Talk:Jersey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article nomineeJersey was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
October 5, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed


Origin of the Name[edit]

Under this heading in the article I see:

"The Latin name Caesarea was also applied to the colony of New Jersey as Nova Caesarea', as well as in the ancient times of Zargon, were lord Zork ruled dominion of the slaves of the middle ease"

Really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.95.226.40 (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

the description of the battle of Jersey is contradictory ("although touch and go, and decisive"). It also contradicts the information contained in the main wiki article on the Battle of Jersey (duration of main engagement, number of combatants etc.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.60.68.114 (talk) 22:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 17 external links on Jersey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Jersey has no designated capital[edit]

The infobox claims that St Helier is the capital of Jersey, this is both unsourced and untrue. Danrok (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Map is not clear[edit]

The map gives an overview of the world and of Europe, but based on this I'm still not completely sure where it is located. It might be good to include a bit of the French coastline in the most detailed map. 119.24.243.102 (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jersey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jersey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Jersey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Jersey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jersey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Adding Apple history to Jersey[edit]

Essentially the history section is about old topics and barely discusses modern history. Something relevant wouldn't hurt the article, even if it is discussed in the main history article. The history section of this article isn't so large that it can't contain something relevant to modern times and after a certain period of time it could be rotated out.

Notations suggesting that my edit had undue weight is a spurious argument that suggests a certain viewpoint was inherent. It clearly had no viewpoint as it cited the article and the facts contained there in. My edit expressed neither a pro or con position. Adding numerous reasons to a revert to see if anything sticks regarding a cited edit may be the actual undue weight here by omitting facts. Leitmotiv (talk) 04:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Leitmotiv: Hello, Leitmotiv. Thank you for engaging in discussion. I see from your edit summaries that you've taken umbrage at my not giving this page my top priority. No offense was intended.

Your understanding of "undue weight" appears incomplete. My concern is not that you used slanted language in your recent addition. Instead, my concern is with the inordinate weight given to an episode that had no significant impact on Jersey. This, too, is an element of "undue weight", as noted at WP:BALASP.

Jersey has developed a reputation as a tax haven and is home to thousands of re-domiciled companies. The mere fact that two of those thousands of companies were overseas subsidiaries of Apple simply is not a significant factor in the history of Jersey. This is even more evident from the information in your own source, which tells us that Apple's association with Jersey lasted only for one year (2015). And during that year, not a single editor at this article though that Apple's corporate presence was worthy of mention. And neither did any editor at History of Jersey. And not even at Economy of Jersey. And yet, in spite of this lack of significance, you seem intent on adding this minor episode to the historical summary of the top-level article on Jersey. This truly is "undue weight".

Having now had the chance to look into the facts more closely, I've come to the opinion that -- for the same reasons as above -- this minor episode does not belong in the History of Jersey article, either. Indeed, I doubt that you could make a compelling case for adding it to the Economy of Jersey article, given that Apple's subsidiaries were just two of thousands of foreign companies domiciled there.

Your edit summaries suggest that you've become emotionally involved in this question. Rather than have this end up at the Edit Warring noticeboard, I invite you to start an RfC on the matter. Or, I'll be happy to participate in mediation at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard.

I look forward to your response. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

NewYorkActuary I'm not emotionally involved. Just irritated with someone who responds that they don't have the time but make time to edit war. You can't have it both ways, sorry. I've seen way too many editors indulge in edit warring and avoiding their own recommendation to take to the talk page.
As for the topic at hand - I will use your own above argument against you. You note that Jersey has developed a reputation (a history, if you will). I see that the article has some info on tax havens, but none of that history is... *drum roll* in the history section. That smells of undue weight to me, especially considering that this latest headline has made world wide news. I think there's room for a blurb in the history section to reflect that. So sorry, I totally disagree with you. Impact, or no impact, to Jersey seems irrelevant at this point when we're talking global news - and to me, your suggestion that its had no impact is suggestive of original research, but I guess you can't prove a negative. But I can prove a positive, this is a global news event that has impacted Jersey and its reputation and has become a part of its history. So you can call it a "minor episode" all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a major global news event. Leitmotiv (talk) 02:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
@Leitmotiv: I won't edit the content directly because as a Jersey resident I have a WP:COI. However I question the wording of "it was learned that multinational company Apple moved their firm to Jersey to avoid paying almost any taxes." I don't think that statement is supported by the citation given. Firstly, Apple has multiple companies and the article only refers to two of those companies, its Irish subsidiaries Apple Operations International and Apple Sales International. The current wording implies Apple as a whole was moved. Secondly, the detailed section of the article (rather than the headline) states that those companies "were managed from" the island which sound like a different thing to moving the companies. This would be supported by this statement from Jersey's financial regulator which says that the companies aren't registered in Jersey. Lastly, "to avoid paying almost any taxes" suggests knowledge of what motives Apple might have had - that seems like pure speculation to me - and Apple has made a statement saying they have not avoided paying any taxes, yet that isn't reflected here. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Curb Safe Charmer Feel free to edit it to reflect the source, but I don't agree with your personal opinion that we don't know what motivates Apple. In fact it's not up to us. This article clearly says Apple was "shopping around for a tax haven" by "[moving] the firm holding most of its untaxed offshore cash, now $252bn, to the Channel Island of Jersey." This one line seems to suggest the firm is behind it, and that the firm is looking to avoid paying taxes, which makes your entire argument a moot point, because we're talking about tax havens. I'm not making any opinion on the matter, I'm using the reference but it seems like you glossed over the entire first two paragraphs. I question if you or NewYorkActuary are being partial to a certain point of view. Ultimately, your entire argument seems to be about semantics. I'm just quoting the article - perhaps it could be clearer, but I think your argument looks to dilute the statement and seems to be ignoring the obvious facts. Leitmotiv (talk) 00:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
@Leitmotiv: Thanks again for engaging in discussion. I second CurbSafeCharmer's concerns -- your summary of the BBC article does indeed fall short of being accurate and neutral. But this issue is overshadowed by my original concern. You have not convinced me that any mention of this brief episode, even if accurately phrased, belongs in a discussion of the history of Jersey. Your response to me is essentially "The Paradise Papers are in the news, the Papers motivated the BBC to write an article about Apple, and that article mentioned Jersey." All of that is true, but none of it offers us any reason to put aside the guidance at WP:BALASPS, which specifically cautions us against putting undue weight on recent events that happen to be in the news.

I expect that you'll disagree with that assessment. But there's no reasonable disagreement about your failure to generate a consensus for including the material. And so, pursuant to WP:NOCON, I'll be removing the material, both from this article and from History of Jersey. I'll raise no objection if you wish to add a fair and accurate summary of the BBC article to our Economy of Jersey article (probably best-placed in the section on Financial Services).

Thanks again for the discussion. If you still feel strongly about including the material here, I'll renew my offer to participate in an RfC or, if you prefer, in mediation at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

NewYorkActuary I see your point sort of, but you haven't described how this is a minor event. You call it that, but so far haven't provided substance to back that up. I've also stated that given the attention it's received in global news, it should at least get a one or two sentence mention in the history. I don't interpret that as undue weight per your citing of WP:BALASP. I interpret that to mean, if I wrote and entire paragraph or two and put it in History and focused squarely on Apple. I'd agree that it was undue weight, but a single sentence is barely giving any attention to the topic at all. You are arguing against that and I don't see how that's justified. This is a historical event whether you choose to see it or not. If anything, I've provided neutral content with a reference - I feel the onus is on you to submit an RfC since you disagree with the cited content, because 1. My edit fits squarely in history and is cited and 2. is the opposite of you suggesting it is a minor event. Leitmotiv (talk) 02:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
It seems unlikely that we are going to change each other's minds about this. Pursuant to WP:NOCON, I'll be removing the additions both here and at the History of Jersey article. I also reaffirm my willingness to participate in your choice of an RfC or mediation. Thank you again for the discussion. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Read your reference to WPNOCON: "a lack of consensus normally results in the article, page, image, or other content being kept" for "deletion discussions". You're arguing to delete my cited material and quoting WPNOCON opposite of what it says. Sorry reverted your disingenuous edit. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I think given that this is a new addition to the article, what we are seeking is consensus on whether to add it, not on whether to delete it, and either way it's not the first bullet (deletion discussions) that applies but the second: In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. In light of this and the fact that this recent news trivia I have removed it from here, and History of Jersey (along with several other insignificant recent news stories). —DIYeditor (talk) 01:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't need to seek consensus to add it- I did it before the discussion begun. Everyone wants to remove it, so this discussion is about deleting cited material that pertains to Jersey and Apple's decision to use it as tax haven. It's a world wide news event but strangely it's not even mentioned in the history for the place for which it occured. Are we arguing that for all the history this place has as a tax haven, that it cannot have a mention in the actual history section? This is a world wide historical news event, and one sentence ain't gonna break the article. Omitting is biased in favor of a clean image. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Leitmotiv, you don't need to seek consensus to add material, but you sure as hell need to get consensus if your edits are contested, which they obviously are. Claiming that this is "bias in favor of a clean image" is a low blow and a phony argument, making you look weaker. I defended your edits to some extent; don't ruin your case by being a dick. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jersey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

old links for "current" LG[edit]

The current links for the lieutenant-general point to McColl, and it appears that as of beginning of 2018, the LG is Stephen Dalton. Probably only worth listing to the position out of the Infobox, and looking to set up a call to Wikidata for the position; and removing the others through the article. If that is not the preference then those links and context sensitive parts of the article need to be updated. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)