Talk:Canterbury–York dispute

Barlow "English Church" p. 31

(Moved)Discussion moved to British Isles Terminology Task Force page to avoid messing up this Talk page. The results of the discussion will be posted below. --HighKing (talk) 10:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's discuss this ON the talk page, no? That's where discussions on articles should go. I do not need to watch some weird page somewhere miles away from the actual content of the page in order to keep up with discussions on a page that frankly, I mostly created. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll move the discussion back here, but you'll quickly find that it's not really about the content of the Canterbury-York dispute, and more about a technical application of terminology usage. But what the hey... --HighKing (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Better centralised at above. Issue will not be resolved here in isolation from related discussion and is marginal to this article. RashersTierney (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Moved Back

The article states Canterbury used texts to back up their claims, including Bede's major historical work the Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum, which sometimes had the Canterbury archbishops claiming primacy over not just York, but the entire ecclesiastical hierarchy of the British Isles. The source states:

Canterbury's claim to a primacy was directed almost eclusively to its attempt to subdue York; but, since it came to be based on texts from Bede's Historia Ecclsiastica, took the form of a piramcy over the whole of Britain, and so could be used against Wales, Scotland, and Ireland.

The discussion below has been moved from the article Talk page. --HighKing (talk) 10:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I have consulted the relevant page and there is no text matching the "quotation" that was inserted into the article. The relevant paragraph reads:

Canterbury's claim to a primacy was directed almost eclusively to its attempt to subdue York; but, since it came to be based on texts from Bede's Historia Ecclsiastica, took the form of a piramcy over the whole of Britain, and so could be used against Wales, Scotland, and Ireland.

So, the quotation inserted into the article text was not a quotation that exists in the given source, and is thus incorrect. Please do NOT revert it back into the article, as it's incorrect. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Great that you've produced the relevant quote, so I suggest we use that terminology. Bede's Historia ecclesiastica dates from about 731, and refers to "Britain" and "Ireland" (and obviously doesn't use the term "British Isles" since that term was coined centuries later). and most importantly, the areas being referred to also differ since the church did not align according to the current geographical area. And since the quotation uses "Wales, Scotland, and Ireland", we should stick with the source. --HighKing (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Just avoid plagarism and make sure you paraphrase. (Note that is why the aticle uses "British Isles".) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

British Isles is fine. The fact that the term was coined some time after the date of the publication referred to, is not at all relevant. Mister Flash (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Using the text contained in the actual quote is not regarded as plagarism and doesn't require paraphrasing, especially is the paraphrasing has resulted in inaccuracy. Using British Isles in this context is incorrect. Bede only refers to Britain and Ireland, or names England, Scotland and Ireland, and the Isle of Wight. Note that he does not mention, for example, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man, which are included in the definition of British Isles, and neither of these territories would fall under the auspices of the English church in the 12th century. For accuracy, stick with the sources rather than inaccurate paraphrasing. --HighKing (talk) 10:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

{Outdent)Why move the discussion from the article page to which it is relevant to some other unrelated page? Keith D (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Because in the past, discussions relating to the use of the term "British Isles" were spread out over multiple article Talk pages. This was deemed as disruptive, especially since many of the same editors were involved in many discussions, and a lot of "innocent bystanders" found the entire discussion to be irrelevant to the actual article. This page was set up voluntarily to centralize discussions with the aim of minimizing disruption over multiple article Talk pages so that all interested parties could hopefully agree on usage guidelines. --HighKing (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) First of all, this should have stayed at the artilcle page. Second, you should indicate that the above was moved FROM the article page. Thirdly, you're misunderstanding, it's not BEDE that's being referred to, but Lanfranc's and his clerks' interpretation of Bede in the 11th century. The "took the form of a primacy over the whole of Britain, and could be used against Wales, Scotland and Ireland." refers to Lanfranc and his sucessors attempts in the 11th and 12th century to assert primacy over .. yes, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland. What Bede mentions is immaterial, Barlow (who is the source of the quote here) is talking about attempts to include those. The fact that small islands may or may not have been included doesn't negate the fact that attempts (unsucessful, but still attempts) were made to assert authority over Ireland, which is indeed in the British Isles. Fourth, plagarism is copying without quotation marks three or more words. I don't care if we use a quotation, but I really am NOT pleased to have my words moved HERE without some notification on this page that they were moved. There really isn't anything WRONG with "British Isles" in this context, as you'll note, the quote implies that "whole of Britain" includes "Wales, Scotland and Ireland". Ealdgyth - Talk 13:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC) As a side note "Moved to SE page" as an edit summary isn't helpful, doesn't give a link for those of us not involved in this whole Ireland/British Isles mess, and isn't clear attribution of where it went. I had to follow the movers edits to find out this page (why does it exist, anyways, shouldn't this always be discussed on the ... article talk pages?) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The link was put into the Talk page comment. I don't understand what you're complaining about, you should have simply clicked on the link there. See above comments as to why this page exists. --HighKing (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

If you read the above section, I have clearly stated that the above text was moved from the article page. If you want to move it back, please do, but from experience this discussion will take some time and *may* start to introduce some uncivil comments and perhaps some nationalistic overtones. Some administrators with experience of this topic keep an eye here and it tends to keep editors more civil. It's also following the format used in the other article discussions and I state the text was moved from the article Talk page. I suppose I could bold it to highlight it...(done) And your assertion that "British Isles" = "whole of Britain" = "includes Wales, Scotland and Ireland" is incorrect - the text does not equate "whole of Britain" to include Ireland. The author further states that "Metropolitan and primatial claims fared best when they accorded with the political situation or were supported by secular imperialism" so is in fact stating that in claiming primacy over Britain, it would ease (future) claims of primacy over Ireland also (when/if the political situation matched).

The reference being used does not mention "British Isles". There is no reference that states that Lanfranc and his clerks' interpretation of Bede claims primacy over the ecclesiastical hierarchy of the British Isles, which is the text in the article. The book being quoted uses Wales, Scotland and Ireland, and I've went back to Bede to check the language used there (as is sensible - since that, after all, is what influenced Lanfranc). We're not arguing about whether or not Ireland is included in the British Isles (it is). Rather the discussion is about whether it is correct to use the term in this article. Was authority was being asserted over the entire British Isles? Clearly it was not. Therefore using the term "British Isles" is wrong, and the article should follow the reference. --HighKing (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and did what I was hinting you could do, if you were so bothered by the "British Isles" and used the direct quote of "Wales, Scotalnd and Ireland" in place of the disputed "British Isles". Are we done now? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I fully understand why your tone indicates you are majorly fed-up with this discussion and why you possible believe it is a complete waste of time. That's another reason why discussions are centralized here - most editors who are interested in the article content believe this is an irrelevant petty issue, and are completely turned off and do not want to get involved. I would have made the change myself, but it would have been quickly reverted. I appreciate you going ahead and making the edit, thank you. --HighKing (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted it - WP:BRD. Seems to me that we are talking about the whole of the British Isles, inasmuch as England (primacy of York and Canterbury), Wales, Ireland and Scotland are, in effect, the British Isles. The sentence is fine in that it paraphrases the quote - and is accurate. Mister Flash (talk) 17:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Ealdgyth came up with a sensible conclusion that follows normal church usage, --Snowded ^TALK 19:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

And more importantly, follows the reference. Your claim of following WP:BRD is mischievous at best since your edits are after discussion has already taken place. I've reverted. --HighKing (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I've put it back. I wasn't involved in the discussions 'cos they took place over too short a timeframe. Mister Flash (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) The discussion should take place on the talk page of the article. I am not watching this page, as frankly, I don't need to add another page to my huge watchlist. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This page is just diabolical. Suggest you move it - I might be reverted. Mister Flash (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

As per request, this discussion has been moved back to the article Talk page. --HighKing (talk) 23:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I see Mister Flash has reverted back because he has not been involved in the discussions. Now's your chance. Please provide a reference for the current text. --HighKing (talk) 23:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Mister Flash, you reverted the edit based on not being involved in the discussion, but you've added nothing to this discussion in the past 24 hours. I'll give it a little longer to see if you can find anything, otherwise revert to Ealdgyth's edit. --HighKing (talk) 19:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not looking, because I'm not an expert on this subject. I suggest that Ealdgyth decides on the best form, and I think, and hope, she would do so without consideration of the British Isles debate. Mister Flash (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Last I checked, the "British Isles" are indeed Ireland and Britain. However, using the quote is also workable, although I prefer the simpler and easier to understand BI. There is no reason to think that Canterbury wouldn't have included the other islands if they'd suceeded in their goals. But I'm certainly not up to arguing endlessly (as I've seen done before) about the usage. I'd really rather just you know.. work on content. There isn't anything wrong with either form. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. In that case I suggest we maintain the status quo. Mister Flash (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Check again. The British Isles are more than Ireland and Britain - they also include the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, two crown dependencies. It's a common mistake and leads to a lot of incorrect application of the term "British Isles". And while you say there is no reason to think that Canterbury wouldn't have included the other islands, that is speculation on your part and is not referenced. I agree that using the quote is workable and is, in fact, the best and most accurate solution. Since Mister Flash has now participated, please feel free to change the article to the quote. It won't be changed back since the quote is verifiable and meets policy. --HighKing (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It isn't MY job to change it. It's perfectly fine to use BI in this instance, you're the one objecting, you can change it. I won't edit war over it, but quite honestly, you want it, you do it. Trying to palm it off on someone just looks like an attempt to get it to seem like I agreed that the quote was better. I do not. I find BI to be just as accurate and fine in this context, so honestly I don't care either way. If you want it changed so badly, change it. I find it a matter of extreme indifference. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

If you don't care so much, why ask for the discussion to be moved back to here?

Ad hominen attacks are usually not a good place to start a discussion. Commenting that "I'm furthering my own little war" doesn't exactly AGF...

From your comments above, it seems that you find no problem with using "British Isles" to mean something other than the actual definition - the term is not interchangable with "Britain and Ireland" or "UK and Ireland", etc. Is it not preferable to have an accurate article? I honestly believe that someone like yourself with great content knowledge on this subject matter would openly accept an invitation to correct an inaccuracy. If you really are indifferent, perhaps we have sullied this article Talk page enough on this topic, and we'll continue back at the SE page where I had moved it originally? --HighKing (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You'll note I struck the comment, please. I find the whole bother very very nitpicky and way too detailed for the scope of this article. Most everyone understands that British Isles means the big islands as well as the smaller ones. It's like being picky about whether I claim I'm from the United States or from Illinois. Technically, I'm not from "the United States" as I"m from only ONE of those states, but everyone understands that I'm referring to the fact that I"m from part of the larger whole. I maintain it's perfectly acceptable in this context to refer to Wales, Ireland, Scotland and England as being the "British Isles". As for having the conversation here, here is where the context and content of THIS article should be discussed, I'm not sure what consensus could possibly be formed off this talk page, quite honestly. We're not discussing the geographical definition of the BI here, we're just discussing what a medieval archdiocese attempted. In that context, the usual usage of BI is fine enough for me, in the context of this article. LIke I said, if you want to change it, you may. However, extreme lawyerishness about htis isn't exactly going to make me wanna see the good side here. YOu're being picky, and you should know it. And trying to make someone else make a change YOU want is just .. I don't know. Why is it important that *I* make the change? You want it, you make it, I even told you I wouldn't change it back, as long as you retain the quotation. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth, I understand. These discussions *are* nitpicky. It's not extreme lawyerishness either, but about standards, definitions, and accuracy, and most of all, references. And calling me picky doesn't help - I'd prefer to focus on the content please. I don't have any problems with you, and I understand your frustration and you've made it clear you are struggling to understand what the fuss is about. Fine. Again, the editors at the SE page are used to discussions like this, and understand the (nitpicking, extreme lawyeristic) technicalities involved. But understand that if I change it back, Mister Flash will likely revert and I don't wish to get involved in an edit war. Since you already changed it once to a referenced quote, which meets the objections, is more accurate, and meets policy, I didn't think you would have a problem with changing it again since the only reason Mister Flash reverted you originally was because he asked for some time in which to participate in the discussion which he has now done. Finally, peace. I'm not trying to wreck your head, and I believe you're writing some great articles. --HighKing (talk) 01:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC) --HighKing (talk) 01:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

HighKing, I have no wish to enter yet another debate with you about this at the moment, but I have to point out (yet again) that your statement above that "the term is not interchangable with "Britain and Ireland" or "UK and Ireland", etc." has no basis in any established Wikipedia policy or guideline (or for many people, in fact). I have repeatedly suggested that in these cases that as long as the usage is technically correct (as it patently is here. Note that this does not mean the same as "acceptable to everyone") then the original text should remain (whatever that many have been). Otherwise these interminable arguments will continue to clog up talk pages and editing time.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Jackyd101, why would we need a policy when it's a patently obvious fact? I realize that many British editors are used to referring to "British Isles" incorrectly, but that doesn't change the fact that it's just that. Incorrect. You say that the usage is "technically correct" but by that you mean that you don't see any problem with using the term interchangeably, which is different. It is not at all "technically correct". As I have pointed out before. You may disagree with me, but you can't disagree with the facts. I've asked for you to point me to anywhere that states that the terms are interchangeable, which you haven't done. --HighKing (talk) 02:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Well it is obviously not "a patently obvious fact" or this tiresome argument wouldn't keep happening almost everytime you remove British Isles for other, usually less satisfactory, alternatives. I have tried hard to assume good faith with you over the last few months, but the arrogance of "I realize that many British editors are used to referring to "British Isles" incorrectly" is quite breathtaking. There are over 5,000 islands in the British Isles - does an article have to refer to all of them before that term is "correct" by your standards? British Isles is not and never should be used as a synonym for Britain or (except for 1800-1922 in some cases) United Kingdom, but to use it when refering to Britain and Ireland is fine - particularly as, in almost every case you have previously highlighted including this one, the smaller islands are included contextually anyway.--Jackyd101 (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You're reading an insult where none is intended. The argument is tiresome, especially since I've asked time and again for any kind of reference to back up your assertion that it is fine to use "British Isles" when solely referring to Britain and Ireland. This is an area that has been argued before and there's nothing I can find that agrees with your opinion. There are four main constituent parts to the British Isles, not two, and the term refers to the entire area, not the two main islands. But, moving on - you have hit the nail on the head. You say that the smaller islands are included contextually anyway. If that's true, then I agree that the term is fine in this context. So the question is, were the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, at that time, part of the ecclesiastical hierarchy under the English bishops? I'm assuming that Great Britain and Ireland were based on the article. --HighKing (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of being insulting - I said you were arrogant. Your analogy of North America below is a good one: if someone visited both the USA and Canada it would be perfectly acceptable to say that they visited North America without specifiying where. Likewise, if someone visits Britain and Ireland, British Isles is the acceptable term. I wouldn't even know where to start looking for a source that states what you are asking for: do you have one that says that when refering to Britain and Ireland is is inappropriate to use the term British Isles on Wikipedia?--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Nor did I say that you did accuse me of being insulting, but you obviously read an insult into what I wrote, hence the name-calling. The example of North America fails to take into consideration the fact that "British Isles" is a contentious term - see British Isles naming dispute for a more detailed discussion with references, etc. Your opinion that it is acceptable to interchange terminology is inaccurate and incorrect. It should be avoided where it doesn't actually refer to the entire geographic entity. So, for example that is why if we are referring to countries within a geographic entity, and not the geographic entity itself, we should use country names. An encyclopedia should hold itself up to the highest standards. Deliberately deciding to use terms that are contentious, and most especially where references use different terms, and where the subject matter does not require it, speaks volumes. Belittling attempts to address the issue, name calling, commenting on other editor's motives, etc, are all part of the toolbox of trying to avoid dealing with the issue. I don't understand that. --HighKing (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Read what I wrote - I wasn't insulted, just surprised at your arrogance (which is a simple statement of fact, not "name-calling"). I'm asking (yet again) for you to provide some sort of rule or guideline to back up your assertion that "[My] opinion that it is acceptable to interchange terminology is inaccurate and incorrect" - so far you have failed to provide anything of the sort. I am well aware that a small minority of English speakers are upset with use of the term, but I fail to see why their opinion should be permitted to have such a disruptive effect on such a wide variety of articles - sometimes on Wikipedia, as in life, you have to put up with things you don't like because a majority has decided that they are acceptable: I happen to have a problem with Londonderry being under the wrong name, but I've accepted that for the sake of harmony on Wikipedia it is necessary to compromise. I suggest you leave articles like this alone and stick to clear inaccuracies in future, or try and get conclusive consensus on the acceptable use of the term as was recently done regarding Republic of Ireland.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Referring to what I wrote as having breathtaking arrogance is name-calling, and hardly civil. We're not talking about Derry either (and actually, I would agree with you that it should be called Londonderry since that is it's official and proper name, the same way as Republic of Ireland should reside at Ireland). These are all facts. You keep dodging the question by asking me for a rule or guideline to back up the assertion that the British Isles should not be used interchangeably for "Britain and Ireland", etc, but I note that you only asked me for this after I had challenged your assertion. I can point to the definition within the article British Isles (which states it's a geographical area composed of, etc), I can point to the British Isles naming dispute, I can point to WP:BISLES, as well as WP:BIDRAFT1 and WP:BIDRAFT2 which all have various references and pointers to usage. BTW, none agree that it should be used interchangeably. It's not my assertion, it's the emerging consensus after many months/years of discussion. Finally, this part of the discussion isn't particularly relevant to this article as it is more general in nature. Would you have any objections to moving it and continuing it at the SE page? --HighKing (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, this is not the correct place for this conversation.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent and ec) I prefer the BI formulation I had originally. I am secondarily okay with the quotation, which I inserted when you and I were the only ones discussing. Since MF seems to be deferring to my opinion, i see no need to change it to the quotation, but will not edit war if you choose to do so. And frankly, that's that for me. I do not own this article, if others wish to make changes to the wording, they are free to do so. My first original concern was that someone inserted a supposed quotation which was not supported by the source. As a side note, not only do I think BI is fine in terms of accuracy, I also think it's better writing. Do note that if I ever get this article up to FAC, it's going to be copyedited quite mercilessly, and quite likely BI would be inserted whatever happens now. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's just stick a {{fact}} tag in the article for now, seeing as how it's unreferenced. Because that's a bigger possibility if you try to get to FAC. --HighKing (talk) 02:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what to say to that sort of threat. I repeat, if you think something is wrong, you are welcome to change the wording to the quotation. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Repeating from above. The question is, were the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, at that time, part of the ecclesiastical hierarchy under the English bishops? I'm assuming that Great Britain and Ireland were based on the article. --HighKing (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no requirement that using a geographical term requires that it encompass the entire and totalality of that geographical spread. You're arguing a non-starter. It is perfectly permissable to use British Isles when it's referring to only parts of that (as Jackyd101 pointed out above) 5000 or so entity. Otherwise, you would not be able to say "I'm going to the United States" but would instead have to specify each and every part you were visiting. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, especially when you are suggesting (or inflating) an area of influence. The US is a political entity. A more accurate analogy is suggesting that United States and North America are interchangeable terms. --HighKing (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Out of interest, we now have over 3600 words on this matter, which let's face it, is of little or no consequence to the article. Mister Flash (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

So you've no objections to using the quote? --HighKing (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)A reference has been added that supports the text, thank you. --HighKing (talk) 00:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)