Talk:American and British English spelling differences/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Rules for contributions to the talk page - please read before contributing

This article is about English spelling differences and their history. Please remember the following before contributing.

• If you are interested in the topics Britain is better than America or America is better than Britain or Australia is better than Britain and America you are on the wrong page. Please click on the preceding links to go to the correct page.

• Saying that you have never heard of an expression is not permitted on this page as it contributes nothing to a debate. Many infer from their fluency in English that they are experts in English. Mostly this is not the case. That an individual has not heard of an expression is unlikely to be a compelling argument that it does not exist. So please always provide sources for any contentious views.

Center vs Centre

Usually center in commonwealth English is used to mean the middle of something. i.e. The center of the circle is denoted by O. Usually centre in commonwealth English used to mean a place that is used for one activity. i.e We went to the recreation centre.

IMO this should be mentioned somewhere in the article. 217.251.122.242 10:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Re-Latinisation?

Some of the changes in American spelling were largely phonemic, while others involved the restoration of "etymologically correct" Latin (or Greek) spellings, often to words which English had borrowed from French (or indirectly, Greek) – color, center, Gk.διαλογος → Fr. couleur, centre, dialogue → British English colour, centre, dialogue. I took out the centre/center example because I think it is not an illustration of the point the author is trying to make. If I'm not totally off then the etymology is: L. centrum -> Fr. centre (by degradation of final syllables) -> E. centre (taking over the written form, pronunciation then diverges between E. & Fr.) -> center (Websterised). I can't see how center should be any closer to centrum than centre is. BTW I think the whole argument is spurious: it seems to me that Webster did not try to make spelling closer to Latin/Greek but rather tried to simplify it (dialogue became dialog not because of anything Greek but because the -ue is silent).

There should be a justification for the etymology claim, or it should be removed. 217.251.122.242 10:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

--- About the spelling differences of -ize/ise: I am a bit confused by the first sentence. Looking in other sources on the net it seems like it should say British English in the first word. But I have English as a second language why I let others make a statement. -- Adam L

---

The suggestion is often that Webster was responsible for changing spelling, however, the evidence actually points to the contrary. If you look at many 17th & 18th Century British works you will see many American spellings such as center, theater, harbor, honor and favor amongst others. The dictionaries by Blount (Glossographia 1661) and Cockeram (English dictionarie 1647) contain each of these. Also the "ize" spellings are the only ones listed which is still the case in British pocket dictionaries; "ize" is also the favoured spelling of many British book publishers such as Oxford University Press, Penguin and Pan-Macmillan to name a few. The real changes to British spelling came in the mid 18th Century with Johnson's francophillic tendencies for changing spellings to keep in fashion with the other side of the English channel. Many people also seem to forget that a number of US spellings have already been accepted in the UK; jail instead of gaol, siren instead of syren, alarm instead of alarum, cider instead of cyder, burden instead of burthen, advertise instead of advertize and baritone instead of barytone to name a few.

--Rick P

---

I'm not sure what the right forum is for raising such issue, but I think that the discussion of og/ogue misses some of the nuance of how the two forms are used in American English. In my experience, educated writers of American English use the term "analogue" when writing about something that is analogous to another thing, but use the term "analog" as a converse of digital (analog watch, analog circuit). Similarly the term "dialogue" is the correct term for verbal discourse, while "dialog" is simply another term for "dialog box" (the term did originate with "dialogue" but it has been said that Apple API engineers standardized on the "og" spelling because it would be easier on programmers, with user documentation subsequently using the modified spelling).

Similarly, the discussion of disc/disk fails to mention the fact that while both forms are used in American English, the distinction is fairly clear. A "disc" is a circular object like a CD, frisbee or platter, while a "disk" refers to almost any kind of persistent storage for a computer.

I do not have the reference material or background to prove these claims, and thus have not changed the article to reflect them. This is merely based on my personal experience with technical and academic writing in the US. -- Tim Foley --24.6.194.60 08:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I second the above mention of disk/disc, although it is unconscious for most. most americans think of disc as discus and disk as the computer disk. -thisdude

---

I removed the miscellaneous difference:

|loth || loath || for the adjective; the verb is loathe in both.

The spelling loath was always acceptable in Britain and is now predominant. Fowler in Modern English Usage listed both spellings, but he advocated personally for loath in order to be consistent with the verb. The spelling "loth" has now lost so much ground that it wouldn't surprise me to encounter an educated Briton who had never seen it. My only direct evidence that loth is acceptable in America is that the OED doesn't mark it as a Briticism.

If someone wants to reinstate this entry notwithstanding the above, it should at least be made to show that loath is a valid British spelling.—Blotwell 29 June 2005 12:44 (UTC)

---

"Mom(my)" is a very common spelling in the West Midlands of England - for example the Express & Star newspaper (published in Wolverhampton) uses it for headings in its personal column. Loganberry (Talk) 23:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

How about past tense: -ed vs. -t (e.g. spelled vs. spelt)? Is that relevant?

As a Brit, I don't think it's fair to say we think American spelling is 'coarse'. Rather there is a slightly smug sense that Americans (ie. Mr Webster) have introduced the variations arbitrarily, merely to be different from UK. - Martin Turner

Spelling differences in Wikipedia

It would be interesting to note somewhere what is the norm for the spelling here in Wikipedia. --Staatenloser 19:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

There generally isn't any preferred variant, but there is more detail at Wikipedia:Spelling --81.152.197.98 13:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it may be a touchy subject, and I'm not trying to push the American view, but I think that if at all possible, if you are questioning which to use, American spelling would be the best to use, seeing as the US is the largest entity viewing these pages. Am I the only one who thinks this way? Jared 17:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia should use international english spelling since America is on its own in the world with way it spells certain english words. 00:04, 8 March 2006 (GMT)

Most of the english-speaking world is not American. -gigacannon 4/6/06 22:39 GMT

I'd say that the mixture of spellings etc. in Wikipedia is a good thing. It's an added educational bonus (seeing the variety, and realising that the different versions are equally "correct"), and it reflects the nature and origin of the project. No straitjacket, please - but do respect the spelling conventions of each article, and keep it in the version of English in which it started. Consistency within an article is desirable, consistency across the whole encyclopaedia is not. Snalwibma 08:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I put up a proposal on the Wikipedia Manual of Style(spelling) talk page to have consistent spelling on all articles. But nobody seems to like it.Cameron Nedland 21:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Snalwibma, having a mixture of spellings increases awareness. Having the spelling standardised could be a mistake for a wiki, the last thing you want to do is phase out contributors/contributions based on spelling differences.--NeF 16:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Fetus/Foetus

"Fetus" is derived from the latin root "fetus", this can be verified in any dictionary, British, American or otherwise. The pseudo-greek spelling (OE) is an error introduced by some English authors in the 19th century which seems to have stuck. There is no etymological justification for it whatsoever, and it is simply incorrect usage. I'm a diehard preserver of British/American distinctions, but in this case the American usage is actually the ONLY correct one. - MMGB

The thing is that once a variant gets used enough, it becomes an acceptable alternate form, even if its original justification was erroneous. M-W lists foetus as a chiefly British variant, so I don't think it's fair for us to call it incorrect. And no, that doesn't mean I like it or encourage its use.

Yeah - it depends on "who gets to make the call". The medical community explicitly forbids the usage of "foetus" - neither the Lancet (British) or the NEJM will permit its use in an article. No medical textbook uses it either. By this standard, it can be deemed "incorrect". IF you want to use a wider standard, then you could argue that "ain't" is correct as well. It depends on where you draw the line. - MMGB

If the medical community (including the British English medical community) says it is incorrect, then I'd say its incorrect. I like maintaining Britishisms (at least whenever they happen to be Australianisms as well) -- but I also am a slave to the opinions of scientific experts :) -- SJK

Speaking as a Briton, I see no reason to continue a widespread spelling mistake just because it's a British mistake. "Fetus" is a technical term so if the British Medical Association say "foetus" is wrong then it's wrong and the correct spelling is "fetus" no matter what the rest of the population may believe. Good British dictionaries such as Chambers or the OED point out the etymological problem even though they list the incorrect spelling Likewise a British encyclopedia such as Macmillan's has an entry for "foetus", but it just says "See fetus". I suggest that we do something similar but adding the point about the bad etymology on the "foetus" page. -- [[User:Derek Ross]

added from Fetus talk page by KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I am unsure about the factual accuracy of the above. I live in Australia and study Unit 2 Biology and we have only ever spelt foetus as foetus. I believe this would be the correct way as in unit 2 Biology we would not be taught anything which is scientifically/medically incorrect. Shall investigate further. --Rkeys 09:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I too, am unsure about the factual accuracy regarding the spelling foetus. I live in Canada and majored in Biology at the University of Toronto, where the word was spelt fetus or foetus according to the publisher of the text used. The convention in Canada as late as 2003 was to spell as one chose, as people here are given to seeing both, although more often the version called American. Yet, even with a tendency toward American spelling, this is the first time in 25 years of biology that I have ever seen such a claim against foetus; it is often so spelt in biology and medical texts from the United Kingdom and Commonwealth.

As a side note, re:

British usage accepts both the older -ize form and the frenchified -ise form

I suggest that the term "frenchified" — used in the main article three times — be avoided all together, as it has a pejorative tone, and Wiktionary backs me up on this:

Frenchify > Adjective Frenchified: (vulgar, slang) to have contracted a venereal disease; to have become more like the French.

If a word is actually required, then Gallicized (or Gallicised, if preferred) would be better. Citing Wiktionary again:

Gallicize > Adjective Gallicized: To make French as the culture, customs, pronunciation, or style; to translate into French.

The best choice may simply be to avoid any usage of either where the word French would do on its own.

I spell American, but I found the article derisive of British & Commonwealth spelling and the bases on which it is derived. Moreover, the author's knowledge of spelling as it is practiced, de facto, outside the USA is somewhat of a stereotype.

209.5.232.129 20:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Glamour (-or/-our)

I thought 'glamour' originated from French...?

I think you're right.Cameron Nedland 23:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you're both dreadful wrong. Please read the article. It's Scottish. --JackLumber 13:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Saint

I was going to insert a period after the "St" in St Pancras railway station, but the lack of punctuation occurs in many places in UK railroad station names. So now I am wondering if this is just a UK/US English difference? -- Beland 05:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

In the case of St Pancras it may be more a case of the design of British road and rail signage - which never (?) uses punctuation ... But yes, it is also a BrEng/AmEng difference. Purists would say St (like Mr, Mrs, Dr etc) is a contraction, not an abbreviation (i.e. the final letter is present) and therefore does not take a period ("full stop" in BrEng), whereas abbreviations proper, where the final letter hass been ommited (e.g. vol., ed.) do take a period. But there is (I think) an increasing trend here (UK) to do away with all such periods in abbreviations. Whatever ... St Pancras should definitely NOT have a period after "St". Snalwibma 08:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

-og vs. -ogue in Commonwealth English

Reading my (slightly dated, circa 1980) Concise Oxford Dictionary, it gives both spellings for analog/analogue, although the -gue form comes first. As I understand (although this may be wrong), it is not incorrect to use -ize spellings in Commonwealth English, nor -ise in American English, despite what people think. Is this something similar; that is, is (e.g.) analog instead of analogue still valid in Commonwealth English? Fourohfour 18:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I have never seen -ise in American English, for whatever that's worth.Cameron Nedland 23:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to watch the sunrize in disguize. ;-) Fourohfour 10:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

-ise spellings are not accepted in U.S. (except for those words that naturally have -ise spellings, i.e. comprise, televise, advertise, compromise, etc. ---those that don't come from Greek -izein.), they're just an unneeded British novelty, exactly like "jewellery," "skilful," "kerb," and others. Analogue and analog are both acceptable in U.S. (for the noun; the adjective is analog only).

Yeah, I know that de facto -ize is American and -ise is Commonwealth. The question was whether the alternate spellings are technically correct, obscure or not. Fourohfour 09:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Most important, there's no such thing as "Commonwealth English."

I'm just using the term accepted here. Personally I assumed it was being used as a term for "British and British-based forms of English", (I'd have used "British English" by default myself) and I don't consider it something concrete (not that language ever is).

Maybe y'all think that "Commonwealth English" has some shade of a shared standard? It's not where it's at. Take the word colorize, meaning "to add color to a black-and-white movie." The only U.S. spelling is "colorize," but in Britain you find "colourise" and "colourize"; in Canada, "colourize" and "colorize"; in Australia, mostly "colourise" and "colorise," although -ize ending are also (rarely) found. So much for standardization. Ireland is not part of the Commonwealth, yet speaks Commonwealth English. (?) As I posted someplace else, the phrase "Commonwealth English," which never shows in authoritative publications, was coined by some fellow Wikipedian who had just fallen off of the wagon.--JackLumber 22:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not getting into the "Commonwealth English" argument; it's not a big deal to me and if it really originated at Wikipedia I agree it shouldn't be used. Fourohfour 09:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Well 404, the American posture is as I explained above. But when it comes to address an international audience, some scholars advocate -ise spelling, others put forth Oxford spelling, and some (notably Pam Peters) propose a mixture of American and British spelling, which would be "technically" neutral but incorrect in each country individually considered... --JackLumber 19:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

JackLumber: I am starting to doubt your knowledge of Australian English. Colourise is always used. Colorise is never used it is quite simply, incorrect. I believe a comment should not be published if one does not know enough about the language as it would appear you don't. --Rkeys 09:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No doubt that colourise is the usual spelling in Australia, as the article implies. But good ole Google search shows colourise/colorise ratio in Australia is 1.2 : 1. The OED itself prefers to omit the u in colo(u)rize even if colour is spelled with a u. See also [1]. You were the one who said, "I have NEVER seen liquorice been spelt licorice." Not to mention your preposterous stance on -ise vs. -ize. I might as well doubt your knowledge of the English language, but frankly I don't give a damn. I've been studying English dialects for 25 years. I believe people who are biased to their bones better hold their tongues. Your user page is most enlightening in this respect, and so is your talk page. A comment should not be "published" if its only purpose is that of raising a pother. Maybe you're just too young. JackLumber. 12:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Colourise is not only the usual spelling in Australia, but it is also the correct spelling. If one was to write colorise in an Australian english examination they would be ,arked as wrong. It does not matter that some Australians are idiots and spell the American way it is still wrong. As for liquorice since my last comment regarding I have looked and seen it spelt both ways. Perhaps written more commonly as licorice. But most importantly colorise is incorrect. Futhermore how is my stance on ise vs ize preposterous? Ise must not be American enough... How may I ask does my user page paint me as being biased? Maybe it is biased to assume that just because you are older you know more than me about the language of my own country. --Rkeys 12:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm a descriptionist, not a prescriptionist, and I never claimed to know more than you about your native dialect. Your user page reads "...Whilst he enjoys engaging in the odd argument he doesn't tend to go out of his way to provoke one. (Exceptions being things about Americans...)" (emphasis added), and your talk page and contrib log are pretty much self-explanatory. Thank you for being more civil this time. JackLumber. 13:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Plough vs Plow

I think both are common in the United States. For example, "plough" could refer to the horse-drawn variety, whereas "plow" could refer to more modern ones.

You are dreadful right, that entry cries out for a usage note. In older literature "plough" was very common; newer "plows" are usually... plows. A "snowplow" would never be a "snowplough," for instance. Thanks for noticing, --JackLumber 13:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

"Plow is also used in Canada." With respect to the above, as long as I can remember, (I am forty and have lived in Canada for 37 of those.) the word plough has been utilised as the noun while plow has been used as the verb. More recently, I have seen plow also used as a noun by those thoroughly confused by the U. S. spelling. This occurrence happens more often than I would like to see, especially since the advent of the 'spellchecker' function on most software programs which defaults to U. S. spelling. Fembot 01:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

So plow is used in Canada. While you're at it, what do Canadian dictionaries (as the Canadian Oxford) say? And, most of all, why do you spell "utilize" utilise? JackLumber 21:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Plough vs Plow

The spelling "plow" appears in Cockerams dictionary (1647) and was quite well used for at least another hundred years!

http://library.willamette.edu/project/index.cgi?work=Dict&page1=123v-2

User:RickP 21:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Snicker and mom

I have never, ever heard the form snicker to mean "snigger" in the UK. Indeed, when they changed the name of Marathon chocolate bar to Snickers some years ago, to bring it into line with its American name, they played on the fact that snickers means nothing at all in British English, by having people confuse it with sneakers (which itself hardly occurs, of course).

As for mom, whilst it is certainly the preferred American form, it also happens to be the form used in the Brummie dialect of English. TharkunColl 11:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Ax vs Axe

I believe that it is more common in America to use "ax" for the tool and "axe" for the weapon. It isn't a "battleax", it's a "battleaxe". You don't chop wood with an "axe", you chop it with an "ax".

Also, please explain why my info on "ax" vs "axe" is eventually removed.

When you put in information like this, which others may disagree with. You must then include sources (encyclopaedias, dictionaries, etc.) to back up what you think is fact. Mark 03:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh. Well, I didn't think of that. I apologize. How foolish of me. I've removed it. It's probably just my preference.

"Sulfur" being the scientific spelling

Is it true that in science the American spelling is used? Certainly the more Greek spelling would be used, being that Greek & Latin names are more common in science.

Yes, when I was learning chemistry in High School in Australia, the spelling we used is "sulfur" not "sulphur" and the former spelling is also used in our textbooks (published in Oz). This is probably the case for Canada too. Mark 04:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Well at my high school we are told either is appropriate.

I currently attend high school in Australia and we are taught sulphur. I believe that even the periodic table on our Science room's wall spells it as Sulphur (will look into this). just wanting to cast a shadow of doubt on this subject. Will get back to you with my findings... --Rkeys 09:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Look at the sulfur article for an explaination. Sulphur was used by Commonwealth English users while Americans used sulfur. It wasn't 'til 1990 when IUPAC decided to take the American spelling. Aluminium is an example where the Commonwealth spelling was kept. I was taught in Ireland to use the ph form at secondary school during the 90s (older teacher) but now have to teach my own students at university to use the the f form. Afn 17:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm in highschool right now, my textbook says "Sulphur" (Canada) Sum1else 21:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Cesar vs Caesar

I used to use "Cesar" alot. Does anyone think this is a variant?

I'm not sure about this, need to find some sources. It could be that you've just been mis-spelling the word for a long time. Just as I had for "alot" which is correctly two words not one. Mark 04:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Although, Cesar is correct in such languages as Spanish. I've seen Phenix as a variant of Phoenix. Though, it's probably just another way of simplifying English by removing unnecessary letters, like changing "night" to "nite", for example. "Lite" is now a common alternate in terms of calories or weight.

Whoa, steady now. One thing is spelling differences, another is common misspellings, even if deliberate. In other words, "it's" is still very different from "its", even if many people don't seem to understand the difference and argue that the apostrophe is "unnecessary". Ask yourself: would the Herald Tribune ever use "nite" and "lite"? As for Cesar/Caesar, it's easy enough to look it up [2] [3]. PizzaMargherita 07:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Not to derail the conversation too much, but my very capable high school latin teacher taught us that 'c' in latin was pronounced 'K' and knowing that 'ae' was pronounced 'aye' as in 'aye aye captain' the word caesar was properly pronounced Kaiser and thus we get the direct link with why a Russian king was a kaiser. This little tidbit of information was enough for me to remember how to correctly spell the latin derived caeser never pronounced 'seezer'. Fembot 01:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't that a *German* king? Aside from this, yes, it's true. Classical latin pronunciation was like that. By contrast, "ecclesiastical" pronunciation (that is, that of the Pope) is much like the first syllable of "Chesapeake" plus "are," with 1st syllable stress. Hope you got the idea... --JackLumber 21:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Kaiser is the German word for emperor, while König ('keuneg') is the one for king. I would tie Cesar to 'seezer' and Caesar to 'kaeser'. 28-Aug-06

Ass/Arse

Based on my personal experience, I would say that Mysekurity is right. And our perception turns out to be backed by Webster's 3rd transcription of the pronunciation of this word (legend: å is the vowel of father---when distinguished from that of bother; a is the "flat a"; ä as in bar; ă as in day)

\in the US 'as, 'aa(ə)s, 'ais also 'ås, and sometimes 'ärs euphemistically by speakers who have preconsonantal r and who are aware that there is a spelling "arse"; 'ås in standard British and 'å(r)s or 'ärs or 'ărs or 'ers in British and Scot dialect; in the US the pronunc 'ås occurs chiefly in New England and is there prob more often associated with the spelling "ass" than with "arse"\

Thus, whenever "arse" can be heard in New England, it's actually a pronunciation of ass rather than arse. --JackLumber 12:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC) Don't worry, sooner or later I'm going to learn how to write IPA symbols on WP.

Indeed. Thanks for that :). IPA makes sense I guess, but I'll have to learn it one day soon too. People more say "arse" in NE as a farce (heh) of "ass", rather than as an actual pronunciation. I think it's safe to delete it. If anyone really wants it in, they can re-add it. -Mysekurity ^[m!] 14:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Wait a second. One thing is to remove the "NE comment", which I agree was inappropriate. Quite another was to remove the entire line, which is equivalent to denying that Brits spell the word with an "r". Hence my reversion. PizzaMargherita 14:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, no apologies. I got the wrong end of the stick. I thought {{fact}} referred to the entire line. I cover myself in petrol and humbly ask you not to light up. (Old Indonesian saying) PizzaMargherita 14:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

S'alright. Hmm "Petrol"... Haven't heard that one in a while.... (Thanks for checking, it's good to see there are more than just assholes in this place). -Mysekurity ^[m!] 15:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, Merriam dictionaries (unlike other American dictionaries) don't flag "arse" as chiefly Brit., as you might expect. Hey, I hope it's well understood that when I said "based on my personal experience" I didn't mean "based on how many times I was addressed as 'asshole' in New England." JackLumber 20:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Does the spelling squalour exist?

The text as written so far suggests that the spelling squalour exists. But I couldn't find that in the online versions of Merriam-Webster, American Heritage and Oxford English Dictionary. They only give the spelling squalor. Shouldn't the text state that squalor is the only correct spelling? — 194.97.234.76 12 May2006 (was unsigned, undated)

BBC news article with squalour this is from a reporter posted in Russia, so I can only say it isn't in common usage! I'd guess it's wrong. Widefox 21:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Liquorice / Licorice

Have just added this to the list of miscellaneous spelling differences. Don't know if any usage comments apply, or if it should fit anywhere else, or if it's really just a misc. difference? -- TrevorD 10:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments---I'll take care of those ;-) Folk etymology is at work with the British variant... --JackLumber 20:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok I'm an Australian and I have NEVER seen liquorice been spelt licorice so I am going to remove the section which states that in Australia that licorice is prefered.

Pam Peters (an Australian, btw) says that licorice is commoner than liquorice in Australia. JackLumber, 12:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

And I'm an Australian too. Rkeys

Regarding this statement: "Licorice, foregrounded by Canadian and Australian dictionaries, is rarely found in the UK; liquorice, which derived from licorice by folk etymology, is nonexistent in the U.S." I would have thought so too, but on a recent trip to northwestern Montana I saw it on a package (which could have been manufactured in Canada) and on a storefront. So I changed the statement to "rare in the U.S." BlongerBros 17:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Whinge/whine

Hi JackLumber, I noticed you removed whine/whinge. I appreaciate your point about etymology, but isn't it true that Americans use exclusively whine and Brits use exclusively whinge essentially for the same meaning? [4] Cheers, PizzaMargherita 21:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

If what you say were true, then the words belong in the List of words with different meanings or the Lists of words used in only UK or only US - it's not a question only of spelling.

But, in fact, both words are used in the UK, and (to me at least) they have slightly different meanings: "whine" implies a tone of complaining, making a "plaintive cry"; whereas "whinge" would be repeated complaining; but the dictionary meanings do overlap. -- TrevorD 22:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's where it's at. Whinge indeed has an entry in the List of "British" words. A Scottish/Northern word, btw, that appeared in English as early as 1150, a century or so before whine. Why this word has never been popular in America remains a mystery. --JackLumber 12:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Commonwealth or British?

Hello there, the intro goes

Spelling differences between American English on one side, and British and Commonwealth English on the other are generally more conspicuous than spelling differences within the Commonwealth. For this reason, the term Commonwealth English is used throughout this page to collectively refer to the spelling used in the British Isles and the Commonwealth of Nations, as opposed to American spelling. Differences within Commonwealth usage are duly noted.

However, in the article there is some serious mishmash of both British and Commonwealth. Shouldn't we make this consistent? (I guess change all British->Commonwealth) PizzaMargherita 20:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Watch it. Something only applies to British. But I'm gonna remodel the whole schmeer soon, a few points being not completely accurate. See ya, JackLumber, 19:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The terms commonwealth english and british english are incorrect as Ireland is not in any of these groupings. The British Isles is a geographical not a political term. 83.70.236.106 02:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Grey/Gray

This sounds like an individual's personal opinion, and not something verifiable:

Some American writers tend to assign wistful, positive connotations to grey, as in "a grey fog hung over the skyline", whereas gray often carries connotations of drabness, "a gray, gloomy day."

For what it is worth, I personally have the opposite connotations with those variants. Savatar 04:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Pleased to meet you Savatar! The article used to say, "American authors tend to assign..."---and I myself downplayed that assertion, changing it to "some American writers...". For what it's worth, what I think is that gray is the standard American spelling and grey is but a sporadic variant. JackLumber, 12:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, it seems to me that this is unusually verifiable. If we can find an author who uses both grey and gray, we should reference them and give examples of use of each. If we can't, we should remove this assertion. —Blotwell 21:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

er/uh

In American usage; both "er" and "uh" are used and both have distinct pronucations (at least in General American). In fact it's quite common if even to follow one by the other if even more time to think was needed. In General American, "er" tends to have no discenerable vowel; just a solid wall of "r" while "uh" is prounouced as the article states. Jon 20:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jon, pleased to meet you. Our mileage may vary, I guess. Uh seems to prevail in transcription of speech (note that I myself added "the British variant is used in the U.S."); but er was "coined" by R-droppers (apparently, Britons; the first recorded use is in the St. James's Magazine) as a pronunciation spelling of the "schwa" or similar vowel. This vowel can be realized in various ways, but the use of the "r" or rhotacized schwa is improper IMO. The er-uh difference is more of a sociolinguistic thing, anyway---it could be as well deleted from this page. JackLumber, 12:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Civilization v. Civilisation

I'm an American and I've always spelled "civilization" with the 'z.' I have seen it spelled with an 's' in some texts, usually British in origin. Has anyone else seen this?

Yup, it's a word of the -ize/-ise pail; see under -ize/-ise. JackLumber,

Hiccup

Re this entry:

hiccup, hiccough || hiccup || Hiccup prevails everywhere; hiccough (folk etymology) is accepted but rare in the U.S. Irrespective of the spelling the pronunciation is always "hiccup".

'hiccough' is also now rare in the UK. There is no UK/US difference here, so I've deleted it. Ben Finn 19:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. After all, the OED never liked hiccough. JackLumber. 21:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

English

Does anyone have history page of why America decided to simplify (See deviant spelling) from its English origin.

Why? Languages drift over time; it's just a fact of history. Moreover, though I'm no sutdent of linguisitics, I can tell you that the picture is a lot more complicated than "America decided to simplify" - not all US/UK differences are simplifications on the part of the US, and in a lot of cases, it's the Americans who have retained an older usage abandoned by the British, not the other way 'round. So the first piece of advice I'd offer is to ask a more nuanced version of your question. PurplePlatypus 20:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

PurplePlatypus, just pay no mind to trolls. This aside, yes, that's where it's at. Historical notes are often provided (see or/our, ize/ise, tire/tyre, skeptical/sceptical, etc.), and I would add more if I had the time. JackLumber. 13:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Canadian yogourt

JackLumber's edit summary:

No Michael—I wrote "dicts. favoring yogourt" just to point out that CanOxf prioritizes it, but yogurt prevails per Cambridge Guide & Canadian Eng.Usage. Ft. some, rm. "colorize" misleading note[5]

Then why not just write that the Canadian Oxford prioritizes the yogourt spelling, while the other two prefer yogurt? The way it's written it doesn't convey this information at all. Perhaps this belongs in a footnote. —Michael Z. 2006-06-27 13:38 Z

Indeed. The problem is, the Canadian Oxford dictionary foregrounds the "French" yogourt---and I don't know why, since "Canadian English Usage" and "The Cambridge Guide to English Usage" point out (_based on corpus data_) that yogurt prevails (that is, they don't merely "prefer" yogurt). Interestingly, the original (British) Oxford dictionary had yogurt as the main spelling, but it was most likely a typo (yogurt never shows in the quotations!); however, the 2nd edition of the OED still prioritizes yogurt over yoghurt, but in fact yoghurt prevails (and has always prevailed) in Britain. Weird, huh? JackLumber. 14:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yogourt still prevails in most of Canada (particularly Eastern Canada), though both the British and American spellings are used in newspapers and magazine. Yogourt prevails in the supermakret, however. 198.20.40.50 20:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I've always used yogourt, it's even in the supermarkets. I don't 'bout the newspapers and magazines though. Sum1else 21:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Good article

I enjoyed reading this article and popped it up as a GAN. The article is informative, readable and helpful. But, for those who like all the boxes to be ticked, it may fail because of lack of referencing and sources. The two main references, of course, are OED and Websters - both of which are listed - though Fowlers and other main souces are not given, merely mentioned in the text. Anyway - see what the Reviewer has to say when the article gets round to being reviewed. SilkTork 14:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just popped in a few references and a notes section to get things started. Good luck! SilkTork 14:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Minor niggles

"In both forms, complexion (which comes from the stem complex) is standard and complection is not." Is "forms" here a typo for "traditions" or "nations" or similar? As it is, I don't understand the sentence. And while I don't have the OED (or similar) on me now, I'd thought that "complection" was the commoner spelling in the much less usual sense of interweaving, e.g. chrestomathy.

How about "can not" vs "cannot"? -- Hoary 02:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a trade name in the article - 'Spyder' vs 'Spider'. I'd have thought it would muddy the waters irretrievably if such proprietary or invented derived words were allowed to jostle for space in this article. Otherwise you'd end up with 'Rebel' in one column and '350D' in the other. Ian Tindale 11:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"UK" vs "Britain"

Dear 203.94.135.134 (you might want to get establish an account...): if you're going to change something that's been in place for a while, could you try to discuss it here, and give reasons for the change? "Britain" generally means the bigger of the two British Isles, while the UK includes Northern Ireland, and, for a while, also included the entirety of Ireland (when "UK" was short for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. "Britain" seems to me like a more sensible choice here. Could you explain why you disagree? Thanks. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-07-14 16:05 (UTC)

In normal usage "Britain" tends to be synonymous with the "UK", and is regularly used as such by everyone, including the government. If you wanted to refer specifically to the island, you would say "Great Britain". I know this sounds illogical - inasmuch as "Britain" refers to a larger area than "Great Britain" - but that's how it's used. TharkunColl 18:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

See further at User talk:203.94.135.134. Likewise, "North American" usually refers to a larger area than "American." (But note that "America" includes "North America," not the other way around!) Why? American (U.S.) imperialism and all that jazz... JackLumber. 19:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

According to the Encyclopædia Britannica, the term 'Britain' is short for 'Great Britain' the largest island of the British Isles, and excludes most of the other islands — not part of the constitute countries of England, Scotland and Wales — surrounding it such as Ireland and the Isle of Man. However, it also says that administratively both the terms 'Britain' and 'Great Britain' are synonymous with 'UK' which includes Northern Ireland and all the other smaller islands surrounding it, except the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. I tend to agree with what Britannica says about this, so therefore 'Britain', 'Great Britain' and 'UK' can be used interchangeably. Is it really a big deal if a user changes Britain to UK or Vice-versa? I highly doubt it. If we want this encyclopaedia to be respected, perhaps we should use what is used in offical documents, etc. But anyway, all the best. Cheers. -- 203.164.189.167 08:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If that's what the Encyclopædia Britannica says, then it is wrong. "Britain" is synonymous with "UK", but "Great Britain" refers to the island. This is how the terms are used in contemporary Britain. But you are right to say that Britain and the UK are interchangeable - which one prefers must depend on stylistic considerations. TharkunColl 09:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This is definitely what Encyclopædia Britannica says and perhaps you and others who have made your determination above have done so on wrong assumptions and/or information. At least the term 'Britain' means both the largest island of the British Isles and the UK itself as a whole. -- 203.164.189.167 10:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, what TharkunColl says is what style guides say, including Pam Peters's. In *modern* usage, Britain != Great Britain. I have never used Great Britain to mean "United Kingdom," in this article or elsewhere. JackLumber. 20:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You are probably right that 'Great Britain' does not equal 'UK', but after reading through some other modern encyclopaedias they tend not to agree on this matter, some say Great Britain = UK, whilst others say Great Britain != UK, but they do agree with each other that Britain does equal both Great Britain and UK, and say that 'Britain' is short for 'Great Britain'. Even though you never equate Britain for Great Britain there are people who do, such as myself, but I do know of other people who do too; this does not make it wrong or incorrect, just different from you. But this discussion is about whether Britain or UK is better to use. If this article is to be taken seriously then UK would be the better choice, and also the use of citations for contentious issues to be used. Also why not use America for United States? Because in the English language 'America' is short for 'United States of America', but it is also means the whole landmass that the US and other surrounding countries are apart of. I think if you use 'UK' then 'U.S.' should be used, but if you use 'Britain' then 'America' should be used (but only informally and not in an encyclopaedia). This is only logical, and would make the article more pleasing to read. -- 203.164.189.103 07:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

One of the issues here is the linguistic (not political!) status of Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland (justly or not) is part of the UK, but it's not part of the easternmost island of the British Isles (whatever we call that island...). Using the term "the UK" lumps Northern Ireland together with said island. In some context that would be okay, but in many, it would not be okay. --Cultural Freedom 2006-07-16 09:18 (UTC)

The problem is that the stylistic level of Britain "UK" and America "US" is *not* the same---the latter can only be informal, the former is used also in formal writing, and has been used also to refer to the British Empire and the Commonwealth of Nations. America "United States" is similar to _England_ "Great Britain/United Kingdom"---this last (incorrect) usage is found not only among Americans. A contentious issue you pointed out, 203, is that of fetus vs. foetus. Check out for example the fetus article and talk page thereof. JackLumber. 19:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I've lived in Ireland all my life. This morning I still assumed that Britain was the name of the island between Ireland and France. Oh but how wrong I was. This evening, thanks to TharkunColl I now realise that I have been living in Britain all my life. Oh well. Now I'm off to bed with a new nationality. What a difference a day makes. El Gringo 22:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Which part of Ireland? If Northern Ireland, then obviously you are in the UK, which is very commonly (if informally) called Britain. If the Republic, then you are not in Britain at all, just the British Isles. TharkunColl 06:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

There is only one Ireland. And none of it is in Britain, or France, or Germany. If you really believe that the United Kingdom is the same as Britain then this exchange is over. El Gringo 11:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

There is certainly only one Ireland, but a large chunk of it is part of the UK because that's how the majority of its population want it at the moment. I'm not saying that Britain doesn't mean the island also known as Great Britain, because it does. But in informal usage, "Britain" is also used as a synonym for the UK. Illogical yes, but language is not a mathematical formula. And on the subject of illogicalities, at the Olympic games the UK team goes under the name "GBR", and its international driving licence plate code is "GB". Don't ask me why, but that's the way it is. TharkunColl 12:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Why just not use 'British Isles' and end all this thread up? It's the precise term, and it's also not so long.

Because 'British Isles' includes the whole of Ireland; those of us of a pedantic bent quite like these fine distinctions - I groan at seeing English National Opera as England isn't a Nation - you can't get an English passport - only a UK one. I would argue that although Britain is widely used as meaning the same as United Kingdom this is wrong, just as using England as meaning Britain is wrong. Apepper 16:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The definition of the word 'nation' is probably a bit more complex than you presume. Without having checked this very thorougly, and quite ready to withdraw it later, I would probably argue that England may be considered a nation, though it is certainly not a national state. This distinction is often confused. A 'nation' is 'an imagined community' and the term could be applied with some justification to England, which has several of the defining features of a nation, such as a flag, a football team and so on. A state, on the other hand, or a national state, is an administrative unit that excerts sovereign power over a territory. Thus, e.g., United Nations really isn't an organization of nations, but of national states. Emil 14:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

disc/disk

It would seem to me (as an American, btw) that the usage of disc and disk no longer depend so much on one's nationality as on the thing being described. As the article states, optical storage mediums are spelled disc and magnetic storage is spelled disk. Mathmaticians call them disks and biologists call them discs. For this reason, I suggest that the section be removed. I would have done it myself, but I wanted to make sure that someone British agreed with me too ;) --Mark Yen 06:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The scenario is very complex and the entry needs either cleanup/expansion, as the embedded HTML comment I put there a few days ago suggests, or... yes, removal, as you suggest. Music & computing aside, American usage is divided. And British usage seems to be divided too. Long story short, both spellings are widely used in both countries. (Sorry for not being British ;-) JackLumber. 12:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Being British, I have to say that I'm never sure how that word is spelt in any context and will randomly spell it either way, possibly even in the same paragraph. TharkunColl 07:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Oxford English Dictionary (1989): "The earlier and better [sic] spelling is disk, but disc is now the more usual form in British English, except in sense 2g, where disk is commoner as a result of US influence." (Sense 2g is the computing sense.) Things of changed, though. The Columbia Guide to AmE (1993) is outdated in this respect. Look it up in any modern style guide, you'll read a one-page paragraph and then you'll probably say, "huh?" According to Merriam-Webster, disk and disc are equally acceptable, disk being commoner, but disc _usually_ used for "a phonographical record," the farm implement, and an "optical disK" (yes, it reads usually disc: OPTICAL DISK---go figure!) Yet according to present-day British dictionaries disk is _the_ spelling in computing and a U.S. variant (Oxford, "disc, U.S. also disk"; Chambers, "disc, especially U.S. disk") in all other senses. And what about the distinction between a compact disc and a compact disk? Oh, and disc brake is more frequent than disk brake in both British and American English. Have you had enough or should I continue ;-) JackLumber. 12:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Long ago in the late '80s when I was working on a computer magazine here in the UK, my editor and I pondered which form to adopt, as our various contributors would seem to pick either, willy-nilly. I had the idea that a 'disc' is what we should use to describe an object that is, in fact, circular in form, such as a Compact Disc. The word 'disk' therefore would be allowed to describe something that clearly is no longer disc-shaped, such as a floppy disk (by then, the small square plastic things you shove into an Atari ST) and later, a hard disk. We were happy enough with that distinction.Ian Tindale 11:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

New project (Regional English, shortcut: WP:REDS)

I started this project in the hopes of avoiding edit wars, etc. (Shortcut: WP:REDS). While these discussionas have taken place here, it seems better to do it on an independent project because it also takes place at MoS, NAME, etc., and this talk page is, after all for an article, not for a policy discussion. SB Johnny 11:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Influx of Commonwealth spellings to U.S.

The article mentions that some Commonwealth spellings ("Centre", "Theatre", etc.) are increasingly used in the U.S. It should be pointed out that, for the most part, these spellings are actually used to look more "foreign," not because Americans are increasingly seeing these spellings as "American." For example, the use of "Centre" in the naming of a building or other place, this is normally intended to imply "European sophistication." This is similar to cases where America might be spelled Amerika to refer to German or Russian influences in the U.S (e.g. the miniseries from years ago about Russia conquering the U.S.). This spelling would really be a euphimism but would not be considered proper spelling. In the same way the use of British spellings in the U.S. is generally more euphimistic than anything else. Although it can be argued that the more these "euphimisms" are used the more they will start to be considered "proper," today these spellings are still almost universally considered incorrect in the U.S. even when they are used. MCorazao., 26 July 2006

<< The article mentions that some Commonwealth spellings ("Centre", "Theatre", etc.) are increasingly used in the U.S.

Where did you read that?!? Not in this article, that's for sure. Centre is used but in some toponyms; theatre has wide currency, at least among professionals, for historical reasons (cf. Broadway Theatre). JackLumber. 14:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

add meanings to all

Add meanings to all the words you mention, so we don't have to go looking them up if we never heard of them. Also add IPA so we know how each is pronounced... --User:Jidanni 2006-07-31

Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for American and British English spelling differences/Archive 1 has failed, for the following reason:

This is a very good article and only barely failed GA in my opinion. The main reasons for failure were:

1. The lead needs rewriting for pace and focus.
2. It needs a general copy-edit, as certain passages are convoluted or choppy (e.g. the lead and "Compounds and hypens section")
3. There's no general introduction to the topic (except the link to the main article, but the revalent points should be repeated here). Refocussing the lead should help here as well.
4. Needs more inline citations; ideally, every term explained should be sourced to where those explanations came from. Also, the current article mixes html and footnote citations when using one or the other is preferable.

Once these points have been addressed, I encourage you to renominate the article! :-)

Canada as U.S.

What does "Canada as U.S." mean? —jwanders^Talk 19:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Means that our northern brothers spell the same as we do.Cameron Nedland 02:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Common Suffixes

I don't really understand this part. It says "(Thus American spelling treats -l the same as other final consonants, whereas Commonwealth spelling treats it irregularly.) This is incorrect. The word is "swimming" in both dialects, not "swiming", so AmE doesn't treat -l the same as final consonants. The doubled letter is to differentiate between words with the "magic e" and words without. So "equalling" has no magic e, whereas "equaling" looks like it may do. Thus "hand-written" and "hand-writing", not hand-writen. -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 14:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC).

As an exception to the general rule, in American English, cancelled//cancelling is widespread. Dave Andrew 23:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Penquin

I heard "penquin" somewhere and I typed it in google and some sites use the "q" but is it an old commonwealth spelling?

What's the other spelling?Cameron Nedland 14:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, an amazing number of Google hits for "penquin"! But they look like commercial sites which are playing on words, plus a fair sprinkling of simple typos. I don't think there is any etymological justification for the Q spelling, and no, it isn't an old spelling of penguin, in the commonwealth or anywhere else. Snalwibma 18:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Tennis Terminology

I'm not sure, but would "racket" vs. "racquet" qualify for the list of varying American and British spellings? I know both are correct, but is one preferred more than the other in these places?

I know that "racquet" is rare or almost unknown in Canada& the US. I dunno if it's true but I think that both are acceptable in the UK and the rest of the Commonwealth, though racquet is preffered and both are widly (and probably equally) at use in the Commonwealth (with the exception of Canada which only uses racket). Sum1else 17:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

more on IZE

"Note that not all spellings are interchangeable; some verbs take the -z- form exclusively, for instance capsize, seize (except in the legal phrase to be seised of/to stand seised to), size and prize (only in the "appraise" sense), whereas others take only -s-: advertise, advise, apprise, arise, chastise, circumcise, comprise, compromise, demise, despise, devise, disguise, and televise. Finally, the verb prise (meaning to force or lever) is spelled prize in the U.S. and prise everywhere else, including Canada."

More of these words don't originally come from Greek words ending "izein" through the Latin "-izare" ending so why are they part of this section?

Well, I guess I'll move it if you can find a source...Cameron Nedland 13:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll add one more remark about one "-ise must", if I may: circumcise. I've seen it written as "circumsize", which I take to be a _very_ poor attempt at irony. (Also, "televise" is an oddity, being another one of those mixed language bastards: "tele" from the Greek + "videre" from the Latin. May its originator - who was German, I think - rot in some suitable purist hell! As may the medic who came up with "neonate" ...) But if you want a source for the Greek/Latin origin distinction, I can do no better than to point you at Eric Partridge's "Usage and Abusage". His gloss on the matter is that, if the word comes *directly* from the Latin, use -ise; otherwise, -ize is preferable. (Example: "excise", from Latin ex- + caedere; but "realize" has no (direct) Latin origin.) (He also makes an exception for words with a "y", such as "analyse" - without explanation.) This is, in essence, exactly what I was taught at school, in the 1960s (in Britain, by the way), and explains the forms which I personally use and prefer. (Note also: it's a guard against laziness - in a certain way!) Hair Commodore 21:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

complected

what? I've NEVER seen/heard that in the States.

Me neither.Cameron Nedland 13:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Names

Are spellings like Jon/John and Elizabeth/Elisabeth based at all on what country they come from?Cameron Nedland 13:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No. Snalwibma 16:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Doughnut vs Donut

I'm sure that's a common spelling difference. Sum1else 14:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

True, but I don't know if it's based on nationality.Cameron Nedland 17:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability

From WP:V -

“ One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they must refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers. The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and reliable encyclopedia. Editors should cite reliable sources so that their edits may be verified by readers and other editors.

"Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth.

”

Please note the official Wikipedia policy:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

This isn't GeoCities. You can not include stuff just because it sounds true. If a statement isn't backed up by a reliable source, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia - and if it is, the source needs to be cited. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 20:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Er, ok... but I seriously think that if we added a footnote for every one of those [citation needed] things, we'd have a very long references section. Ok, time to start googling for references then. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 00:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

ClairSamoht: There is no obligation to provide inline citations for every point. Most if not all of the points you have challenged are in one of the volumes listed in the References section. jnestorius^(talk) 00:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Michael, there's nothing wrong with a very long references section. However, when you start looking for citations, you're going to find out that much of the "information" on that page is not only not verifiable, it's smack-dab wrong. By the time the unverifiable matter disappears, and the preachy POV matter disappears, and the original research disappears, the total article length will be very similar to what it is now. The difference is that it will be an article that Wikipedia can point to with pride, instead of an abject embarassment.

Joe, there's no need to provide citations for every point. Only those that ought not be removed from the article. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 02:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps to add context, the version of the article I saw was this, which may be a bit excessive. I think that there are plenty of ways reference sections can be minimised however, like what they've done over at Steve Irwin with two columns. (note that with the current version of the article my concerns are no longer valid, and most of those little tags are gone, so anyone please feel free to ignore my ranting :D) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I count ~179 {{fact}} tags, which is complete overkill, 30 should do it. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that some of the content of the article is a bit POV, and some of it is questionable, but it does give a very useful guide to some of the different writing habits of the Americans, British, etc. Furthermore, I assume that the contributions tend to reflect how people actually (and yes, maybe incorrectly; and yes, maybe not very many people) use and misuse the English language. I like it, warts and all - and I find it actually useful! It contains lots of information not readily available elsewhere. I'd almost go so far as to say it's haphazardness and POV-ness, with contributions from lots of people who clearly feel strongly about the subject, is part of its strength. Please do improve the article - but I think the noncompliant tag is a bit OTT. Snalwibma 08:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I enjoy a rant with a strong POV more than most. I also enjoy porn. But rants with strong POV don't belong in Wikipedia, and porn doesn't belong in kindergarten classrooms. The reason there's a noncompliant tag on the article is that it IS seriously noncompliant. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 17:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that, ClairSamoht. I have taken a good hard look at the article, and I have changed my mind. But not, I'm afraid, in the direction of agreeing with you! There is not nearly as much POV and dubious material in the artcle as I'd thought. In fact, I reckon it's mostly good stuff, instantly verifiable by checking in any standard dictionary. I have done some spot checks on a dozen of the things you tagged as "citation required", and every one of them is there, in plain view in the dictionaries. So it's not only NPOV, it's also NOT original research. I have therefore removed the noncompliant tag. Snalwibma 17:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well done, Snalwibma. Unfortunately, without finding support here above, ClairSamoth already reverted once more... I'll take a look again later on.

ClairSamoth, I asssume you have read my yesterday around 2 am UTC reaction on the -ize/-ise section on Woodstone's talk page. I do not understand your current behaviour as an edit-warrior who seems to stand alone in seeing Point of View, Original Research and/or insufficient Verifiability. I can not find your arguments for your opinions, not even what kind of POV you have become aware of, or what part would have been OR. Your "much" did not enlighten us about which statement you think to be "smack-dab wrong" either. The ridiculous number of 'citation needed' tags you had inserted in the article as a reaction on my edit comment, was not of much help to improve the article and did violate Wikipedia policy against demonstratively 'proving' a point. My advice: pick two or three specific statements that not one of the references corroborates. As I on the mentioned Woodstone's talk page section, and user Jnestorius here above implied: you need to be willing to look up things in the given references, if anything is not there, you should put a -tag in the article. We do not have to deliver details like on which page and how exactly each source mentions the British and/or American spelling of every word in the article: people checking references are supposed to be able to use a dictionary.

In forementioned talk page, I said I had checked the external links behind 'Nature', 'ISO' and 'WHO', and found only the one behind 'Nature' to be irrelevant. I made a mistake in thinking that the ISO generally uses American spelling, that particular external link seems not to show its spelling variant. Other ISO pages are not convincingly consequent (see for instance the mix of "colour" and "color" on this single ISO article from Brazil), thus not so easily verifiable as contributor Snalwibma stated in an edit comment today. Unlike contributor JackLumber today said in the edit comment upon removing the last part of the relevant sentence, the WHO reference provided by ClairSamoth was a very good one: it not just showed the use of -ize but also American spelling in general, in casu 3 x (not as part of a name or quote) "center" (Am, and a minor variant in Canada): twice 'center' as position of a photograph, and a 'town center' in India) and 3 x "color" or "coloration" (Am) but 0 x "centre", "colour" (Br, Commonwealth). Thus the WHO at least in that article generally uses American spelling.

— SomeHuman 26 Sep2006 20:36 (UTC) (was entirely prepared before edit conflict with sections hereunder)

Snalwimba, I'd like to know what standard dictionary you are using that says both "snigger" and "snicker" are common in the UK, "snicker" in the US, "snigger" can have malicious connotations in Canada, and that "snigger" prevails in Australia and New Zealand.

I'd like to know what standard dictionary you are using that says "In the early 18th century, English spelling was not standardised."

It's VERY evident that you're using a VERY unusual standard dictionary - or else you're gaming us with WP:AGF - but it doesn't matter. If it is so easy to find sources that verify all the crap in this article, then do so. If it's not easy, then the statement needs to go pfffft! WP:V says any editor can challenge content that doesn't show sources, and I've challenged the entire article. It also says the burden of proof is on the editor who wants to include the material, not on the editor who wants to delete the material. This article seems useful, if it were to be properly done. At the present, though, it isn't. As Jimbo points out, zero information is preferable to bad or misleading information. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 22:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I have just changed the "noncompliant" tag to "verify" (sorry - hit "save page" before I added the edit summary). This seems to me far less controversial, and far less aggresive, than ClairSamoht's tagging of the article. I might even go so far as to agree with the "verify" tag. But I do worry about over-use of in-line referencing leading to unreadable articles. Snalwibma 07:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

People have been throwing RVV into edit summaries. I you to WP:VAND, in particular:

---

Types of vandalism

Improper use of dispute tags

Dispute tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that all stated reasons for the dispute are settled. As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period. Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus. Instead, follow WP:CON and accept that some edits will not meet consensus. Please note that placing or removal of dispute tags does not count as simple vandalism, and therefore the reverting of such edits is not exempt from the three-revert rule.

What vandalism is not

Bullying or Stubbornness

Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them on an article's talk page, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is a matter of regret — you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. However, it is not vandalism.

---

Let's all count to ten and go to our happy places. jnestorius^(talk) 18:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Verifying and vandalism

OK - point taken! I have put noncompliant back and gone away to count to nine or so. But I would like to discuss the two references for ISO and WHO, as a kind of proxy for the whole issue of what sort of citations are needed through the article. I removed those two convoluted references because I felt they added nothing to the point in question - which is whether the organisations use -ise or -ize. It seems very odd to provide a link to a couple of random documents, when all that is required is a glance at the way they spell their names on their websites. I have now inserted two general references instead (to www.iso.org and www.who.int), but I think even these are unnecessary. It can surely stand as a statement - "the WHO uses the -ize spelling" - and it is so easy to verify that the reference looks like overkill, unless there happens to be a statement from the WHO which actually says "we like the -ize spelling". But the two references which were there had nothing whatever to say on the subject. I think it's a similar case with many (most?) of the statements tagged as "citation required" 24 hours ago. If something can be easily checked by a quick loookup in the dictionaries which are listed at the end of the article, there is no need for a cumbersome reference at every point aloing the way. Snalwibma 18:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I put something on the ISO and WHO in the Verifiability section (I prepared the text for that spot and found myself in an edit conflict with the meanwhile introduced Vandalism sections). Please look also on Woodstone's talk page to which I provided a link. [The whole controversy seems to have become so vivid after Woodstone's modifications of -ize towards -ise on the Dutch language article and my reaction.] – So far, there has been no vandal at work. — SomeHuman 26 Sep2006 20:36 (UTC)

Somehuman writes "So far, there has been no vandal at work."

As Jnestorius has pointed out, removal of dispute tags without resolution of the problem does constitute vandalism.

So is replacing valid citations with useless ones. The references at the ISO and WHO pointed to standards documents issued by each in which the -ize spelling was used. Pointing to the ISO and WHO websites does nothing to verify the fact that -ize is used in their standards. It is necessary for citations to actually CITE something. That's why Wikipedia doesn't just put a link to dmoz.org in the sidebar, and thus call every fact in every article verifiable. Verifiability doesn't mean "theoretically verifiable, I think". It means "actually verifiable", by providing an example of a reliable source that backs up what is being said. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 22:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you now accusing yourself? "Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus". Please mind the difference between vandalism and content dispute, and assume good faith - thus do not call any of the four people that remove your incorrect tagging a 'vandal'.

I took out your {{OriginalResearch|article}}; you then made it a {{Sermon|article}} which tag Jnestorius took out together with your approximately 200 two hundred {{fact}}-tags ; you immediately claimed the article to be {{noncompliant}} which was removed by JackLumber ; you placed it back and, while removing your inline external references with an appropriate edit comment, Snalwibma got your tag out whereupon you reverted calling Snalwibma a vandal ("RVV" edit comment) so I can understand his revert with comment "(rvv - and time to discuss before any more)" ; upon your vandalism quote "As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period." on this discussion page, Snalwibma put the tag in again.

Beside 200 'citation needed'-tags, you placed 3 different article-top tags, the last one several times, while none of the people involved in the current discussion agrees with any of those: no less than 4 contributors who have honestly tried to improve the article, have found your tagging improper. Who would then come closest to vandalism, do you think? "So far, there has been no vandal at work" is a mild opinion, assuming good faith. It follows from seeing that each of us has at times tried to improve the article, whether everone sees a real improvement is irrelevant for vandalism accusations.

I must agree with your argument for the links, but you should select them more carefully (the one behind 'Nature' had been utterly irrelevant, the one for the ISO showed '-ize' but not whether American or British spelling is used, only the WHO sample had a clear function). On the other hand, as my earlier comment showed by the Brazilian ISO article, a single page does not necessarily prove much. To that respect Snalwibma's solution by pointing to the home pages gives a better opportunity to check for consistant usage, though I do not think this should be needed for Nature of the WHO if the contributor who puts a well chosen sample in as a reference, also verified that a generally consistent usage by the publisher seems assured.

So, stop throwing Wikiguidelines and -tags as accusations. Work on improving the article, see also my earlier suggestions about a few, well chosen {{fact}}-tags, be specific in pointing out a weakness in the article, which spellings are found in contemporary quality literature, in professional texts on Law. Such is not original research but a search for sources so as to be able to deliver a properly complete picture to the readers. — SomeHuman 27 Sep2006 00:30 (UTC)

I see that Clairsamoht agrees with me that referencing the website of WHO and ISO doesn't add much. So far, so good. My point, however, is that as currently written (and for some edits past) the sentence in question is saying only that these two organisations use -ize rather than -ise. Maybe at one time it was trying to say something more complex about their general adherence to BrEng or AmEng spellings, but (a) it doesn't any more and (b) this is arguably not the place (under the "ize and -ise" heading) to make such a point. The point here is whether -ise or -ize is used, by whom. In that context, just a mention that WHO and ISO use -ize would suffice. Maybe there's a case for expanding the paragraph a bit, inserting something about the overall AmEng/BrEng habits of WHO and ISO, and finding references which demonstrate (I guess) consistency on one hand and inconsistency on the other. Otherwise, I stand by my assertion that the two references to WHO and ISO documents were pointless. The WHO and ISO websites absolutely and completely back up what is being said in the text. Snalwibma 08:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Most of the "crap" featured in this article, including Canadian snigger, Australian draft, editor-in-chief, yada yada yada, is supported by Pam Peters's Cambridge Guide. For instance, the -or/-our section is essentially a blend of W3, OED, and Peters. Occasional users may have inserted unnoticed unverified claims or POV statements (as in basically every other Wikipedia article), but the article as a whole is well documented—and mostly unbiased, since it's totally descriptive. I frankly don't see a reason for the "noncompliant" tag to stay put. JackLumber. 12:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Nor (unsurprisingly) do I - though after my last attempt, it ain't going to be me wot removes it. Snalwibma 15:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

JackLumber, the article as a whole is well-documented, except for the fact that it's hardly documented at all. If you can find citations for everything in the article, please add them, because without a copy of that book, I cannot possibly determine what page numbers to cite for each fact, nor can I determine which of the "most" facts are supported and which are not.

The reason for the "noncompliant" tag to stay put is that the article is noncompliant. It can be made compliant by removing or rewriting POV statements, and by removing or providing citations for statements that are unsourced.

We've been talking about this for some time, and I don't see citations being added. Are you sure you want me to bring the page into compliance? You surely would be much happier doing it the way you prefer. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 17:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Yup, well documented. You see that bit at the end, with the heading References? There is the evidence for most of what the article says. I think JackLumber's dead right - on the whole, it's well documented. Snalwibma 18:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Dead right, indeed. ClairSamoth, the above 'Vandalism' section says under What vandalism is not: "Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them on an article's talk page, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is a matter of regret". Not only was I willing to talk, you never bothered to show in what respect any of my arguments is wrong; you just keep putting wild claims of unverifiability and POV. You say you have no access to the referenced books. That does not make those invalid at all. I too prefer online cut-for-easy-chewing references, but these may not be available and are clearly not imposed by Wikipedia guidelines. You do not even have that excuse for your POV claim: here it is you that must state what is supposed to be WP:POV. In which case you should tag the article only as POV, else the tag must go altogether. — SomeHuman 28 Sep2006 19:21 (UTC)

It don't mean a thing if you ain't got that book (you can just stop by a library and check it out—it's a real pageturner). I ain't got no books on biomedical engineering on my shelf, yet I usually don't go cluttering up articles on biomedical engineering with "fact" tags. If everybody had every possible book Wikipedia would be just pointless. Why don't you help us find those POV statements and/or fix them yourself?--JackLumber. 13:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

ClairSamoht: '...without a copy of that book, I cannot possibly determine what page numbers to cite for each fact, nor can I determine which of the "most" facts are supported and which are not.' I'm not sure I follow. Suppose every sentence you are dubious of has its own citation with page and paragraph number. If you don't have a copy of the cited book, you still won't be able to verify any of them. If I surreptitiously (and hypothetically) added citations for each line, saying "page 64", "page 97", etc, at random, would you be fooled into being satisfied? Do you see yourself adding citations or verifying those of others? Either way, you really need access to the book. I notice your description over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check#Members is "citation adder". I also noticed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruption from User:ClairSamoht. jnestorius^(talk) 03:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Good call, Jnestorius. Anyone interested might like to note that the discussion of ClairSamoht's "disruption" is now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive138#Disruption from User:ClairSamoht. We are not the only ones to express concern. Snalwibma 20:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Title Change

Clearly this article describes more then just American and British English Spelling differences, it extends to Canadian, Australian and New Zealand English. I recommened a title change, probably Spelling differences in the English Language. Sum1else 18:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not know whether Australia and/or New Zealand can be said to have a spelling standard equivalent to the ones for Britain and for America, which is not just the USA but also Canada. Canadian English spelling sometimes follows the US and sometimes Britain, thus most often one of these two spellings that are mainly described in this article. For a large part that is the case for the spelling in other English speaking nations. The exceptions are particularities that should be mentioned in this article, but do not require a similar in-depth comparison.
Furthermore, the present title emphasizes on differences between large regions (and may briefly mention the influence of the two major spelling versions elsewhere). The suggested title might extensively elaborate on spellings according to e.g. more localized usage, differences between newspapers, literature and academical text, an historical overview, etc. That would make the article too complex for its main purpose. — SomeHuman 6 Oct2006 03:34 (UTC)

I agree with SomeHuman. The article is a useful source of reference comparing the two main established ways of spelling the language. Sorry, Australians, New Zealanders, etc - but these are the two principal spelling systems or conventions. If it was renamed as Sum1else suggests, it would cease to be a useful checklist and become an unfocused review of who-knows-what. Snalwibma 09:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone researched US/UK spelling differences for words recently adopted from the Spanish language and/or Hispanic culture? I believe this phenomenon is becoming increasingly common (especially in the U.S.) and hence important. Examples: possible differences in pronunciation of Spanish or Mexican foods and dishes; possible differences in pronunciaton of words that were or are often seen in newspapers, e.g. balsero, caudillo, guerrilla, junta, machismo, el niño.--4.245.140.148 15:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Blond/blonde

As a Brit, I've always used "blonde" for a woman and "blond" for a man - reflecting the French origin of these words. I have seen US usage utterly confused over these words: somehow, it rankles to see a man with light-colo(u)red hair called "blonde".

Comments?

Hair Commodore 20:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think "as a Brit" is the right opening. "As someone who believes rather strongly that etymology should guide usage" seems more appropriate to your position. Nor is "confused" the right word (unless one assumes the correctness of your position on the normative role of etymology in orthography -- a position which is not at all weird, of course!). Nor is U.S. usage appreciably different from British, at least according to all of my dictionaries. --Truth About Spelling 11:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Point(s) taken! I have no problem over the etymological/orthographical point. However, my point about US practice is based on observation of actual printed usage, rather than dictionaries. Hence, I note the (inevitable?) prescriptive/descriptive divide. If you insist, I shall (sic!) substitute "inconsistent" for "utterly confused" ... and I remain - inevitably - British! Hair Commodore 21:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

In my case, at least, the "confusion" is simply ignorance. I'm a well-educated and reasonably well-read American, but in all my life I somehow never managed, until a month or so ago, to come across the tidbit that "blonde" and "blond" were different, and why. It doesn't seem to be a well-known fact on this side of the pond. —Steve Summit (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Far be it from me to make anyone describe themselves as ignorant! (When I added this remark originally, I was thinking about the erstwhile (still living?) American commentator who called himself "Doctor HipPocrates", who wrote of a "blond assistant" (meaning, in my terms, "blonde") - and, no: I do not remember the exact reference, unfortunately ...) Hair Commodore 21:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As a well educated, well read, incredibly smart Hun and ill-mannered aber sehr ordentlicher Kraut I have always thought 'blond' was the adjective used for f. and m. alike (the gender is not mirrored in adjectives in Eng.) and 'blonde' a noun describing fem. blond people, sim. to 'brunette'. Take a look here. Since I'm right, it's irelevant here. We should stick to the dictionaries. I^NT_ER^NA_ZI 04:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Capital letters after a colon

This talk page is, I hope, on the general matters of spelling and punctuation differing between English users on either side of the Atlantic Ocean.

I have noticed that, especially in recent years, there has been a tendency (not only in American publications) to capitalize letters after a colon. (Yes - Americans do use colons, and not just for alimentary purposes.) Unless there is some other (/a fortiori/) reason for using a capital (such as the next clause starting with "I", or a personal or company name), surely a colon is merely a means of subdivision of clauses within a sentence, and hence capitals are not needed. To my way of thinking, such usage is solecistic. Alfista inglese 21:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• The Chicago Manual of Style says that "If the material introdced by a colon consists of more than one sentence, or if it is a formal statement, a quotation, or a speech in dialogue, it should begin with a capital letter. Otherwise it may begin with a lowercase letter." So officially (let's assume the Chicago Manual is a quasi-official guide) the American style is pretty much like British, but perhaps it tends towards greater use of a capital letter after a colon than is usual in British English. In Britain would we use a capital letter in the first and second of these four cases? Maybe we should (it does help the meaning), but we often don't. Also, note the use of the word "may" in the Chicago Manual's final sentence. In Britain I think we'd say "should", or even take it for granted that of course there is no capital letter. In practice, of course, American writers often use a capital letter after any colon. And many publishers (e.g. Cambridge University Press) knock them back down to lowercase, even in books that follow American spelling and punctuation conventions. Snalwibma 07:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Which edition of the Chicago Manual of Style said that? As far as I know, capital letters after colons have never been inserted except perhaps in quotations. In any case, you're mistaken about Americans always using capitals after colons, although I don't doubt that you see it often on the Internet. (I know since I am one and don't.)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.118.231.95 (talk) 13:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

14th ed, 1993, section 5.103. Maybe I need to invest in a newer edition. I won't quote the whole section (though I will if you ask me to) - suffice to say for now that it gives three examples, two with a capital letter after the colon and one without. In British English I don't think a capital would be used in any of the three cases. Anyway - in my experience, many (most? maybe - but I never said "all"!) American authors (in the life sciences) routinely use a capital letter after a colon, and as an editor preparing their texts for publication I routinely knock them down to lowercase. Snalwibma 14:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Why the differences?

Why do Americans spell everything so differently - is this for spelling ease? I really want to know. Elevenzeroonne^{chat / what i've done / [me]} 20:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

So why don't you just read the article?! JackLumber. 22:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ensure/insure

I am American and have always used the distinction claimed to be British use (and not American). Are we sure that the article is correct in this case? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.118.231.95 (talk) 13:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

Judging from Webster's dictionary and personal experience, yes, I'd say it is correct. In BrEng, "insure" is used in a very narrow range of circumstances, mostly these days in connection with the insurance industry. The more general word is "ensure". You ensure that something happens (a positive act); you insure against something happening (a preventive act). You could never use the words the other way round; the meaning is quite distinct. In AmEng the distinction exists, but it is weaker, and there is a tendency to use "insure" in both cases. I think it's probably similar with "assure" too - more distinct in BrEng, less so in AmEng. I have a sense that assure, ensure and insure can all mean much the same in America. They are all much more distinct in Britain. Assure is used for life assurance (= insurance), and in the sense of persuading someone else of the security or truthfulness of something (I assure you I do know what I'm talking about), but can rarely be used in place of ensure or insure. You ensure that the house is safe; you insure it against fire; then you assure your family that they are safe in their beds. Snalwibma 14:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I would add my reasons as to why I added the ensure/insure distinction. I'm a European patent attorney and a lot of the patent applications I work on have actually been written by American lawyers. I have never seen an American lawyer use the word "ensure". They do use "assure", so I think it might be going to far to add that word to the current list of usage differences, although I agree that there are a number of dictionary definitions that indicate that insure could be used as a synonym for assure in the US.

On the point of synonyms, I note that User:Snalwibma changed my wording: "using insure in place to ensure" to "using insure as a synonym for ensure". I chose the original language to get across the point that the word ensure is rarely used. ie it is not that the words are synonymous which is important (although they are), but that one is commonly used in place of the other. A proper dictionary would point out the synonymity of the words, but this article is about usage, so I thought it would be more appropriate to comment on that side of things. I won't change it back myself, since I think the point is still made, but if you agree, Snalwibma, I invite you to change it at the same time as correcting the spelling of synonym :) GDallimore 15:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, you are right - "in place of" is better, in fact. I have changed it back to your version (and thereby obliterated my misspelt (or misspelled, for the benefit of American readers!) synonynoym. Maybe the entry should incude assure, and be extended to say that in America assure and insure are used, more or less synonymously (though I suspect there's more to it than that), with a range of meanings, but ensure is rare, whereas in Britain the three words have distinct meanings. Snalwibma 15:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome! I don't know enough of the American usage of "assure" to ensure the accuracy of the article if I were to change it myself and dictionaries have been known to be pedantic/out of date in highlighting synonyms. Perhaps a native American speaker can help wrt current usage! GDallimore 16:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4