User talk:Bastin/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of my talk page up to the 3rd May 2006. If you wish to trawl something up from these discussions, please copy the relevant part and post it in the current talk page. Bastin

Contents

[edit] Indian Relief Act

Hey, Bastin8, I've been very impressed by your work on South African history, Smuts in particular. I am doing some research on the conflict between Smuts and Gandhi. I'm particularly interested in learning what became of the Indian registration requirement from the Black Act (eff. 1 July 1907). Was registration repealed by the Indian Relief Act?

I couldn't find direct contact info for you. If you could contact me directly at jharper[at]cato[dot]org, I'd certainly appreciate it.

[edit] Jan Smuts

Please tell me (via my Talk Page) when you think this article is finished. I have watched it grow in the last few months and it is now a model biographical Wikipedia page, which I think is worthy of being a Featured Article. I will happily nominate it, or support your self-nomination of it, when you think it is ready. Once again, stellar work to create such a thorough article. Batmanand 12:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the thumbs up. It is quite unnerving that nobody else is interested in the article! Obviously, the date of completion depends on any future hiatus. Currently, it has 21 sections, and covers about half of Smuts' life. If I keep up the pace of writing a section a day, it'll be completed in a month, although it's more likely to be six to eight weeks. The 'in-depth' section is already 6,000 words, and is almost in the top 200 articles by file size, with only three pictures; it's going to be one heck of a long article. Bastin 12:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
OK if you think it will take a month then take the time and do it. I agree it is a shame that little interest is being taken; he is a fascinating character (I did know a fair bit about him before - obviously not as much as you). When it is finished, we will nominate it. Batmanand 13:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow, excellent work on the Smuts article! I last checked on it a few months ago, when it was fairly short and non-notable, and the change is astounding. Like you, I also have great respect for Smuts, and I feel he is easily one of the most under-rated historical figures of the 20th century. Unfortunately, he is all too often dismissed by the ignorant as "an apartheid leader", and therefore his large roles in crafting air power doctrine (and causing the RAF to be formed in the process), and helping to create both the League of Nations and the United Nations are either minimised or completely ignored. This is both unfortunate and unfair for a man who should be recognised as probably South Africa's greatest ever statesman, in terms of how he managed to reshape the international political structure. — Impi 12:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much. In my mind, there is no doubt, whatsoever, that Smuts is one of the most under-rated figures of all time, never mind just the 20th Century.
Not having any links with South Africa, nor any particular knowledge of the subject beyond the few books that I have read on it, I can only pretend to be an expert. As such, if the article remains written solely by me, there is potential for inaccuracy. If you, or another South African, would be so kind as to read through the articles, make sure that my spelling of proper nouns is correct, my description of South African geography and contextual history is accurate, and everything else looks reasonable, I would be most grateful. Bastin 13:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Sure, I'll go over it when I can, and see what I can do to make improvements. I won't be able to do much immediately though, as I'm in the middle of writing exams, but certainly after that. — Impi 21:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Poitiers (1356) external link

I recently listed an external article I found on the Talk page of the article on Battle of Poitiers (1356) and am looking for input as to whether or not it would make a good external link. I noticed that you recently edited the page and so I hoped you would be able to comment. Would you? 204.126.127.253 14:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

That looks like a superb external link. It is well-balanced, well-argued, and well-sourced. No arguments. Bastin 22:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Great Britain/United Kingdom

Hi there - I notice you've been going through a lot of pages and changing Great Britain to United Kingdom. While this is useful work, are you sure that it's the right change in every case? For example, did the National Union of Railwaymen cover the whole of the UK, or just the British network? (I don't know, I'm just asking the question.) Usual Wikipedia convention is to be flexible about the use of the two terms, unless it's obviously important - whether Mark Lewis-Francis is the best sprinter from Great Britain or the United Kingdom is kind of splitting hairs.

Anyway, it's not a biggie, I just wanted to note the issue. Hope you continue to enjoy contributing! sjorford →•← 10:12, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I only make changes in instances where I am technically correct (the best kind of correct). Take the two instances that you cite. Lewis-Francis runs for the UK under the wrong name at the Olympics, and would certainly do the same had there not been a balls-up with the nomenclature. The NUR was an amalgam of the unions of England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland, which were previously separate unions. Whether it still covers all of the British Isles (unlikely) or even NI (probably), I don't know.
There is valid debates on the virtues of UK versus GB for the period 1707-1801 and whether there should be different links for 1801-1927. However, assuming that a link to the successor state is the most useful for Wikipedians, all the edits I make are correct. Bastin 10:30, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Republic of Ireland/Irish Free State

On a similar point, I saw that you changed Republic of Ireland to Irish Free State on List of members of the Commonwealth of Nations by date joined. I guess you are technically correct, since that is what it was called at the time, but how much of a distinction is there to be drawn between the Republic now and the Free State then?

If are still keen to make the change, there are another two lists that are quite similar (List of members of the Commonwealth of Nations by name and List of members of the Commonwealth of Nations by continent) which should also be changed. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not as bothered about IFS/RoI as I am about GB/UK. However, in the case of the Irish Free State's membership of the Commonwealth, it is absolutely vital that it is technically correct in this respect. Although, as you correctly note, the IFS was a republic in all but name (the actual name being Eire) from 1937 until the Republic of Ireland's formation in 1949, the legal distinction was vital, as Eamon de Valera said repeatedly. The actual change to a republic forced the IFS (or Eire) to withdraw from the Commonwealth. The IFS was the only country to be forced to withdraw from the Commonwealth on the grounds that it didn't recognise the Sovereign as Head of State (the rule was changed in 1950 to allow India). Bastin 11:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Fine: thanks for the reply, and for correcting the other articles. If you have not already, it may be worth you reading Commonwealth of Nations too to check that it deals with the technicalities properly. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please Desist

I note that you seem to be on a personal crusade to purge every Englishman, Englishwoman, Scot, Welshman, Welshwoman and Northern Ireland person from the face of Wikipedia. This campaign seems to be based around your novel proposition that "England ceased to exist" in 1707. Mmmm... that remarkable insight will be news to the good editors at article England, and to the 50 million inhabitants of said entity.

Anyway, in order to avoid on duplicating the argument around many Talk pages, I reproduce the reply to your comment at Talk:John Stuart Mill:

== Nationality ==
You:John Stuart Mill was British, not English. Not only was he born after England ceased to exist, but his father was Scottish. Bastin8 13:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Me:That is not in dispute. But it is standard Wikipedia practice to use English, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Ireland (note: not Northern Irish - long story) on biographical articles. English, Scottish, Welsh, NI biog articles are all subcategories of Category:British people. Just as you should not use a supercat if a subcat exists (or worse, both), you should not use British when English, Welsh, Scottish, NI nationality is known (it is not known for some people). Apart from anything else, it means that the intro and the cats do not match, and it is Wiki policy to make the connection to all cats explicit in the article. If you dislike this system of cats (Category:English people, Category: Northern Ireland people, Category:Scottish people, Category:Welsh people) then please bulk nominate them at Wikipedia:Categories for Deletion. If you did, I am sure that you would not be alone in your dislike of them, but I suspect that they have more supporters than detractors (who will ever know if no-one initiates the debate).
In the absence of such a debate at AfD, please respect the existing Wikipedia policies. In the case of John Stuart Mill, I actually sympathise with your UK/British edit, for the reasons you cite, but although not English by family, surely no reasonable commentator would deny that JSM was most certainly an Englishman, both by birth and culture. Why deny England one of her greatest sons?
I realise that some biog articles still say British, but they are the exception rather than the norm.
I like your "... after England ceased to exist... " argument, but I suspect that if you tried adding an edit to that effect here, then you may find that that opinion is not universally shared. I look forward very much to the day when someone attempts it though!--Mais oui! 14:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Please discuss this issue before proceeding with your campaign.--Mais oui! 15:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I am one of the 50m inhabitants of 'said entity', and it's just common sense that England doesn't exist as anything more than a romantic illusion in the mind of Little Englanders. It is defensible, although incorrect, to claim that one can be Scottish (after all, Scots are afforded a different status under the devolved regime). However, being 'English' simply means that one is British, but not Scottish, Welsh, or Northern Irish.
So, as there is the Category:Natives of Cornwall, the article on Kristin Scott Thomas must begin, "Kristin Scott Thomas is a Cornish actress..."? Actually, the practice is not how you represent it at all. It is that the reason for categorising the person as such must be clear at some point in the article, but not necessarily immediately. The immediacy of the comment is dependent upon the importance and validity. Clearly, it is more important that John Stuart Mill was British than that he was born in England, and it is indisputably more valid. If if mentions (as it does) in the sidebox that he was born in "Pentonville, London, England", the nationality doesn't need to be changed.
As long as it mentions that Kristin Scott Thomas was born in Redruth, Cornwall, that's made quite clear, too. Actually, since the article on Ms Thomas refers to her as an "English actress", I'll edit it to make it clear.
Why deny England it? Because, mercifully, England's dead, and died well before JSM was born. Why not just call him Middle-Saxon, Roman, or Catuvellaunian and get it over with? I think we all know the answer. Thus, why deny our country, his country, the United Kingdom, one of her greatest sons?
But, whilst you consider me to be unreasonable, let me explain why very few reasonable people would consider JSM to have been English. First, see the two reasons that I give. Second, see the fact that his works rely heavily on the work of the philosophers of the Scottish Enlightenment, whether Hume or Smith (although his work on Epistemology was closer to English thought). Third, witness that, as an MP, he pleaded for mercy to be shown to Ireland, for he deemed it equally as British, hence worthy of aid, as his own constituency, the most 'English' place on Earth: City and Westminster.
There is no need to add it there, any more than there is need to delete the article on the Midwest. I fundamentally disagree with the description of it as a country (which you already know), but that disagreement has already been rejected on illogical grounds. Regardless, describing someone as 'English' simply because he was born in the area that used to form the Kingdom of England is equally as absurd as calling someone a 'Midwesterner', an 'Illinoian', or a 'Chicagoan', simply because it's more precise. Bastin

[edit] Further Thoughts on the Above

Interesting line of thought you have here, Bastin8. I'll raise a few point of my own, if you don't mind:

  • 1 - JSM (see above) " ... deemed it (Ireland) equally as British, hence worthy of aid, as his own constituency, the most 'English' place on Earth: City and Westminster."

This goes to the heart of the matter. JSM deemed Ireland and the Irish British. We, on the other hand, never have.

  • 2 - " ... describing someone as 'English' simply because he was born in the area that used to form the Kingdom of England is equally ... absurd."

Well, look at it this way. Up to my grandparents generation, their passports described their nationality as British, something they never described themselves as. Ireland did not in any form exist as an fully independant political entity up between 1649 and 1922, but that does not mean that the Irish nation did not exist. By the same token there is no way most Kurds today would call themselves Turkish, Syrian, Iranian or Iraqi.

You raise an interesting point, though for my own money I think you're sticking too much to the letter of the law, not its spirit, so to speck. Very much looking forward to seeing how this discussion develops. Slán, agus Bennacht Dea. Fergananim 23:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate that point, and my position is not that the descriptive nationality must necessarily be the same as the legal nationality. I would think it ridiculous for anyone to describe Charles Parnell as British simply because he lived only at a time when Ireland was a part of the United Kingdom, especially as Parnell himself would have disagree vehemently with the description. My own ancestors lived in County Cork for centuries, yet they wouldn't have anyone call them 'Irish'.
The point that I was making was not connected to imposing a nationality on an historical figure that would not have worn it comfortably. John Stuart Mill would certainly not have resented being called 'British'. If his treatment of the citizens of the United Kingdom on your side of the water was anything to go by, he would have rejected any tag but 'British'. Bastin 23:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jan Smuts

I just wanted to compliment you on the work you've done on this article as it is fantastic, in my opinion. Keep it up! XYaAsehShalomX 19:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AfD: List of alleged pedophiles (sic)

Just a tiny point, but you said on this AfD (in which I supported your call to delete) "Moreover, use of the term 'paedophile' is understood by the public to imply that the paedophile actually practises it, just as is homosexual." I am not sure you actually meant that. Do you really think that when someone says they are a homosexual, or gay, or like men, or whatever, that they are necessarily a practising homosexual? Of course not. "Homosexual" is a statement of sexual orientation, not of sexual practice. Batmanand 23:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it does not mean that one practises, but its meaning is beside the point. Legally, besides whether or not a statement is true, the only factor that matters under US law is that of interpretation by the audience. As the audience of Wikipedia is the general population, the general understanding (or misunderstanding, as it is on most subjects) is more important than either a dictionary or academic definition. Since all forms of protection from libel are based upon defamatory effects, for purposes of establishing suitability, popular definitions should always be adopted over academic ones in topics that are so poorly defined. Bastin 23:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I take your point, but I also believe that under United States law (I could find the Supreme Court case if you want, but frankly I can't be bothered at the moment), the truth can never be libellous or defamatory. Therefore, the truth (that "homosexual" is necessarily an orientation as opposed to necessarily a practice) cannot be libel. Batmanand 11:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I know that the truth cannot be libellous (in the US), hence my reference to the importance of the truth above. However, as I pointed out in the AfD discussion, attempting to ascertain the 'truth' of a certain individual's sexual orientation, when that orientation is necessarily a thought, not an action, is an Orwellian minefield that I don't believe that Wikipedia should enter.
On the matter of the actual discussion (which is moot, because we agreed and 'won'), it is notable, for example, that there were individuals on that list that were included on the basis of their actions and/or convictions, when, if the list is defensible on any level, those criteria are ineligible. Bastin 13:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
OK I think we have on some level agreed. And as you say, we "won" as it is. Batmanand 14:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use image removal

Sorry to edit your userpage, but I had to remove the image Image:Arsenal FC.png as it is used in Wikipedia under a fair use rationale. Wikipedia's fair use policy forbids the use of fair use images in user pages, so I have no choice but to take it out. Qwghlm 23:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I can always proclaim myself to be a Linfield fan instead. I'll also check the other boxes to ensure that the same problem doesn't apply to other images. Bastin 23:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

On the same topic, would you mind replacing Image:Kingcrown.jpg? It's in one of your userboxes. We've created this public domain image as an equivalent, if you'd like. Thanks. Chick Bowen 23:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me, and for the new image. Had I a memory span of more than five minutes, I would have changed all that before (as I suggested in my above comment). Bastin 15:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
The problem is now, officially, fixed. Bastin 01:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KT Tunstall

Your comment seemed to imply that everyone must know what she said at an awards ceremony, which is odd (and that no Scot would talk about being proud to be British, which is also odd in the week that Ming Campbell made the same claim). Still, my own approach is always to use the nation for nationality unless I know of a good reason not to, and to reserve "British" for naturalised citizens. Still, I don't intend to fight over it (I changed it in a more general copy-edit, not as a specific revert). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

What others infer from my comments is none of my concern; I wrote that there were reasons for the style to take that form, not that one should necessarily be acquainted with them (although that would be nice, given that my change was founded on those arguments, that the original proposal was never countered, and that this is an encyclopaedia). Sir Menzies made that claim [that he was proud to be British] only because he was appealing to the entire British electorate. Party leaders are exceptions, as they must prove themselves to be worthy trustees of the entire nation in a way that no-one else in society is. That is why the two acting leaders (Campbell and Brown), both 'Scottish', are attempting to prove with their 'British' credentials.
The idea that only naturalised citizens are allowed to be known by their own nationality is disturbing, especially given that to be 'Scottish' means far more than just to be born in the area represented in the Scottish Parliament (as any Highlander resentful of Anglicisation of the Lowlands would attest). KT Tunstall is the daughter of a Chinese woman and an Irish man, who was born in Scotland by sheer bad luck, and is, thusly, condemned to petty medievalist separatism for all eternity. Bastin 12:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  1. What your comments imply should be your concern. You wrote: "Compartmentalising against practice for other countries, against the facts of an individual's case, and against the wishes of the individual seems a tad ridiculous." I've no idea what the first part means, but the last part at least depends wholly upon a bit of trivia about aa ceremony that most people didn't watch. If you don't want the implications of what you say to be picked up, perhaps you should tone down your language.
  2. Do you not think that appearing at the Brit Awards (note the title) might lead people making public speeches to say such things too?
  3. That you need to distort what I said in order to make a point is something of a giveaway. That you drift off on a cloud of absurd purple prose (involving ignorance of both politics and history) helps to explain the PoV that your edit pushes. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  1. My implication and others' inferences are different things. I do concern myself with the former, but not the latter.

You miss the point.

  1. Many (although not most) people that know enough about KT Tunstall to make a positive contribution will have seen the ceremony. If an individual doesn't know enough of the specifics of the case, he or she shouldn't make contributions that destroy those positive contributions made by individuals that do, and use ignorance as an excuse. Although I am not a KT Tunstall fan (by any measure whatsoever), I can make that positive contribution.

Nonsense from beginning to end.

  1. No other artist at the Brit Awards made such a reference; the Kaiser Chiefs, Coldplay, James Blunt, Arctic Monkeys, Lemar, and Paul Weller all managed to accept their respective awards without gushing about their Britishness. Perhaps that's because some of them consider themselves to be English (Kaiser Chiefs and Paul Weller definitely do).

Speculation about the reasons for not saying something are irrelevant, as is speculation concerning her motives in saying it.

  1. The only reference that I have made to what you have written is that of 'reserving "British" for naturalised citizens'. That is POV, and exposes your (collective) agenda. I think it silly to make any reference to 'England' or 'Scotland', but I concede that I would be betting on a losing horse there. However, it's also best if others recognise the fact that reference must be made to these artists' own country (the UK), as is the case for every other country's citizens. Hence the compromise proposed by the anonymous user, and the one reached regarding Franz Ferdinand.

It's a very common view, shared by many (though given the perplexing use of "collective" perhaps I've misunderstood your accusation. And the idea that it's silly to mention England and Scotland is so far off the scale of normal political or cultural opinion that I find it hard to decide whether it's extreme left, extreme right, or just extremely odd. Incidentally, the U.K. isn't a country, but a political unit made up of different countries. You might hold some political view that makes you regret or oppose that, but that doesn't affect the facts.

  1. To accuse me of ignorance of either politics or history is risible, as is your comment on 'absurd purple prose'. Why am I not surprised that I find a member of the philosophy faculty of the University of Oxford to lash out so needlessly and childishly? Since we both value our pseudonymous existences, I shall be forced to keep that answer to myself. Bastin 17:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who doesn't think that "condemned to petty medievalist separatism for all eternity" is both absurd and purple needs style lessons, at the very least. And anyone who thinks that talking of Scotland as a country is either mediæval or separatist is politically and historically naive at best. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I could sum up your absolute ignorance, and, therefore, your inability to understand the very simple point with one comment of yours:

“Incidentally, the U.K. isn't a country, but a political unit made up of different countries. You might hold some political view that makes you regret or oppose that, but that doesn't affect the facts.”

This is clearly incorrect. A country is an independent sovereign state of the highest order, as is made clear by the article on Wikipedia and by every single political scientist, every historian, and every geographer [1]. Thus, Scotland, which has no government of its own and whose legislature is delegated powers by a higher institution, is not a country. The common, but nonetheless pathetic medievalist, misconception that Scotland is a country is a political view that makes you oppose a fact that is as clear as day. You may regret history, the several centuries of a degree of unity, the several Acts of Union, and the several wars that we have fought as one, and you clearly have your own political agenda, but, as you put it so eloquently, that doesn’t affect the facts.
I assume that you hold a British passport (perhaps I’m being naïve, and perhaps you hold magical English or Oxford passports instead). In my British passport, it clearly states that my nationality is ‘British citizen’. It doesn’t mention ‘England’ anywhere. Thus, the true encyclopaedic nationality would be British, not English. Whatever you think of the importance of 299-year obsolete political borders, you are wrong.
Of course, were you trying to categorise me, out of your rank ignorance, you would put me down as ‘English’, with absolute disregard for the facts of the case (of my four grandparents, one from each of New Zealand, Lebanon, Ireland, and Scotland, but none from England). Clearly, therefore, describing me by the name of an ancient country, three hundred years dead, would reflect neither my own life, nor my heritage. Given that, of KT Tunstall’s four grandparents, two were from Ireland and two were from China, it’s only sensible to apply the same principle to the article in question.
Fortunately, your blind and ignorant zealotry are not mirrored by those individuals that do understand the political, historical, and legal situations. I do not advocate removing all reference to Scotland, as you have advocated removing all reference to the United Kingdom. I seek to make it clear that this individual’s nationality is cut-and-dried, and not open to your incorrect interpretations. That is why I endorse the formula that I put in place: British nationality, followed by Home Nation birthplace. That is a sensible compromise between those that want to reflect political and legal realities, and those that want to categorise people by ‘cultural’ or ‘ethnic’ boundaries (even though KT Tunstall isn’t culturally or ethnically Scottish). I am amazed that a Wikipedia admin is incapable of compromising to reach such a reasonable conclusion that has been accepted in comparable cases. Bastin 18:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Britain and United Kingdom

Hi, you have replaced Britain with United kingdom at several places in articles to do with Indian Independence movement. India was ruled by the British East India company for 100 years and after that, directly by the Queen/King of England under the title Emperor of India. United Kingdom would, as you know, include Scotland and N. Ireland and these would not be considered as ruling India. Kindly revert the several changes you have made. --Gurubrahma 16:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The Kingdom of England ceased to exist in 1707, and was replaced by the United Kingdom. Thus, there was no Queen/King of England after that date. 'United Kingdom' is correct. Bastin 18:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crossing a flag

I would like to ask you not to cross an official flag on your user page. Imagine someone did that to yours. This is even considered a crime in many countries. I just regard that as bad manners. I am sure you are able to express your reasonable opinion in a respectful way. ROGNNTUDJUU! 20:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The EU isn't a country, so crossing out its flag is just as heinous a 'crime' as crossing out the Jolly Roger. The only difference is that I prefer pirates to Eurocrats. Bastin 21:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Please show some respect for those who feel represented by the flag. Many Europeans identify even more with the EU than with their country. The EU has done a lot to ensure prosperity and civil liberties on a continent that had very development in its countries before. Your legitimate concerns can be expressed without offending others. ROGNNTUDJUU! 01:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Some people identify with all sorts of crap. If I feel like crossing out a hammer and sickle, the Celtic FC crest, or the latest 50 Cent album cover, I'll do that. I draw a line at a country's flag, though, because that does have special meaning. However, putting a symbol that doesn't represent a country or a people on a flag doesn't make it a special case of crap. Creating a sacred cow out of the EU, and committing the sin of treating it as a country in its own right, is intolerable. Not only that, but it does no credit to the cause that you're pushing. Bastin 01:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Many people identify with the EU flag just as others identify with the UK or US flag. Crossing it out is just respectless. It is not in any way better to cross out a flag that represents a union of countries than just that of one country. The EU officially represents its member countries e.g. at the WTO. ROGNNTUDJUU! 01:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The EU never represents its members. As a customs union, the European Commission sends representatives of its own single trade policy to the WTO. It represents itself, and forces its members to abide by its trade policy.
You still haven't explained why the EU should be treated as though it is a country. Until you persuade me that the EU deserves to have parity with the UK or USA, I'm going to continue to laugh at your false analogies. And, just so you don't end up wasting your time, you'll never persuade me to that effect. Bastin 14:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Countries chose to let the EU represent them at the WTO. The EU cannot force countries to do anything, they were free to choose the rules, and they are free to leave or not to join certain EU actions like the common currency. The EU is just a political entity as the UK or the US are. If you have states that form a union or countries that form a union, what difference does it make when it comes to the respect one should show for those who feel represented by the union's symbol? ROGNNTUDJUU! 00:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Your point on WTO representation is redundant. Whether or not the EU is a voluntary organisation, the EU's delegation at trade talks represents the EU. The deputations cannot represent the members, because the members have no control of their trade policy (whether by choice or not), and there is never unanimity amongst the group of 25, anyway.
The UK and USA have something that the EU doesn't: sovereignty. Since the EU is not sovereign (you yourself make that clear; any country can withdraw at any time), it does not derive any respect from the patriotism of its citizens. Political unions come in all shapes and sizes, but, at the end of the day, some are merely political unions, and some are more than that: countries. Bastin 14:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
The members gave their delegation at the WTO the power to negotiate contracts binding for them. Many decisions need unanimous decisions in the EU, e.g. the budget. The constitution, which needs unaninmous agreement, was an attempt to change this.
So you think the respect people deserve depends on whether they have given up to withdraw from the unions they formed? Come on. ROGNNTUDJUU! 20:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Again, you base your argument on a false analogy; whether the EU budget requires unanimity or not is irrelevant. Trade policy does not, because trade policy is not a national competence. In fact, it's not even a shared competence. It's an EU-only competence; the EU calls the shots, and the only way that members can reject EU trade deals is by firing the Commission.
With respect to your second statement, I never referred to the respect that people deserve. I made reference to the respect that the EU deserves: none. Bastin 20:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
The only way how the EU representatives got the competency to decide about trade issues was by an unanimous decision of the members. You disrespect the people who feel represented by the EU flag. ROGNNTUDJUU! 16:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Something you might be interested in

If Jan Smuts ever gets finished, you get bored of doing it or you just want a change, a new page, British-Spanish relations, might be of interest to you to help edit. Batmanand | Talk 08:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but I'm not promising anything. You seem to have Gibraltar pretty well covered. I know when my job is done. Bastin 09:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet template

Duly removed. --Mais oui! 15:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. Bastin 15:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Annus mirabilis
No. 714 NAS
British Third Army
Henry George Chauvel
Micronesia
Joshua Frederick Cockey Talbott
List of Ambassadors and High Commissioners to Tanzania
Willoughby, Warwickshire
Chris Hoy
New Zealand Mounted Rifles Brigade
Jeannette Charles
David Murray, 2nd Earl of Mansfield
HMS Turbulent (S87)
Danish colonization of the Americas
Thomas Engelmann
Harmattan
Hisaichi Tanaka
Boromaratcha V
Pittsburgh Theological Seminary
Cleanup
Padma Shri
Arawak
Constitutional status of Cornwall
Merge
Even Flow
Liberalism in Luxembourg
Demographics of the United Kingdom
Add Sources
Interleukin 6
Finan McDonald
Flag of Ireland
Wikify
Mr. Plod
Junsado
National Congress (Sudan)
Expand
British Afro-Caribbean community
History of the Republic of Ireland
Politics of Europe

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways, from comparing articles that need work to other articles you've edited, to choosing articles randomly (ensuring that all articles with cleanup tags get a chance to be cleaned up). It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 14:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Australia at the Commonwealth Games

Heya, thanks for fixing the dates in the template. I am puzzled as to how I didnt notice that when I made the template a few days ago :P Remy B 15:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem. At first, I didn't see anything wrong, either; I only noticed when I started pasting 'England' in place of 'Australia'. Consider that imitation to be a most sincere form of flattery. Bastin 13:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Britain: Great in AD50?

Not so sure about that change to Exeter. Possibly setting it to ]]Roman Britain[[ if there be an article on such would be no less appropriate? I'm not going to touch it myself. Midgley 20:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand your objection. The article referred to the island, which is Great Britain. According to the classical (that is, Greek) definition, 'Britain' means the British Isles. According to the modern (that is, incorrect) definition, it means the United Kingdom. Thus, it is plainly unsuitable to refer to the island.
'Roman Britain' (besides the clearly unencyclopaedic use of the term 'Britain') would also be inappropriate, since the article refers to a time before the Roman conquest of Gaul, never mind the conquest of Great Britain. Bastin 15:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United Kingdom

"many of my edits are pedantic (mostly changing 'Great Britain', 'Britain', or 'England' to 'UK')"

Yes, they are pedantic, and could you please stop doing it? England, Britain and United Kingdom do not all mean the same thing. When editors write an article they use specific terms for specific reasons, and they don't expect to be "corrected" by you. And please don't throw around terms like "vandalism" against other users. I wrote much of the article on British cinema, and I don't appreciate being accused of vandalism by someone whose sole contribution is pointlessly changing "Britain" to "United Kingdom" to make themselves feel better. JW 11:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I frankly don't care that you wrote much of the article. It's Wikipedia's policy to reject 'ownership' of articles, except as required under the GFDL. However, if you do feel some sort of paternalist urge to defend the quality of the articles that you once wrote, you ought to be happy that others are willing to improve upon your work, no matter how small that improvement is. If you reject those improvements, and do so simply because you think that you words are inherently superior, that is called vandalism.
You are precisely correct to note that the terms don't mean the same thing, which leaves me scratching my head as to why you use them to mean the same thing. 'Britain' does not mean 'the United Kingdom'. In fact, it means absolutely nothing, being merely shorthand for three different terms (Great Britain, the United Kingdom, and the British Isles), whilst being encyclopaedic for nothing. Hence, when the use of the term appears to describe the subject country in an article about Cinema of the United Kingdom, it is being used incorrectly. That is why 'United Kingdom' is preferred, and why I changed it thusly.
Oh, and don't quote my policy out of context. The reason that I don't use a bot to change terminology is because it is impossible for a bot to work out what the term is supposed to be. I, as an educated human being that knows (and cares about) the differences, can. Every time I change the terminology of an article, I read the usage, and change or leave unchanged as appropriate. I have changed terms to 'United Kingdom', 'Great Britain', 'British Isles', 'Kingdom of Great Britain', 'Kingdom of England', 'Kingdom of Scotland', 'The Protectorate', 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland', 'Kingdom of Ireland', 'Ireland', 'Republic of Ireland', 'Irish Free State', and others, and each one is precisely correct for the circumstances. However, as I made clear earlier, 'Britain' is never correct, so stop using it. Bastin 13:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Please stop throwing around terms like "vandalism". You use the word much too freely, particularly given your own record. The point I was making was that you should treat other users with some civility and respect; they may well have made a useful contribution to this site which goes beyond pointless and ill-informed meddling. But I can see from the tone of your reply, that this has again passed you by.
The problem is that your changing "Britain" to "the United Kingdom" is not in any way an "improvement". It alters the meaning of a sentence, which I thought you would realise. It is ironic that someone so obsessively pedantic on the use of these terms should themselves substitute one for another as if they have the same meaning, when they obviously don't. It is also clumsy writing to constantly use three words instead of one, when the meaning is already clear and accurate.
And yes, Britain is correct. It is a real place, and a real term. It does not mean "absolutely nothing", so please don't tell me to stop using it. If you so desperately feel we should always say "Great Britain" and not "Britain", you can always raise this on the manual of style talk page. But "Britain" is perfectly correct, and you can check any reference. It may shock you, but the word is in everyday usage and is accepted by everyone in the world except you. If you really want to argue that it should never be used, you can start by going on to the Battle of Britain page and insisting they change the title to "Battle of Great Britain".
Oddly enough, you don't appear to have noticed that your favourite term "the United Kingdom" is itself "shorthand", which makes your arguments against other terms on the grounds of "accuracy" seem all the more absurd. JW 18:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smuts

Hello there. I was just idly clicking through articles and came across your user page.

I decided to try to boost the article on Jan Smuts to featured article status. That failed, because it bothered me that nobody took any interest.

No, really? I must say that I've appreciated the excellent work you've done on the article(s) thus far. Of course I totally understand if 'real-world' commitments mean that you can't put the work in, but please do reconsider. I'm hoping to weigh in with a few contributions, more referencing, pictures etc over the next few days so you won't be totally alone! So much has been done so far that it would be a shame for it to come to an end now.

Regards, Xdamr 21:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not a matter of time; it's merely that I got tired of writing such a long article, seemingly with no end in sight and no-one (bar your excellent self) taking notice or making contributions. I don't think that I'd be interested in picking up with such detail. Having said that, I suppose that it wouldn't take too much work just to get it to FA status: add pictures, reference article thus far, create related stubs, add categories, complete succession boxes for minor positions, write post-1914 overview, detail awards, and summarise with legacy. Give me a couple of days to finish my contributions on Luxembourg, and I'll see what little things I can do. Bastin 23:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)