Talk:British possession

Removing a lot of links to this article

To whom it may concern: User:Wee Curry Monster has been removing a number of links to this article. This is being discussed on User talk:Wee Curry Monster § British possessions, but it may be more appropriate to move the discussion here. — W.andrea (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

That is incorrect, I have simply been removing inappropriate links per MOS:OVERLINK. WCM_email 07:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

At your talk page, @Wee Curry Monster you say that you're going to get around to nominating the article for AfD. Is that inconsistent with your explanation that you were "simply...removing inappropriate links"?

It does appear to be the case there was, putting it nicely, some overexuberant linking. However, that does not mean all the links are invalid, and what you've done has left it nearly an orphan. In one period on the 19th you you de-linked "1911 New Zealand census" which appears to have been a perfectly justifiable place to put it. In fact, I count 24 links removed in roughly 40 minutes. During that period you also published the response on your talk page saying you would be nominating the article for deletion and complaining about the article quality, and then went back to de-linking.

No it's not perfect, but the application section is substantive. And it has significant coverage including of the Pitcairns decision which was not a primary source but an article describing the judgment. If you are determined to bring an AfD, then I guess you will do that and I'll be there to explain why the project is better off with a flawed article about the subject than without one.

I agree with @W.andrea should be happening here and sorry for continuing at the talk page. I'm happy to keep it here. Oblivy (talk) 13:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

[1] what you've done has left it nearly an orphan clearly unnecessary hyperbole and the constant attacks and the lack of good faith are starting to become rather tiresome. I suggest you all stop it. My mother-in-law is currently terminally ill, she is in fact in end-of-life care. I would have liked to spend some constructive time editing to take my mind of things, instead I find myself dealing with this.

You recognise there was "over exuberant linking" but then attack me for trying to fix it. You pick one that you assert was inappropriate, please explain why you think that instead of asserting it to be the case. The wlink in question was inappropriate because the phrase was used as an abbreviation [2] for other parts of the British Empire rather than an actual entity recognised by WP:GEOLAND or a context relevant with legislation. Per MOS:OVERLINK Everyday words understood by most readers in context the term should not be routinely linked.

British possession is defined in legislation as a shorthand or dictionary definition. Legislators define the term separately and differently in different pieces of legislation, demonstrating it was never a well-defined term with specific meaning. It has never been an administrative division of the British Empire as claimed and which I challenged you to prove. Whilst many WP:PRIMARY sources may refer to British possessions it is not because it is a recognisable entity but simply a descriptive phrase used as an abbreviation.

As you mentioned the Pitcairn case, your addition was poorly researched and an example of WP:OR and WP:SYN claiming a thing such as "British possession status" existed; which is not supported by sources. The Privy Council ruling was Pitcairn was a British possession under the terms of the British Settlements Act 1887. Its legal status is that of a British Overseas Territory. Just because a common phrase is used in legislation doesn't mean it has encyclopedic value.

I fully expected both of you will turn up when I get around to WP:AFD this article, I knew that would be the case the moment you started the ad hominem. WCM_email 16:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I understand you feel attacked because other editors are questioning your editing behavior, relevant to an article you previously tried and failed to get deleted. But I don't think there was any ad hominem or bad faith on my part (if I said something you think is a personal attack or bad faith comment, let me know and I'll deal with it).

You can choose to walk away, but if you decide you want another bite at the AfD apple then of course people who disagree with you will disagree. That's a good thing, maybe not for you in this particular moment, but for the project as a whole. Oblivy (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I totally agree with Oblivy's last message and the same goes for me: I don't know what I might have said that made you think I'm not assuming good faith (as you wrote on your talk page), but do let me know. I was very direct with some of my messages, but I had skimmed your talk page intro where you said you're very direct yourself, so I assumed you would appreciate it. Sorry if not.

Sorry to hear about your mother-in-law. That must be stressful, and I understand wanting to do something constructive to take your mind off of it.

Thanks for clarifying what you mean about citing MOS:OVERLINKING. I see what you're saying now: roughly, the two words should be understood separately: "British", "possession". I don't have an opinion on that myself.

I fully [expect] both of you will turn up when I get around to WP:AFD this article

No, like I said on your talk page, "I have no opinion whatsoever whether the article stays or goes". I was only concerned about the link on Singapore to (what seems to be) relevant info. Now that this discussion has been steered in the right direction (right talk page, right people, clarified details), I don't see any more need to involve myself in it.

— W.andrea (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Article name v MOS:OVERLINK

@Wee Curry Monster: @The wisest fool in Christendom: I've been trying to piece together why the two of you are all over my watchlist in what appears to be an edit war on the links to this article. I've been trying to find where you've debated this substantively...but have given up and come to this talk page as the above thread touches on it. this article which The wisest fool created in October appears to be about a statutory definition and not the "everyday" phrase. That makes sense (I suppose) because if it were the latter it would go straight to AfD as unencyclopedic. Looking at what's written in the article clearly "British possession" is not being used in many respects in a way which reflects everyday usage. As the article quotes "the term appears in some statutes, its use in modern times is rare". The wisest fool seems to have confirmed this "technical" scope here. However:

1. the way it's been linked to in other articles is often not as one of the statutory definitions but more as the "everyday" phrase. The phrase in this edit in the George Washington article pre-dates any of the statutory definitions in this article. MOS:OVERLINK has to apply therefore.
2. part of the confusion is this article title. I think there would be greater clarity if it were moved to British possession (statutory definitions). It should then only be linked to in another article when one of the statutory definitions was being discussed substantively. If that were not the purpose it must be an OVERLINK

DeCausa (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@DeCausa the article title is fine, I think; a parenthesis is unnecessary because there is no need to disambiguate. It is illogical to argue that a topic cannot exist prior to the existence of a statutory definition of the topic. The concept of British possessions existed before the statutory definitions of a British possession came into use, and the terminology was already in use in legislation by Washington's time. It was the pre-existing legislative usage that required later clarification, and eventually, the Interpretation Act.The absence of any need for a parenthetical disambiguator is paralleled by the article titles of "British colony", "British protectorate", "British Overseas Territory", and so on, which are all statutorily defined technical terms just like "British possession" and potentially confusing everyday terms. The same is of course true for "British Islands", which is not entitled "British Islands (statutory definitions)" despite being defined by precisely the same 19th-century law as "British possession" and despite the fact that outwith legislation (and even within legislation preceding partition of Ireland), "British Islands" is an exact synonym of "British Isles". The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

You asserting "the article title is fine" doesn't make it so. I think you've missed the point. I'll try again. There are two choices for what this article links to: either an article with (1) The non-statutory "everyday" meaning or (2) the specialist statutory meaning. If it does so for reason (1) it is an OVERLINK. (Hence the George Washington link is unambiguously an overlink). The only links that should be maintained are for reason (2). That only works if the title/scope is as i've suggested. It's not a case of disambiguation but Precision per WP:CRITERIA. "British Islands" is irrelevant as it isn't used as an "every day" phrase, and the other terms you reference only have a legal meaning. DeCausa (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

All the links refer to meaning (2), including the Washington example. There are no links intending any other meaning; (1) would not be notable as an article. The topic of "possessions which are in some way British" is not notable; "territorial possessions of the UK outwith the UK" is a notable topic and instances referring to this topic should be hyperlinked. The article that deals with the notable topic is British possession. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

That's clearly not true. The article itself only covers statutory definitions - which didn't exist at the time of George Washington. Any use of of the term prior to and without reference to the statutory definition can only be an "everyday" term - although in particular cases there may be more specific articles that might be more relevant such as British Empire. Spamming these links is exposing the logical flaw to the scope of this article. DeCausa (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

What exactly isn't true?

You say that ""British Islands" is irrelevant as it isn't used as an "every day" phrase", but "British island(s)" is indeed an everyday phrase just like "British possession" can be. For example, the article Napoleon complex at present uses the phrase "British island", but it refers to St Helena. Adgestone currently states that the place has "one of the oldest vineyards in the British Islands", whereas Atlantic slave trade states that "After 1791, the British islands produced the most sugar". These are clearly different British islands. Nevertheless, British Islands remains under that title, not "British Islands (statutory definitions)".

You claim that "Any use of of the term prior to and without reference to the statutory definition can only be an "everyday" term", but this is an unreasonable and erroneous claim. Pitt's India Act, clearly deals with British possessions as "territorial possessions of the UK outwith the UK" and not as "possessions which are in some way British". It was after all, entitled "An Act for the better Regulation and Management of the Affairs of the East India Company and of the British Possessions in India". The term "India" was not defined in legislation, yet India, like the statutory concept of a British possession, already existed and was the subject of legislation.

Similarly, while you claim that "the other terms you reference only have a legal meaning", that isn't true. British India was frequently described both then and now as a "British colony", yet under the formal legislative definition, it never was. British Empire is not an alternative; it is less precise than is "British possession" and refers to a wider and more amorphous entity which is, of course, never defined by statute. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

That is a bizarre post. Your second paragraph discusses use of "British island" and "British islands" where they don't mean British islands per the article. How on earth is that relevant? Your third paragraph references statutes that don't use the term "british possession". Again, no relevance. Your fourth paragraph, of course it's a colony. So what? No relevance. What you've written is simply WP:SYNTH. DeCausa (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Morning DeCausa, I think you've by now realised that I have indeed tried to explain why this editor's exuberant MOS:OVERLINKING is a problem and attempted to discuss with them, only to be met with replies that are simply WP:SYNTH, personal attacks or veer off into bizarre aspects of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I have been tidying up the worst of the overlinking, generally avoiding articles where it could be considered relevant, albeit tangentially, and I have been selective in doing so. I picked those that were in the main obvious examples of simply looking for the common phrase. I previously nominated the article for deletion, which appear to have attracted the enmity of this editor. I still don't think it should exist but it seems a number of editors are determined to stoutly defend its existence, largely out of a mistaken understanding of WP:GEOLAND. The references to numerous legislation is problematic, a number of pieces of legislation use the common phrase as an abbreviation but the term is redefined so often it merely demonstrates it as a common phrase with no real meaning and not suitable for encylcopedic content. Therein lies the problem, whilst its a common phrase, its not suitable for encyclopedic content. WCM_email 06:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I haven't checked the references but on the face of it the articles appears to cover (and be limited to) the statutes (and a couple of cases) where "British possession" was legally defined. In fact, it's pretty much a List article on that as far as I can see. On that basis, and within that scope, the article could exist provided there's enough secondary sources discussing that - that seems to be the case. just about. I didn't realise there had already been an AfD but my view is it would get through it on that basis. I don't think that the article, as currently written, is about the everyday term. But what that means for me is that it needs to be clear - whether through the article title or possibly a hatnote - that the everyday term is out of scope and this article is only about its legal usage. And secondarily, there shouldn't be any links to it where "British possession" is used as an everyday term. The general OVERLINK exception is when it should be linked to: "unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article". For this article, to me that means it should only be linked to where the legal usage of "British possession" has particular significance. I wouldn't expect that to be very often. DeCausa (talk) 07:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

May I suggest you perhaps look a bit closer at the sources. British legislation often uses common phrases as abbreviations in primary legislation; the article currently has an indiscriminate list of many examples of these. The abbreviated form of this common phrase is defined and redefined so many times it merely demonstrates that, whilst in common usage, it is an ephemeral phrase forcing legislators to define the term separately and differently in disparate pieces of legislation, demonstrating it was never a well-defined term with specific meaning. And that's the problem, this article can never be more than an indiscriminate list. It was bloated after the AfD nomination by indiscriminately shoe-horning as many references and extensive quotes as possible and they've done nothing since to fix the resulting mess. Further look at the other sources, its example of the use of the common phrase found using Google snippets. The originator has no access to sources, it was a desperate scramble to save this trainwreck of an article.

If this were a well recognised legal term I would wholeheartedly agree with you and also recognise it has very few suitable links. In my tidying up exercise I was perhaps over cautious where I didn't remove overlinking. I still find it bizarre that this provoked some really unpleasant personal attacks from other editors. WCM_email 09:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Contrary to what WCM alleges ("The originator has no access to sources, it was a desperate scramble to save this trainwreck of an article."), I have full access to each and every one of the sources used in the article. An inability on the part of WCM to use the sources cited may explain the continued and various misapprehensions on which WCM's fallacies rest. Which sources have you not been able to access, @Wee Curry Monster? The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

If you wish that I disengage, probably best if you stop mentioning me. Allow me to clarify that remark, you have access to an online source after Roger8Roger provided you with a URL. Have a nice day now. WCM_email 09:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

That is not a clarification, it's the substitution of one false allegation with another. I will say again: "I have full access to each and every one of the sources used in the article". I will ask again: "Which sources have you not been able to access?" Would it be wrong to assume that if you cannot access the sources that I can, then you cannot form an accurate opinion of whether the sources support the article, and that your arguments are therefore misplaced and wrong? Will you withdraw your baseless suggestions that "The originator has no access to sources, it was a desperate scramble to save this trainwreck of an article" and "you have access to an online source after Roger8Roger provided you with a URL", neither of which is true and each of which represents a failure to assume good faith? The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)