I am here. If you're not interested in me or in the page below, you can always wander into the safe.
Alternately, you can find out what's here, or here. Or a bit of silliness here.
...that England, Great Britain, the British Isles and the United Kingdom are not the same thing. At all. I'm assuming most of you already know that, but here's a reminder à toutes fins utiles. In any Wikipedia article, it's important to use the correct term in relation to the historic, political and geographical context.
England is one of the four constituent nations of the United Kingdom. There was a Kingdom of England from the 9th century to 1707, at which point England ceased to be an independent kingdom. England today is not a sovereign State. It has no government; it is administered by the government of the United Kingdom. There is no "Queen of England"; there is a Queen of the United Kingdom.
Great Britain is an island. It is not a country. It is part of the United Kingdom. There are three nations present on the island of Great Britain: England, Wales, and Scotland.
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a sovereign State, composed of four nations: England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The latter three are partly autonomous; England is not.
The British Isles are a term used in a purely geographic sense, and have no political significance today. They include Great Britain, the island of Ireland, and smaller islands such as the Isle of Man.
To sum up:
British Isles = UK + Ireland (+ a few small islands)
...to contribute to "small" Wikipedias. Even if you do not speak Tok Pisin, Bislama or Scots, these are creole or pidgin languages derived in great part from English, and it is often possible to understand them to some extent in writing. On that basis, it's possible for you to pick up a few basics through imitation, and to create useful stubs in the Wikipedias in those languages. Therefore I encourage you to contribute to the Tok Pisin Wikipedia, the Bislama Wikipedia and the Scots Wikipedia.
I sincerely believe that Wikipedia is a fantastic idea. The impulse behind it, the drive to create a universal compendium of all human knowledge, is admirable, and -a few notable kinks notwithstanding- the project has been a remarkable success. Wikipedia should still be used with due caution, but I believe it has already proved itself as a revolutionary encyclopedia of the modern ages. May it live long and prosper!
On that note, this user finds this very interesting, and thinks it's a jolly good idea.
Who is this user anyway, and why does he believe he can contribute to Wikipedia?
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means it should hold itself to certain standards. I would not claim to be an "expert" in my field of research (the history, politics and cultures of Pacific Commonwealth nations), but I do know a fair bit about that area. I am, moreover, a Normalienagrégé, I have a doctorate in British and Commonwealth studies, and I'm a senior lecturer at university. That doesn't mean I'm "better" than any other enthusiastic contributor to Wikipedia, but it does mean I have qualifications. Also, I speak fluent French, which enables me to translate material from the English Wikipedia to the French one, or vice-versa. I try to do my best and live up to Wikipedia's encyclopedic standards. I'm only human, and I may make mistakes, but I hope to be a useful part of Wikipedia's greater whole, in some small way.
According to Keith Windschuttle, in his The Killing of History (my bolding),
"When it was founded early in the twentieth century, American cultural anthropology focused on the language, art, rituals and religious practices of native peoples, especially those of North America itself and of the Pacific Islands. In Britain, by contrast, the discipline's main concerns were about social organisation, and so it came to be known as social anthropology. The descriptive activities of cultural anthropology, as distinct from its theory, have long been known as ‘ethnography’. When ethnographers turn their attention to the past to write the history of non-literate peoples they usually describe their work as either ‘historical anthropology’ or ‘ethnohistory’."
I myself work in civilisation, a field of study unique (it would seem) to French universities, but on the basis of Windschuttle's definition, I'm probably something of a historical social anthropologist. I study the history and present of national and (to a lesser degree) ethnic identity concepts, a study which encompasses literate societies and their literate and pre-literate past. Maybe it's simpler to say that I apply a historian's approach to social anthropology. I hasten to add, by the way, that social anthropology, being essentially the study of human societies, is not (contrary to popular misconception) restricted to a study of non-Western societies. An anthropological study of specific Western societies (namely Australia and New Zealand) is part of my field of research.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free [...], it expects what never was and never will be." - Thomas Jefferson
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." - Mahatma Gandhi
"What is it that should trace the insuperable line? The question is not, 'Can they reason?' nor, 'Can they talk?' but, 'Can they suffer?'" - Jeremy Bentham
"No democratic delusion is more fatuous than that which holds that all men are capable of reason, and hence susceptible to conversion by evidence." - H.L. Mencken
"It's extraordinary how we go through life with eyes half shut, with dull ears, with dormant thoughts. Perhaps it's just as well; and it may be that it is this very dullness that makes life to the incalculable majority so supportable and so welcome. Nevertheless, there can be but few of us who had never known one of these rare moments of awakening when we see, hear, understand ever so much — everything — in a flash — before we fall back again into our agreeable somnolence." - Joseph Conrad in Lord Jim
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." - Dubya again
REYNOLDS, Henry, Why Weren't We Told?, 2000, ISBN0-14-027842-7. One of the most unforgettable history books you'll ever read. You quite simply cannot fully understand contemporary Australia, and current Indigenous Australian issues, nor Australia's past, until you've read it. Reynolds' work as a historian is thorough and challenging. He's worked his way through the archives, and brings you many quotes from nineteenth and early twentieth century views on Indigenous Australian matters, which undermine late 20th and early 21st century conservative assertions about the past. Reynolds conclusively demonstrates that early white Australians often described themselves honestly as invaders, and openly discussed widespread violence by and against Aboriginals who were resisted that invasion. White pioneers graphically described their participation in massacres to newspapers, without fear of being taken to court. Reynolds also demonstrates that British authorities had, on several occasions in the nineteenth century, indicated that Aboriginal land rights were to be recognised and respected. Legislation in the nineteenth century had established Aboriginal rights to lands under pastoral lease - a fact conveniently forgotten by the time of the Wik issue. Most of all, Reynolds explains that the past treatment of Indigenous Australians cannot be forgotten or considered to belong solely to the past; he demonstrates in detail its inescapable influence on the present, ignored by so many non-Indigenous Australians. Reynolds does not exaggerate or sensationalise; he uncovers forgotten facts, and explains their contemporary relevance. A must-read for all Australian citizens, and anyone interested in understanding Australia's past and present.
REYNOLDS, Henry, The Other Side of the Frontier, 1981, ISBN0-86840-892-1. This earlier work of Reynolds' was a landmark in Australian historiography, and played a crucial role in ensuring that Aboriginal Australians obtained their place at last in the telling of Australian history. It shattered the myth of "peaceful settlement", and described the ways in which Aboriginals fiercely resisted white incursions onto their lands. The book brought to light a crucial and forgotten chapter of the country's history.
FAGE, J.D., A History of Africa, 2002 (4th edition), ISBN0-415-25248-2. 653 pages (I'm currently on page 171) crammed full with a detailed chronological and thematic description of African history, from the earliest times to the present day. The style is a little dry, but the topic is fascinating, and the level of detail is truly impressive. I knew little about African history, and the organisation and diversity of its early societies was something of a revelation to me. A must-read for Nicolas Sarkozy, who has displayed shocking ignorance of Africa's history.
FOX, Kate: Watching the English: The Hidden Rules of English Behaviour, 2004, ISBN 978-1-447-2015-0. A serious but amusing anthropological study of the English by an Englishwoman.
William Shakespeare: Almost any of his plays, really. Shakespeare seems often to be dismissed by the general public as too complicated or too intellectual, but in his time his plays were staged as popular entertainment. A good production of a Shakespeare play can make it come to life, as was intended, and make it a fascinating experience for any spectator. And when you pay close attention to the text, it's an enthralling intellectual stimulus to any student of literature (much like reading Conrad, in another genre).
Kim Scott: True Country. Probably the best work of fiction I've read by an Aboriginal Australian author. His use of language and narrative technique in relation to story-telling is striking. I highly recommend it.
Literature from the "Axis of Evil", an anthology by Words Without Borders. Contains translations into English of short stories, poems and excerpts of novels from Iranian, Iraqi, North Korean, Syrian, Cuban, Sudanese and Libyan writers. The aim is to humanise the individuals of countries labelled as "evil", promote knowledge of foreign cultures, and "widen [...] our circles of reference, thus waging the eternal battle against ignorance and fear of the 'enemy'" (editors' note).
I strive to be accurate and objective in the articles I write and edit, but it's occurred to me that I should, perhaps, briefly outline my beliefs, so that any potential "bias" of mine may be out in the open. Therefore, this user...
…thanks that Determinism is the likeliest explanation of our beliefs, impressions and actions
...believes, as Winston Churchill reportedly did, that democracy is a flawed system when put into practice, but that there is no viable or preferable alternative.
The British Isles. The large island on the right is Great Britain. In pink, the United Kingdom. In red, England.
.svg)
