User talk:Dante Alighieri/AEBE

Hi. Re the spelling changes, I'm all in favour of putting the relevent version of english into the relevent articles, but that isn't wiki policy. In fact it is positively frowned upon. The rule is to leave the spelling in the original form used by the writer. Otherwise thousands of articles would require change, everything other than focused on America having to be changed to BE. That would provoke edit wars all over the place, as AE users would find most of their articles changed to BE. So the rule is to use the form of english used by the author, not the form of english used for the topic. As I say, I personally would love to see the correct version of english relevant to topic used, but that is a non-starter in practical terms. Perhaps as with dates, we should be working on a format that would allow someone to read the article by whichever english version they wish. But as the article is mainly in AE, even though much of it was added later, I suppose in this case the change is OK. lol FearÉIREANN 20:32, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

On this issue I think the appropriate version of English should be used for articles that are very closely related to a particular nationality. For example, George Washington should be written in American English, and cricket (sport) should be in British English. Especially so for well-known terms; for example, it would be simply wrong to have an the article on Pearl Harbor use the spelling Pearl Harbour. But I think for the vast majority of Wikipedia articles it makes no difference either way. --Delirium 20:40, Aug 23, 2003 (UTC)

About your decision to change the article back to part AE, part BE...

Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ] states: "People are writing in all sorts of English. However, it is good form to keep usage consistent within a given article. The official policy is to use British spelling to British-related topics, and American for American-related topics. More general topics can use any one of the versions, but should be consistent within the article. "

Where does it say the English should be in the form the original author puts it? Apparently, according to this FAQ, it is wikipolicy. What about different authors putting in different spellings? --Jiang 20:42, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Many of the rules have evolved in practice differently from the official rules, which date from a time when wiki had few users (eg, the MoS recommendation was to use mm/dd/yy, even though almost the entire planet uses dd/mm/yy, and one user tried force the MoS version even after it had agreed that both could be used.) All too often, changes that have evolved simply never get added to the rules, becuase no one person takes on the task. I did a few times, only to find one or two fanatics would go nuclear, and accuse me of "changing policy", even though all you were doing was putting in long established practice in place of a form since universally abandoned. I regularly tried to rewrite non-American topics in BE, only to be met with screams of abuse of "what the f*** are you doing?" While BE users tend to be more tolerant of AE and even write stuff in it on occasion, many AE users seem to regard rewriting an article in BE, even a British topic, as tantamount to declaring war on America and being anti-american. (When I changed 'center' to 'centre' in a British topic,

I found myself attacked once by 7 AE users who accused me of waging an anti-american campaign and telling me to keep my anti-american views to myself!!!) So in practice the convention people have followed is simple. The first person who contributes to an article sets the style, AE or BE. Otherwise AE would be almost totally restricted to US topics, given that BE is the international standard. But you try to change the largely American fetus to the world-used foetus in Abortion and world war III will erupt. (Even putting in a footnote saying that some people spell it foetus proved controversial people. And someone who wrote centre recently got piles of abuse from a group of people, one of whom said in the summary "what sort of illiterate nutters write centre? It is center, you asshole"!) Varying articles by AE or BE is a hornet's nest because most topics in some way touch on America and if so much as hint as a link to America, that is usually enough to lead some extreme AE fanatics to demand the entire article be in AE. Going by author is the least troublesome method, even though not my solution if it was up to me. FearÉIREANN 21:12, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Looking at the page history of French fries, I see that the article was orginally in AE before the 203.38.10.156 changed it and kept persistently trying to reinsert the British spelling afterwards. You may want to double check. The original author did not use any disputed words to set the precedent.

While I agree that trying to change the spellings of entire articles may cause problems, I believe trying to change these spellings back will only make it worse (by fuelling the edit war). If someone standardizes things according to the rules, then fine, leave it alone. We shouldn't make it our duty to change spellings but if someone decides to change them (and logically so), let the person do it! --Jiang 21:27, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

That doesn't work. If I change article 'x' to BE, another user will take that as a green light to change article 'y'. Then an AE user will react by saying 'if they can change things to their form, so can I" and change article 'z'. We had that experience with royal names. One person put in a HSH. Someone else copied. Then three or four people began changing other articles. The only way to stop free for alls and constant AE/BE wars is for everyone to do the one thing. If an article is written in BE, leave it in BE. Ditto for AE. A couple of months ago three users began changing AE articles to BE, AE users began changing BE articles; none of them were specific to Britain or the US, it was simply a way of each side trying to beat the other. The only way to stop it was to blanket revert all of them to the original language and tell all the users to stop it and leave them as they were written. If you don't get tough in saying 'leave them alone the way they were written' edit wars crop up all over the place, with 'revenge' changes somewhere else, the other side then doing other articles, etc etc.

Wiki is great but its biggest weakness is that it operates on the principle of consent and agreement. If one group of people ignores the consent of others, and the agreed way of doing things, and does their thing, it will disintergrate into tit-for-tat wars. The bigger it gets the harder it will become to hold together unless everyone agrees to follow the same mutually respectful rules. You respect my right to write an article in 'x' form of english, and I'll respect your right to use 'y' form in your articles. So enforcing those rights, by stopping BE users rewriting AE articles into BE, and AE users rewriting articles in BE into AE, is crucial if the whole thing is not to break down into anarchy and tit-for-tat wars. Upholding the right of someone to use their english sends a message to them that the language of wiki will not be decided by numbers or who can rewrite more, but is based on the respect of every contributor, with their rights being guarded from attack by someone who wants to do it their way. Hence reverting to the original language is not trying to start an edit war, it is trying to ensure the person who did it stops it and keep the longterm peace. So it is protecting your right to write in AE, mine to write in BE and everyone else's. FearÉIREANN 21:47, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Articles specific to the US (e.g. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Henry Clay) should be in AE. Articles specific to English speaking nations using BE (e.g. British House of Commons) should be in BE.

We should follow your approach on articles of international scope (e.g. Catholicism, Physics) and articles on non-english speaking/writing nations. --Jiang 22:18, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Wow, I go out for the evening and other people take over my talk page. ;) I'm not sure what's left to be said, but if no one is going to talk directly to me, could someone kindly move this off my talk page? --Dante Alighieri 10:46, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)