Talk:Terminology of the British Isles

Article needs an organisational overhaul

It has annoyed me for some time that this potentially excellent article has become bloated with repetition. I believe that what is needed is a short summary of the important terms at the top, followed by an explanation of the terms in detail, followed by any ancillary material (such as the more detailed historical development). What we actually have is a "brief" summary that is practically as long as the "terminology in detail" section, and then once the "terminology in detail" section is done, the whole thing starts all over again with "Geographical distinctions" and then "Political distinctions". It's too much. On the other hand, it's a lot of work to reorganise, and not something I'd attempt without broad agreement. I'd be interested to hear other people's thoughts. Matt 86.134.30.110 (talk) 04:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC).

I came to make precisely the same point, and see I've have been beaten to it. P M C 20:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Geographical Distinctions, part II

England, Scotland & Wales are not islands. Why are they listed in that section? GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that they are called islands, but they are under Geographic Distinctions, when they are really Political Distinctions in my opinion. Thoughts? TWCarlson (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Western Isles?

Just out of historical completeness, should there not be some mention of the Western Isles in this topic? --Triton Rocker (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Use as a geographic term

OK. I propose that we confirm the geographic use of the term as noted in academia.

The British Isles is an archipelago consisting of the two large islands of Great Britain and Ireland, and the many smaller islands surrounding them. It is a geographical term, arguably in use since the second century BC, and used widely in academia without reflecting the United Kingdom's hegemonic interests. In books published before 1920, this term relates to the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Ireland, the Channel Islands, the Isles of Scilly and the Isle of Man, as Ireland was ruled directly from Westminster. From 1920 onwards, the term includes both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland (Eire).

--Triton Rocker (talk) 04:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Once you start to talk about 'the UK, Northern Ireland and Ireland' it ceases being a geographical term and becomes a political one. Geographical talks about the islands (Great Britain, Ireland, Isle of Man etc). Political talks about the political structures of the nations inhabiting those islands. Country names are inappropriate in this section unless they also happen to be the names of the islands. Daicaregos (talk) 09:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Quite so. And there has never been an entity called "the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Ireland, the Channel Islands, the Isles of Scilly and the Isle of Man"; the Channel Islands and Isle of Man are not "ruled directly from Westminster"; etc. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. So were you to delete everything from "In books published before 1920" onwards, you would have a defensible position. From the moment you introduce political jurisdictions you muddy the waters. Also, your Judith Jesch citation needs to be a lot clearer. --Red King (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify: Nothing before "Once you start to talk about 'the UK, Northern Ireland and Ireland' it ceases being a geographical term and becomes a political one." was written by me. It appears to be a 'blockquote', whatever that is, and written (but not signed) by Triton Rocker. Daicaregos (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Political-only diagram

(This topic was branched off from this point in the Euler Diagram discussion.)

A diagram showing the political relationship between the major political entities in the British Isles.

Here's a politics only diagram. --RA (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

This diagram, from purely point of view of view of clarity and ease of reading, is the best. So much easier to read. Probably could drop the England and Wales grouping for increase clarity. Only qualm is the relationship between NI and Ireland doesn't really come out. DeCausa (talk) 22:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

OMG! What kind of a rabid, Irish nationalist/republican, POV pushing warrior am I? Totally forgot about the North-South bodies. --RA (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a really nice diagram. Very pleasant and clear, and it helps explain the complexity of the relationships.

I guess the problem I see is that it entirely leaves out geography. I can sense by your comments that you think a political and legal diagram is needed, but it doesn't take away our need to clarify ALL of the relationships in one place. Your diagram would be great deeper in the article. Mine is for the introduction. Do you agree? TWCarlson (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

As much as I like the diagram, I think it would be a step backwards for an overall diagram for this article. I imagine this could go in the political distinctions section (indeed we could have one for geography too, making a nice set), but it could not replace the current one in the lead. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Yea, the region is very complex, both physically and politically. Maybe showing ALL political and physical relationships on one map is not possible. As DeCausa pointed out, not even all of the important political relations are shown on this one (maybe we would need another for the relationships between ROI-NI-UK?). Maybe an approach is a complex political diagram and a complex geo-political map? If a combined an overall diagram is needed, it might just need to be a simple one and be more lateral in its approach rather than strictly correct from either a physical or political perspective? --RA (talk) 07:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the diagram you've created is fine, it shows the direct progression of legal groupings without going into too much detail. I've been tossing around the idea of a geographical one, and I see an issue there in determining which areas are included. Just the main islands? As for an overall diagram, I'd be quite happy to have one of the ones shown above used the same as it is now, but without a key or colour coding, which should eliminate the issues of how to label different areas. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't know if this was suggested earlier, but what about this political one and a separate purely geographical one. Maybe it's just me, but I find combining the 2 makes for quite a difficult diagram to follow. DeCausa (talk) 09:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I like this diagram and think there is no need for another geo one. Good job RA. Bjmullan (talk) 09:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me offer my experience as an example of why a simple overview is still needed. In the United States, the most commonly confused terms are England, Britain (or Great Britain), and United Kingdom; people use these interchangeably all the time. I came here to find out the difference. RA's diagram would not have showed me that difference, and frankly (no offense intended here), I wouldn't have cared about the political intricacies at that point (not until later, anyway). What I really learned was that Great Britain is an island (strictly a geographical term), UK is the true name of the sovereign state, and England is a region within the UK that is on the island of GB.

If we eliminate the geography, I wouldn't have learned anything about Great Britain. If we keep the overview but eliminate the color scheme, I might think Great Britain is some kind of political entity. I think the color scheme must stay. I'm going to continue working on an overview diagram and I'll do my best to implement the points that have been raised, but I'm not willing to sacrifice the simplicity and clarity for the sake of including every last nuance. TWCarlson (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

(Wrote this before seeing TWCarlson's comments, which I believe are of the same spirit.) Maybe we need something even simpler again. Something that doesn't attempt to be "definitive", or even strictly "accurate", but is just "useful". What are the important concepts: the two larger islands, the two states, the four constituent countries. Maybe we don't even need the three crown dependencies individually. We could show them as one thing - just to flag there are dependencies outside of UK that are in the region also - or as just give the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands.

The important thing might be just enough so that people know what's there and roughly how they relate. The ins-and-outs of devolution, the three jurisdictions of the UK, the British Islands, etc. may be too much information at the start. The North-South bodies and British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference would be too much too. --RA (talk) 12:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a good diagram. However, I think Scotland should be abuv Northern Ireland (as it's bigger in size and population) and the Isle of Man should be abuv Jersey and Guernsey. ~Asarlaí 12:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

RA, I'm starting to think simpler is going to be better as well. I like the idea of consolidating the crown dependencies. Do you think we could somehow leave in "British Islands" to clarify, since it is so similar in name, or would that still be too much detail? TWCarlson (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

See also: #Overview_diagram TWCarlson (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think this one is very clear. Well done. --RA (talk) 14:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but have we decided to take England and Wales out? JonChapple^Talk 15:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I favour leaving it out. But if England and Wales is included, on the grounds that it is a legal entity, then Wales should be noted as a legal entity too. Daicaregos (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

For an simple overview diagram, I think it is needlessly confusing. The four constituents of the UK are a sufficient introduction. --RA (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Have we decided to do a political-only discussion? If so, lets keep it on topic. If we're talking about the overview diagram, put those comments in the #Overview_diagram section. TWCarlson (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

This diagram is fit for nothing but the garbage bin. Its sole purpose is to diminish the useage of "British Isles" as a term. The British-Irish council is of no interest, and even less consequence, to most people of "These Islands", as is the vague concept of the "British Islands". Yes, both things exist, but no-one is really interested in them. By the way - England, as an entity, is not part of the British-Irish Council, so think again! Some of the geographic Euler diagrams are good, but this "political" one - it stinks. And it doesn't even look good. 212.183.128.107 (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

yawn DeCausa (talk) 20:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I did when I saw this diagram. 212.183.128.107 (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘RA, get ready for some fire with this diagram. There are a lot of strong political beliefs out there. (I believe you can take it, though!) I think you've got a great start. TWCarlson (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The diagram is explicitly political; the British Isles are irrelevant to this and England is not a political body. The IP has no argument. Except for looks, I also preferred circles, but never mind! Is it worth doing a geographical diagram? It would include the British Isles, Great Britain, Ireland, and what else? Do we make an arbitrary cut based on area? It may not be worth making one. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

So if the BI are irrelevant to this, why is it eing proposed to put it in this article? And, yes, England is not a political unit, so in this diagram there should be no mention of it. 212.183.128.11 (talk) 05:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I wonder what this diagram is intended to achieve. I thought that the point of having a diagram at all was to try and present as many of the terminological variants as possible - both "political" and "geographical" - in a way that minimises (and hopefully resolves) any confusion and was explanatory to a wide range of readers. Chipmunkdavis' TWCarlson's diagrams do that. This one doesn't. It gives precedence to explaining things that really don't need explaining - such as "British-Irish Council" and "British Islands" - which are relatively obscure. It is logically correct, but by giving emphasis to those terms, and by appearing to give substantial weight to the small dependencies, it is actually quite likely to mislead. I don't like it at all - more importantly, I don't think it's something that anyone really needs. Sorry. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You don't happen to mean my diagrams, do you? TWCarlson (talk) 11:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry, brain freeze! Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Not trying to hog the credit, I just didn't know if I had missed something important! TWCarlson (talk) 13:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle, the diagram above is a politics-only diagram. What it "intends to achieve" is to show the political relationships in the region. It is NOT a diagram that tries to present as many of the terminological variants as possible. I also think that TWCarlson's diagrams do that. This one doesn't. That is not its purpose. --RA (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I know. But do we need a "politics-only diagram"? What does it clarify, that needs clarifying in a diagram? Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

If we used RA's diagram and threw a colour loop around the E/W/S and in the key indicated that that loop was "island of Great britain", and did something similar (different colour) with NI and Ireland with the key saying "Island of Ireland", and replace "British-Irish Council" with British Isles wouldn't that cover everything that's needed? It would have the clarity of RA's diagram but include the information which causes most confusion. The NI box and the Ireland box would have to be slightly re-positioned to make the loops work. DeCausa (talk) 14:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

D'oh! Looking above, I see it's already been done! DeCausa (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

We don't need any diagram. One way a politics-only diagram might be useful is that it may allow us to worry less about the in-and-out of devolution, "Crown Dependencies", jurisdictions, "British Islands" and whatnot in an overview diagram knowing that these things will be shown later in a seperate diagram. An overview diagram could then concentrate on the big concepts: the two islands, the two sovereign states, the four constituents of the UK, the three Crown Dependencies, and not fret about having to show everything absolutely.

See the timestamps of the first posts in this section and the section immediatly above. It may appear as if the diagram above was proposed after the simpler diagram. --RA (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

OK - in my view we should concentrate on getting TWCarlson's diagram finalised, and then see whether an additional politics-only diagram is helpful. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. It may be useful for the politics section of the British Isles article in any case. --RA (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what all the fuss is about here. This diagram:[1] is far superior to all the others and encompasses everything the reader would want to know - and it does it very clearly; much more so than the others. The alternative using rounded squares is not at all good from the point of view of clarity. Van Speijk (talk) 09:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ It seems to me that we can never achieve consensus with just one diagram: we have to have a political diagram and a geographic diagram. Every attempt to combine them has hit red lines of one sort or another.--Red King (talk) 14:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

A geographic diagram would be quite boring. A large circle labeled British Isles, and several small circles inside saying Ireland, Great Britain, Isle of Man, Guernsey, Jersey; none of the inner circles would overlap. The relationships are not complicated enough for a diagram, IMO. TWCarlson (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Weasel words in this article

I've tagged the following as Weasel: "The term British Isles can also be considered irritating or offensive by some". This frament has all the hallmarks noted in WP:WEASEL and my tagging of it is perfectly in order. Nonetheless, the tag was removed. Given the clarity of the situation I've reinstated the tag. Our choices are stratightforward; either substatiate the assertion - and the reader should not have to go to a linked article to find out who the "some" are - or remove the sentence. I favour removal, but will of course accept it being properly sourced. Van Speijk (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It's fully sourced in the British Isles article and the wording there is the result of extensive discussion and consensus. This is a summary article and the phrase is valid. Repeating references from another article is simply a waste of everyone's time. --Snowded ^TALK 21:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Please read what I said. I know it's sourced elsewhere, but it isn't sourced here, and the reader should not have to go to a linked article. You can't excuse weasel words simply because a sourced alternative is used elsewhere. I've tagged it, so the onus is on you, or anyone else for that matter, to meet the requirements of the tag. Please stop edit warring to try and prove a point. I won't stoop to your level by reverting it but hopefully someone will find a source anyway. Van Speijk (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Fmph has put in the a citation. End of discusion, no? DeCausa (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

And we end up sourcing summary material. Its unnecessary as the statement can be easily verified. If editors want to indulge an SPA feel free, but it won't be the end of it. Oh, Van Speijk, or whoever you were before, a single revert is not edit warring. --Snowded ^TALK 21:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

And Van Spejk, if you know it is sourced elsewhere, why don't you just add the source yourself rather than creating your own little drama. t'would be easier all round wouldn't it? Fmph (talk) 21:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

No, t'wouldn't. The problem is the nature of the sources. They are generally of low quality. Take the one you've added to this article. It's an opinion blog from the Guardian. It's just the view of a single person. It does not reflect any academic study into the issue and is very poor. In fact, when you look at just about all the sources supporting the claim of "offensiveness" they are invariably personal opinions rather than documenting any investigation into the matter. Van Speijk (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

You obviously haven't read it then. Its not an 'Opinion Blog'. It's a response by the Grauniad's production editor to multiple complaints by readers - most of whom seem to be in Ireland. That paper is one of the few who take seriously the opinions of their readers, having a Readers Editor to act as an independent advocate for the readers when the paper get things wrong. David Marsh is responsible for ensuring that the style guide is followed (which it wasn't in the case in point). It's a professional - as opposed to academic - study of the complaints made together with a response on behalf of the publishers. It's about as close to the definition of secondary source as is possible to get. And if you don't think so, why not take the matter over to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and see what response you get from the experts over there. Fmph (talk) 06:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have, twice now. It is and opinion blog and what's more, the British Isles matter receives scant mnetion in the piece. It's all about misrepresenting someone's nationality. Really, it is not a good reference. Van Speijk (talk) 08:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You say above that you were aware the statement was sourced. Are you now challenging the source or simply defending yourself from not either (i) accepting the statement as sourced or (ii) inserting a reference yourself? If you are challenging it then you need to go the British Isles article and raise it there. Its been two years since it was settled and resolved but you are of course free to disrupt another long standing consensus. --Snowded ^TALK 09:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Can't we all just get along? :) I don't know the whole history of the debate, but I'd guess that the term British Isles almost certainly is offensive to some, but also that the "some" who say that need to be identified; otherwise, it seems to objectively meet the criteria for weasel words. Also, what's wrong with sourcing in a summary article? Doesn't Wikipedia say every article should be properly sourced? There's no problem repeating references -- it's not going to take down the server or even complicate the article. Some articles have hundreds of references; it's really not a problem to add more credibility. TWCarlson (talk) 11:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The sentence would benefit from being more specific. The comparable sentences in British Isles are more specific, for example. Also, "offensive" isn't quite the issue. It's not a bad word that causes people to blush or to cow. The following is more specific and can be sourced:

The term is irritating to Irish people, particularly in the Republic of Ireland, and is seen as outdated by authors from both Britain and Ireland. Its use is discouraged by the Government of Ireland. Other terms, particularly, Britain and Ireland, are becoming more favoured. However, there is no consensus on a satisfactory alternative. In relations between the the United Kingdom and Ireland, the archipelago is referred to euphemistically as these islands.

--RA (talk) 08:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy with that as alternative wording --Snowded ^TALK 08:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me too. RashersTierney (talk) 09:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Me three Fmph (talk) 09:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Although WP:OR only requires every statement to be attributable (even if not attributed), I think this falls under "material likely to be challenged" as described under WP:V. RA, you say your statement can be sourced -- can you list it here? Thanks. TWCarlson (talk) 12:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

All except the last sentence is attributable to references already in British Isles. (They are more or less direct quotes from them.) The last sentence is quite devilishly hard to source explicitly. The meaning of euphemisms, by their nature, are left unstated. However, an explicit reference, if one is needed, is:

• Cordula Hawes-Bilger, 2007, "War Zone Language: Linguistic aspects of the conflict in Northern Ireland", in Schweizer anglistische Arbeiten, Vol 132

Or we can go with the New York Herald Tribune's Guide to Europe, which put it plainly that, "Both sides deny that the Republic is in the British Isles at all, preferring the euphemism 'these islands.'" --RA (talk) 13:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me and hat tip to RA for tracking those down --Snowded ^TALK 14:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. --RA (talk) 14:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic. TWCarlson (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The specific use of "outdated" needs sourcing, and I would suggest "some" authors. As it is at the moment it could be taken as all authors are of this view. I also wonder about "becoming more favoured". How about "are finding favour" or "becoming more widely used"? Van Speijk (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Well instead of "outdated", the British Isles article uses "... has imperialist overtones..." which might be more accurate. Fmph (talk) 07:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

So are you saying the word "British" has imperialist overtones? Van Speijk (talk) 10:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought that was not a controversial statement in this (and many other) contexts. Kinda goes with having run an empire for a century or two --Snowded ^TALK 11:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. We had Spanish, German, Russian, Roman and various other empires and we don't tend to associate the term "imperialist" with those (well, maybe with Roman we do to an extent); but, this is getting off track. However, related to this, I checked the reference alluded to by Fmph and I can't find the words "imperialist overtones" in the referenced publication (via Google book search). Maybe someone else could also have a look to confirm this. If it doesn't have those words then we need to correct something or other. Maybe the wrong publication is referenced, or maybe it was some misinterpretation by an earlier editor. Van Speijk (talk) 11:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

This article should've been deleted long ago. GoodDay (talk) 11:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Which article? Van Speijk (talk) 11:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

This article -Teminology of the British Isles. I think it's even longer then the British Isles article. GoodDay (talk) 11:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The word British with regards to the British Isles refers to the island of Great Britain, not the British state. It is the largest island in the group and so lends its name to the rest – no imperialist overtones there. An island can't have an empire. JonChapple^Talk 11:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

lol pity you weren't around in WWII; them silly Americans wasted a lot of lives fighting an imperialist island nation when they should have realised that it was all semantics. Tom Pippens (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It's likely a historical combination of both - largest island & empire. GoodDay (talk) 11:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

lol so it was not called the British Empire then? --Snowded ^TALK 11:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Where did I say that? JonChapple^Talk 11:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You can't deny the imperalist stigma to the name. Afterall, London is located on the island of Great Britain. GoodDay (talk) 11:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The word "imperialist" can easily be associated with the words "British Empire", but certainly not with the single word "British", and therefore not with other combinations such as "British Isles". JonChapple's point is absolutely correct. The term "British Isles" is derived wholly from the geographic use. Van Speijk (talk) 11:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Well if the pair of you want to believe that you have my sympathy, it seems that you are both in denial of reality, and more importantly here, the sources. --Snowded ^TALK 11:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It'll have imperialist overtones to some, it won't to others. It's a personal, and I suppose maybe cultural association. That's what should be reflected. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

"So are you saying the word "British" has imperialist overtones?" It's not me. It's the editor(s) that constructed and agreed that particular part of the British Isles article. You seem to be a little to literalist for me. Editors are urged to paraphrase sources, and, in the case of the source in question, editors have distilled the long wording of the actual reference down to the words "...has imperialist overtones...", which I'd have thought was a reasonably accurate ditillation. To be fair, I think RA distilled it further into slightly more NPOV language by using the term "outdated" which I thought very elequent. But you obviously disagree, so I suggested that instead we could use the phrasing agreed on the BI article. And you seem to disagree with that. It's starting to get awfully WP:IDONTLIKEIT around here. Fmph (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks to be like a balance in favour of RA's wording - does anyone really object to using it? --Snowded ^TALK 17:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The British in the British Isles is a geographic adjective, not a genitive. Compare the use of the geographic adjective Irish in the Irish Sea. 91.5.36.101 (talk) 01:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

You are, of course, completely correct, but you're wasting your time with this 'orrible shower. JonChapple^Talk

How do you know that? Fmph (talk) 12:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, RA's wording is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 14:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. --Red King (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)