→Whites only: new section |
Please do not edit war |
||
Line 82: | Line 82: | ||
The source does not say "whites only" and neither do the BNP claim to be "whites-only". The letter of their membership is to those ethnic to the UK (with details to that effect). This would not include Polish or Russian for instance where the ethnicity is also white. In fact BNP policies are anti-Polish. Conveying that does not make them appear any less racist. It makes them appear more so if anything. We have no excuse to make them appear less racist, or more racist, than they actually may be. The edit to explain the true nature of their membership policy is not a very complicated one. If you read this, you understand or are not very good at reading. Hence, we understand each other. Play away. <font size="2" face="Impact">~ [[User:RTG|R]].[[User_Talk:RTG|T]].[[Special:Contributions/RTG|G]]</font> 18:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC) |
The source does not say "whites only" and neither do the BNP claim to be "whites-only". The letter of their membership is to those ethnic to the UK (with details to that effect). This would not include Polish or Russian for instance where the ethnicity is also white. In fact BNP policies are anti-Polish. Conveying that does not make them appear any less racist. It makes them appear more so if anything. We have no excuse to make them appear less racist, or more racist, than they actually may be. The edit to explain the true nature of their membership policy is not a very complicated one. If you read this, you understand or are not very good at reading. Hence, we understand each other. Play away. <font size="2" face="Impact">~ [[User:RTG|R]].[[User_Talk:RTG|T]].[[Special:Contributions/RTG|G]]</font> 18:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC) |
||
==Edit-warring at [[British National Party]]== |
|||
Please stop. If you continue reverting there, or in any other articles in this topic area, you may risk being placed under a "one revert per week" probation, per [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Remedies]]. Using "revert" as an editing tool is a completely ineffective way of implementing article changes. Instead, a better way to proceed is to engage in consensus-building on the article talkpages, and provide multiple reliable sources about the information you would like to include. --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 18:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:41, 16 November 2009
|
"I will strongly oppose any attempt to include cornwall on this article, it is NOT and never has been a country of the United Kingdom. To do so would undermine the status of Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 23:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)"
Kernow is rising up and don't you know it :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.121.61 (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- lmao keep dreaming. Cornwall is a county of England and that is how it shall remain. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Sounds good, Cornwall getting independence from England. Jack forbes (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- BTW, what is Cornwall's anthem, or does it not have one? --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Lmao, yes separatists all stick together. Thankfully the overwhelming majority of people in Cornwall are English, the Cornish separatists are a tiny minority which can be dealt with if needed, but right now they pose no threat. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- The anthem in Cornwall is God save the Queen, the national anthem of England and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. As far as im aware Counties of England have no anthems. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Isn't God Save the Queen the British national anthem as opposed to English? Cornwall does have two anthems, Wales and Scotland have anthems as well.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes God save the Queen is the British anthem, England just uses it aswell. Northern Ireland also uses God save the Queen at football games, where as Scotland / Wales use their own. There may be cornish songs or anthems but none have any official status, the overhwelming majority of people in Cornwall consider themselves English. Cornwall is part of England. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm puzzled - over at English Defense League you seem to be saying that Scotland is not a separate nation and the idea of it having International relations is offensive. 86.158.184.158 (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- I view the United Kingdom as one nation, im British i do not think of myself as English. Sadly that is not how everyone else feels so the United Kingdom is made up of several "nations" to some. Either way, Scotland and Wales are not "international" which is what i found offensive. How can the same country be "international"? BritishWatcher (talk) 21:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- I too, view the United Kingdom as one country. GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, GoodDay, but I disagree. To me the UK is a political entity, but not one country.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Why is the United Kingdom any less of a country than say the USA or Canada? Why is my British identity less valid than those who only claim to be Scottish, Welsh or English? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Because Britain is a political entity that is comprised of separate nations (and former kingdoms) which have thousands of years of history, culture, languages, traditions and individual identities. You are legally British, by nationality, but you are more importantly, (IMO) English if you were born in England (I am presuming you were).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Why is the United Kingdom any less of a country than say the USA or Canada? Why is my British identity less valid than those who only claim to be Scottish, Welsh or English? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, GoodDay, but I disagree. To me the UK is a political entity, but not one country.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- I too, view the United Kingdom as one country. GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- I view the United Kingdom as one nation, im British i do not think of myself as English. Sadly that is not how everyone else feels so the United Kingdom is made up of several "nations" to some. Either way, Scotland and Wales are not "international" which is what i found offensive. How can the same country be "international"? BritishWatcher (talk) 21:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm puzzled - over at English Defense League you seem to be saying that Scotland is not a separate nation and the idea of it having International relations is offensive. 86.158.184.158 (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes God save the Queen is the British anthem, England just uses it aswell. Northern Ireland also uses God save the Queen at football games, where as Scotland / Wales use their own. There may be cornish songs or anthems but none have any official status, the overhwelming majority of people in Cornwall consider themselves English. Cornwall is part of England. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Isn't God Save the Queen the British national anthem as opposed to English? Cornwall does have two anthems, Wales and Scotland have anthems as well.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- The anthem in Cornwall is God save the Queen, the national anthem of England and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. As far as im aware Counties of England have no anthems. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Sounds good, Cornwall getting independence from England. Jack forbes (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Why is Britain a political entity but Scotland and England are not? England was formed from smaller entities, so was Scotland. So if we go down this route what about the silly separatists from Cornwall who seem to think they have their own "country" and culture? How about the Kingdom of Wessex, should that be reformed? "history, culture, languages, traditions and individual identities", Different parts of Scotland have that.. What about the Highlanders? Scotland is just as much a political entity as Britain, its just we have allowed such identities to continue and grow at the same time as allowing British identity to weaken because of many different factors.
- Yes i was born in England and would be considered as English, but that is not how i think of myself. I consider myself British and i always have, the United Kingdom is my country. Edinburgh and Glasgow are just as much part of my country as London and Liverpool are. The United Kingdom does not stop people from considering themselves Scottish or English if that is what they want, Scotland is still considered a country. However if the separatists win then my identity and country is destroyed, for unionists which without doubt make up the majority of every part of the United Kingdom, "independence" is destruction of our country, shared culture, traditions and identity. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) My preference is to call England, Scotland, Northern Ireland & Wales 'constituent countries'. But I've chosen to support the current compromise, in order to keep the peace. PS: The compromise has been doing quite well. GoodDay (talk) 14:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- We're on very dangerous ground allowing anyone other than the indigenous populations of these non-English nations to state whether they are fit to have inter-national links. Some people may (quite reasonably) only wish to be called "British", but many English people (particularly supporters and sympathisers of the EDL) will expect the people of Wales or Scotland, living in quite different condistions, to respond differently to Muslim extremism. Which is why there's a WDL and an SDL, relations with which can only be "international". 86.158.184.158 (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'll have to exit from this discussion. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- "international" just does not fit when talking about the relationship between England, Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland. The best way of describing the other groups would just have been to say "Other British groups in Scotland and Wales have been established.." etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Northern Ireland
Northern Ireland is only ruled over by British authorities because they threatened the British by force that they had better rule. They will hardly be storming Westminster in the morning but flip the coin, they must have been a bit evil and menacing when they wanted to be. The British authorities, in my view perhaps, wouldn't dare to enforce anything in Northern Ireland except in matters of human rights and neighbourly defense assistance. Any time they have enforced more than that, we find a series of brutality that nobody is too proud of. When they insist the Irish, north/south, to have the final say over themselves, everybody seems to get along and in fact nobody seems to get along better across a stretch of sea so they have had the final say, south and north as well, about their own laws and things most of the time since the partiton. The laws of Northern Ireland often differ slightly from the laws elsewhere in the United Kingdom because, although following each others laws closely, the supreme ruling power in Northern Ireland is Northern Ireland and makes its own final decisions. Devolution and home rule is older than anyone you know. They are not just going to kick us out when ready, they have been kicking and kicking...
I am sorry for blowing up your words. This republic is not Ireland even though it takes Ireland as its name. If both those facts are not fine, then it is not fine that it take that name, there is no other reasonable permutation. Saying things like "for certain needs" and further down that elephant in the room road, they have you all ripped up. I would rather accept a Wikipedia massacre than concede to folk telling me lies i.e. that the republic is Ireland. Go **** to them even if they ganged up and changed the whole thing to reflect the lie. There is a guideline that just because people vote does not mean that they are right and it is one of the most important guidelines. Folk all over America and places feel they have an Irish heritage and if some ya hoos are saying "This is more Irish if you say the republic is Ireland", they are going to get a rise and you must concede that but not forget that right here at home all they got was a rise out of some folk in Americae or some laugh with Harry Boo up the country and that's hardly a rise in wages, spouting more intense disagreement is all that is. Get the elephant out of the room and stop beleiving that folk from the north have less or even different heritage to those in the south. These lads argueing the bit are only saying "Our heritage will be we won this or we won that, our heritage is overseas." Yeah well we are an ancient peoples not some new peoples of "the state". The state is new, This is what they all fight about. The rest is ancient, this is what they all make peace about so don't entertain the elephant in the room.
Apollogies because I messed with your post, you dissapeared, you were probably offended and I would concede that but if you want to change it back you will have to say so because I did it for your own view as much as anyone elses. ~ R.T.G 19:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Dont worry its ok. I have just been busy with other things these past few weeks and not been paying much attention to the Ireland collab page, the conversation there seems to have died out anyway. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
ANI notice
Hello, BritishWatcher. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have an interest in adding your comments. The thread is User:Ludvikus revisited. Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Talk:David Cameron
Hi. Just letting you know that an ip editor has copied one of your comments and moved it into another conversation.[1] As they only copied a comment that supported their position and ignored your subsequent clarification I think they may be taking your position out of context. I will leave it up to you whether you are happy with their refactoring or if you wish to revert them instead. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
A nightmare for BritishWatcher
Ya awaken to learn:
- The United Kingdom joins the Republic of Ireland
- On your Userpage, the Union Jack is replaced by the Tri-colors (and you can't revert it)
- British Isles is replaced with Irish Isles, throughout Wikipedia (and you can't revert it).
- The article British Isles is moved to the Irish Isles' & permanently protected. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- wow that is a scary thought. It depresses me just thinking about it, i had to watch some patriotic videos to cheer myself up after that. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 19:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- As payback, have you seen this video Goodday? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMLOOsMqUUE lol
- God save the Queen of Canada :) BritishWatcher (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
This looks like as good a place as any to pose the question ... I'm trying to get into the midset of "why"? You evidently understand the problem with respect to calling Northern Ireland a "country", but I can't understand why you are adopting the line that you are. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- A year ago when i arrived here on wikipedia i opposed England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland being described as countries, i thought they should all just say constituent countries or part of the United Kingdom. However the sources backing up use of the term are extensive, i accept in the case of Northern Ireland its more problematic, but the sources that justify using "country" for England, use it for Northern Ireland too.
- Changing the article lead doesnt just impact on the article itself, it suggests we are going to have to start using a different term to describe Northern Ireland, which messes up using Countries of the United Kingdom which is a pretty handy term that fits into the text of many articles. If Northern Ireland can not be a described as a country i dont think England, Scotland or Wales should either. Its also worth pointing out saying "Constituent country" really solves nothing at all, its still calling it a country. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think it messes up using "countries of the United Kingom" precisely because that term - in that context - is truly well-referenced. No one commenting on the NI page has advocated against using that term in a wider UK context (although I appreciate now why I got a feeling that some thought I was). The problem - for Northern Ireland specifically - occurs when you follow though and deduce from that that the correct term for Northern Ireland is "country". It is precicely because of that fallacious deduction that so many sources exist that flatly state, "Northern Ireland is not a country."
- That is the difference - in the case of Northern Ireland there are reliable published sources (from all perspectives - unionist, nationalist and none) that explain in simple terms the problems involved and advice not to call it a "country". They do so because it is a honest mistake to make (although co-incidentally being a perspective of held by a fringe perspective in unionism). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Military expenditure list
Hello BW, Just to say we were the third in the List of countries by military expenditures but the French have changed it once again to fourth, could you please take a look and see if all is right. Thanks --SuperDan89 (talk) 12:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Its probably right sadly, we have a government that wants to get involved in as many wars as possible but wont increase the military budget to match it. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hello again BW, thanks for checking it out, just wanted to make sure as the list is getting changed on a daily basis. Yeah seems we're always in the thick of it, well what the Forces do best I suppose ;)--SuperDan89 (talk) 02:10, 04 November 2009 (UTC)
Scotland/national anthem
Hello, there, BritishWatcher. There's a slightly surreal situation developing on my talk page that may be of interest to you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Irvine22#ScotlandIrvine22 (talk) 07:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
BW, if there is anything you can do to get Irvine to pay attention to the multiple warnings on his/her talk page the rest of us will be very grateful. --Snowded TALK 10:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Whites only
The source does not say "whites only" and neither do the BNP claim to be "whites-only". The letter of their membership is to those ethnic to the UK (with details to that effect). This would not include Polish or Russian for instance where the ethnicity is also white. In fact BNP policies are anti-Polish. Conveying that does not make them appear any less racist. It makes them appear more so if anything. We have no excuse to make them appear less racist, or more racist, than they actually may be. The edit to explain the true nature of their membership policy is not a very complicated one. If you read this, you understand or are not very good at reading. Hence, we understand each other. Play away. ~ R.T.G 18:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Edit-warring at British National Party
Please stop. If you continue reverting there, or in any other articles in this topic area, you may risk being placed under a "one revert per week" probation, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Remedies. Using "revert" as an editing tool is a completely ineffective way of implementing article changes. Instead, a better way to proceed is to engage in consensus-building on the article talkpages, and provide multiple reliable sources about the information you would like to include. --Elonka 18:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)