events section and the current events of other countries often get sidetracked as "not important enough". This is grossly unfair.

If people believe this is "ghetto-ising" the British Isles and Ireland they are more than welcome to sit back and watch as important events go unreported in an international encyclopedia. And anyone can read or take part in editing this page, so it's hardly a "ghetto", is it? -- Graham ☺ | Talk 10:58, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • I have to agree with your there. Down here in the land of the long white cloud the British Queen is our leader and we still align ourselves with Britain most of the time. I am fully supporting of all those involved in this page and personally believe it is a great idea. I would support any attempt for a local frontpage for UK and Ireland as well. I personally think you have to live outside the United States of America to really understand how much USA-dominance there is in Wikipedia, CNN, etc. I would personally welcome any other pages like this if they are as well maintained. - Icurite

[edit] Other english-speaking areas

There is no reason why there should not be similar pages for other parts of the world. I for one would actually be quite interested in what's happening in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, to name just three. --Phil | Talk 09:22, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Calendar links

Note that the links in the Calendar won't work unless you set your preferences to display dates in MMM DD YYYY format (eg December 25, 2004). A few days ago I changed the dates used as section headings to follow that format (to allow those links to work for people without accounts and for people who don't specify a preference, as well as for those who prefer the MMM DD YYYY format) but I was promptly reverted. See m:Help:Preferences#Date format for the background. -- Avaragado 11:39, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] HM as POV

Would Avaragado like to tell us why 'Her Majesty' is POV when it is an official style used for the Queen (and other monarchs) throughout the world? How can an official style in a monarch's own country possibly be POV? That's like saying it's only POV that Britain is a monarchy. -- Necrothesp 01:32, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There's a difference between a title/role and an honorific. She is Queen (and Britain is a monarchy); Her Majesty is a courtesy prefix. Many people use that style; many people do not (and do not believe in monarchies, or want to be labelled as "subjects"). Consequently, since people have different views on the matter, it's POV. I would expect and encourage the removal of other honorifics, such as His Holiness, His Excellency and His Grace.
Let's say we permit the inclusion of Her Majesty as it's an "official style". The natural consequence is that we have to allow (even insist on) the use of whatever honorific a dictator awards him or herself as that's an "official style" too. To not do so would be to make a POV statement on that regime. One example: Kim Jong-il, who had the "official style" Dear Leader until recently. An encyclopedia that referred to him as Dear Leader throughout would be considered biased.
-- Avaragado 12:33, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
HM The Queen has not awarded any honorific to herself. She uses it by long-established tradition. Other countries around the world, including those that are not monarchies, also use it by courtesy when referring to her. That is not POV. It is her official style. I would not use 'Her Majesty' to refer to her in an encyclopaedia (as in "Her Majesty did so-and-so"), but it is entirely correct and NPOV to use 'HM' before her title. The fact that "many people do not use it" is irrelevant. Like it or not titles exist and this encyclopaedia is a record of fact, not of individual political views. And the fact is that 'HM' is as much a part of her title as 'Queen' is. -- Necrothesp 14:28, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No it isn't: see Style (manner of address). HM is simply an abbreviation of "Her Majesty", not an encyclopedic version of it. Whether it was awarded by herself, by law or by tradition, it's still an honorific. Dear Leader doesn't belong here, so neither does Her Majesty. -- Avaragado 18:17, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Here lies yet another conflict between an American and a British encyclopedia. To us Brits the correct way of addressing the monarch, whether speaking to them directly or referring to them, is to use "His (or Her) Majesty". It is considered insulting to not use those titles when addressing or referring to members of the peerage. If we did have an English encyclopedia (separate from the main American one) this wouldn't come up because this form of address is the correct method in the UK. The only reason this has arisen is because the pervading culture of this entire encyclopedia is American, and the United States doesn't have the same class system as the UK. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 19:16, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I wouldn't get hung up about class, or UK/US differences; they're not relevant here. Here's a tip: mentally replace "Queen Elizabeth II" with a head of state you fundamentally disagree with (and replace the honorific with something more appropriate if you want). Let's say, Saddam Hussein. How about this: "His Excellency Saddam Hussein blah blah blah...". Do you think that belongs in an unbiased encyclopedia? -- Avaragado 22:56, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If it's the generally accepted way of addressing him according to his culture, yes. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 23:50, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
So you have no problem with modifying all references to Kim Jong-il to say Dear Leader throughout Wikipedia? -- Avaragado 23:59, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It is an indisputable fact that all British laws are passed through the British parliament in the name of Her Majesty the Queen as such it is her legal title not an honorific or courtesy title. The term "Her Majesty" is part of her legal title as long as she is alive, on her death her heir and successor inherits all her titles. After death she is referred to as Queen Elizabeth II. The Majesty does not have to be used after the monarchs demise. If the "Majesty" is used, and it does not have to be, it is as "Her late Majesty"
To introduce other leaders into this discussion is digressing, the British sovereigns indisputable title is not subject to the behaviour and worthiness of other world leaders. Could I just mention I am neither an American or British subject or an ardent monarchist. Giano 12:23, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Ever notice how the news media in America always address Former Presidents? It's always "Former President <last name>". Then from there they either use FP or just "President". I'd still call any of the former presidents still as "President <last name>" out of sheer respect... unless they asked me not to. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:59, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
When the Queen passes away, she will be referred to as Her Late Majesty, just as the Queen Mother is referred to Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother. I would note that when referring to a former US president or governor of a US state that the style President or Governor is still used.
I would add that, to my mind, not using honorifics is as POV as using them. In some instances, more so. jguk 17:19, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
To add my $0.02: Here in Ireland, "Her Majesty" would never be used. Neither would it in any other English speaking country (except Britain), I'm sure. I think the Her Majesty title is only in England. It isn't about Americanisms. JOHN COLLISON (An Liúdramán) 17:49, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
John, that's not entirely true now, is it? [1] :) jguk 20:55, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hmmm. Okay, I wasn't counting the unionists! But nearly all southern Irelanders, as well as the republicans, would make a point of not using it. Some people aren't very fond of the crown over here - we've had bad experiences with English "visitors"... :-) JOHN COLLISON (An Liúdramán) 22:06, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just to add the title "Her Majesty" is defined by letters patent, which are a legal document in the UK. The last time this came up was with the title of Lady Louise Windsor who may legally adopt "Her Royal Highness Princess" before her name if she chooses later in life, and everyone will have to address her as such; in the meantime she is a Lady and must be addressed as such. The same goes for "Her Majesty": it's a legally defined title, not an honorific. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 20:16, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

By the same token, all ambassadors should really be addressed as "His/Her Excellency" Jooler

No! because HE is a courtesy title - given with the rank, and that term is now dying out in everyday diplomatic parlance. It is polite to refer to all ambassadors as HE, but not obligatory. HM The Queen's rank is ordained by Church, Parliament and law, an ambassador is appointed by Government and governments change the former remain constant. This is all pedantic I know, but I am merely the messenger - please don't shoot! Giano 18:53, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm reading these replies with amusement. I'm sorry, but this stuff about "law" is just irrelevant. There are two telling comments here.

  • First, Graham's: If it's the generally accepted way of addressing him according to his culture, yes. This opens the floodgates: one culture can then attempt to impose their particular presentation on the encyclopedia. This includes well-established "legitimate" (by someone's POV) cultures, and all others: for to deny some cultures their chosen representation is to make an implicit POV judgement on that culture. If you believe in NPOV you can't say "we'll have Her Majesty and His Holiness, but not (say) Dear Leader or His Beatitude, as they're just pretend". Nobody has yet come out and said that they think we should say Dear Leader with every reference to Kim Jong-il, which is the (ahem) "generally accepted way of addressing him according to his culture". Anyone want to justify it?
  • Second, John's: ... nearly all southern Irelanders, as well as the republicans, would make a point of not using it. To put it another way: the Queen might be your Majesty, but she's not their Majesty. Just as George Bush is, technically, not British president: so references are qualified with "United States" to avoid accusations of bias.

Anyway, seeing as Jooler has reverted my changes to that particular bullet, reintroducing HMs and also the grammatical errors I fixed, maybe I'm fighting a losing battle. -- Avaragado 23:50, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes you are. As this is one of the few British and Irish bastions in an extremely American-centric encyclopedia I think it only right that our monarch be addressed as defined by UK law. And if it please you in answer to your question I personally don't have a problem with addressing Kim Jong-il as "Dear Leader" if that is as the law states of his own country. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 00:21, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well, my 2p worth ; I am a very staunch republican myself. However, while the Queen is given the style HM (whether by law or not), I intend to use it. If she were to visit a state event in the US (or anywhere else for that matter), her arrival would be announced as Her Majesty - why should we be any different? It's not POV, it's repoting a simple fact. And yes, if anyone needs a hand holding back the increasingly US-centric bias of this encyclopedia then I'll pitch in wherever I can.
If there is such a call for this encyclopedia to be "culture unbiased", then I suggest that you try to subtract the words "Her Majesty" from the start of her article (linked earlier in this comment), sit back and watch the howl of protest that results. -Zaphod Beeblebrox 07:37, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Interesting: to counter perceived US bias, you're happy to introduce UK/Commonwealth bias. Note that the article to which you refer calls her just "The Queen" in the vast majority of cases, omitting "Her Majesty". And to quote from that article:
In the United Kingdom, her official title is Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. In common practice Queen Elizabeth II is referred to simply as "The Queen" or "Her Majesty".
I doubt that those arguing for use of the "official title" as defined by "law" would actually use the full 34 words. Personally, I think that "common practice" is far more sensible. "The Queen" is perfectly OK, acceptable to monarchists and republicans, unobjectionable worldwide, not precedent-setting for other honorifics, and not likely to get any of us sent to the tower any time soon. -- Avaragado 12:51, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've done some searching - on reflection, using the style Her Majesty... may be a little overblown on this occasion ; It's definitely *not* NPOV. However, it is not observing Wikipedia's naming conventions : Most general rule overall : use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem. I would agree that common usage is simply "The Queen" or "Queen Elizabeth II" - the full style only being used for formal occasions ; I therefore retract any former objection to this modification. -Zaphod Beeblebrox 01:20, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Whilst I think that the suggestion that "Her Majesty" is POV is absolutely absurd, I do think it's probably unnecessary on a page like this. It seems inconsistent to display HM The Queen or Her Majesty The Queen when we don't display The Rt Hon. Tony Blair, MP or Major-General His Grace The Duke of Westminster, KG, OBE, TD, DL. The full styles should obviously be used at the beginning of these people's articles, but not when they're just mentioned in other articles. Proteus (Talk) 15:00, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How about a compromise? Allow people to use HM where ever they please, but if it is left out or it was added, leave it alone. In otherwords, limit the use by the editor who is currently writing the article, but don't intentionally make an edit simply for the purpose of systematically adding it or removing it.

On a side note about honorifics, would you be offended if you were not addressed as "Mr." / "Mrs." / "Ms." if you were a customer at a bank? On the phone with a service company (telephone, electric, etc)? (Kind of like if someone didn't added the Japanese honorific of '-san' in Japanese when you are the boss of that someone.) -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:59, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why not refer to the Queen as one is supposed to in a converstion with that august person, which is say: "Her Majesty The Queen", the first time the Queen is mentioned in an article, thereafter just "The Queen" - surely that cannot offend anyone, or rouse the staunchest republican to revolution, the same rule could apply to all crowned heads of state, their sons daughters, son's children and anyone a nation feels warrents the addresss. Giano 13:43, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is clearly POV. Is ANY publication other than one based in a realm of the Queen in question going to use the form "Her Majesty"? I don't believe so. So why should the international Wikipedia use such a term giving special respect to (as far as non-subjects are concerned) a random monarch? Do we insist on following the local address protocols for other monarchs? Of course not, no one but the loyal subjects would insist on it. zoney ♣ talk 21:32, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Of course other countries use the term, just as we refer to foreign kings and queens as "their majesties". It's common decency to use suitable terms of respect when addressing someone. When you address a king or queen, you use "your majesty" the first time, and then "sir" or "ma'am" as appropriate. I remember attending a speech given by His Late Majesty King Hussain of Jordan, after which he took questions. Every one of those who asked a question (bar one) addressed him as "your majesty". Even those who went one to ask questions such as "Your Majesty, why does Jordan have such a poor human rights record?" or other challenging (and not necessarily gracious) questions.
What I'm really saying is that using the term HM is not really POV, it's common courtesy. On the other hand, insisting on using the term HM at every opportunity is so unnatural to most as to be POV in itself. Use it sometimes, don't use it on others - it all balances out in the end. jguk 22:35, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I can't remember a single time when I've ever heard a news programme, or a seen a newspaper, use the term "His Late Majesty". Reading back through the thread, I notice that you also said, just as the Queen Mother is referred to Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother. I'm pretty sure I've never heard that phrase, not even in the days immediately following her death. To be honest I can imagine that phrase or a phrase like it appearing in perhaps only three places: text produced on behalf of the Royal family; indignant letters to the Daily Mail about how Britain's going to the dogs; and a Harry Enfield sketch featuring Mr Cholmondley-Warner. None of those, I would argue, is NPOV :-) -- Avaragado 23:26, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Your points are valid as regards spoken usage, particularly in addressing royalty. But I never suggested otherwise for such instances. I quite clearly was speaking of publication. Certainly I do not anticipate seeing "The Irish Times" referring to "Her Majesty" or even "Their Majesty" (or whatever) anytime soon! I would imagine this is true of other non-British/Commonwealth publications. And Wikipedia is certainly neither. zoney ♣ talk 23:27, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

These are some random things that I would like to point out, but shouldn't this issue really be discussed centraly on a policy talk page?

  • Encyclopaedia articles are not supposed to be courteous or polite, but merely non-insulting and non-slandering.
  • Equally reasonable people could be offended by both including and not including the titles, so these cancel out.
  • Titles like "Majesty" and "Sir" have the same function as "Mister" or "Miss", i.e. they are used to politely refer to a person. "Her Majesty the Queen" is thus really equivalent to "Mister President".
  • Context is important. You wouldn't start a sentence about your company's CEO in a staff meeting with "Like Jones says", but refering to him as "Mr. Jones" in an encyclopaedia article might not be appropriate. Using titles may be appropriate (though not universal) practice in British newspapers, but that doesn't automatically mean that it's appropriate in an international encyclopaedia.
  • It is an ovewhelmingly standard practice for encyclopaedias around the world to not use titles when referring to royalty and similar. Some are concerned with NPOV and most simply come from republican states where the vast majority of people would never use the titles in speech or writing, and might find the constant use of them redundant, tacky, tasteless or even irritating.
  • Regularly refering to people with their titles or having articles begin with "Her majesty the Queen", "His late majesty Henry VIII", "Dear leader Kim Il Sung", "Mobutu the greatest and the most wise", "Comrade Josip Broz Tito", "Mister Iggy Pop" or "Joe Sixpack, Esquire" with no explanation or visual differentiation, gives the impression that Wikipedia considers this to be the common or indeed the correct practice, which is clearly false in all contexts in most places and in most contexts in all places.
  • An article about a member of a royal family (or indeed an MP or another official) is not just about their official role, but also about the person. It's misleading to begin articles with honorific titles, be they official or not.

Zocky 05:46, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Red links on news pages

Just a quick thought - looked back through this month's news and found that one the whole, we've done a good job of keeping red links off it - one of them I added myself in the Recent Deaths section. If people are reading this page, then they're probably seeking news on current events, so does anyone else think we should try to stamp out red links here? I have tried to avoid creating them since I became fully active editing this page - just wanted to hear other people's thoughts... -Zaphod Beeblebrox 07:12, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Moved page

To match the Month Year in (subject) format as per December 2004 in sports, December 2004 in the United States. --Lexor|Talk 00:06, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/e/c/Talk%7EDecember_2004_in_Britain_and_Ireland_edd7.html"