User:Joeldl/Varieties of English Draft

Wikipedia is an international collaborative project belonging to all who wish to participate. Therefore it is fair that all national varieties of English should be represented equitably, roughly in proportion to the number of contributors speaking them. However, varieties of English are for many a matter of pride, and disagreements over spelling and other country-related matters of usage have been frequent. Therefore, guidelines have been developed to resolve disputes. These have the twin advantages of fairness, in that they do not favour one national variety of English over another when applied uniformly to all articles, and definiteness, in that they provide objective criteria for determining a course of action when disagreement arises. They also attempt to anticipate to some extent the forms of English desired by readers of a particular article, and the balance of nationalities among editors of a given article that can be expected over the long term.

WP:ENGVAR lists five rules regarding the use of national varieties of English. These are

(Uniformity) Articles should use the same spelling system and grammatical conventions throughout.
(Strong Tie) If there is a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, use that dialect.
(Common Words) Try to find words that are common to all.
(Established Spelling) Stay with established spelling.
(First Contributor) Follow the dialect of the first contributor.

These rules are said to be "given roughly in order of importance; those earlier in the list will usually take precedence over later ones."

While some degree of uncertainty can be argued to exist in the meaning of all five of these rules, the purpose of the following guidelines is only to clarify the Strong Tie rule. In other words, when does a strong tie to a particular region or dialect exist?

Common concerns

This section addresses some common concerns about the guidelines.

If I am an American writing on a British topic, must I write in British English?

Wikipedia is much happier for you to contribute in your own variety of English than not to contribute at all. Try to conform to British usage to the best of your ability, within reason. For example, if you know that kilometer is spelt kilometre in the UK, then spell it the British way. If you are unsure, observe the spelling already present in the article as a guide, consult the article American and British English differences or a good dictionary, or, if you consider the effort disproportionate to the objective, remember that an otherwise good contribution in any national variety of English is more valuable than none. However, should other editors later change your spelling from kilometer to kilometre or make analogous changes, you should not seek to oppose them, provided they are acting in adherence to the guidelines.

Aren't there grey areas?

Yes, of course. It must be recognized that even some topics recognized in WP:ENGVAR as "specific to a particular English-speaking country", such as Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, or EU institutions, are of considerable interest to outsiders, and in these cases it makes sense to strive to apply the Common Words rule to the extent possible, and in other cases proportionately to the expected interest in the article from people speaking a different variety of English.

[Proposal: However, since spelling does not usually seriously affect intelligibility, the Common Words rule should not be applied to force spelling changes such as from organise to organize on the basis that organize is an acceptable minority spelling in Britain, Australia, etc., and therefore "common to all".]

Unfortunately, there is no grey area between kilometer and kilometre, or between elevator and lift, and the Common Words rule is inapplicable in these cases, so as clear a rule as possible should exist to tell us when to apply the Strong Tie rule and when to apply the Established Spelling and First Contributor rules.

[Proposal: It would defeat the object of having as clear a rule as possible if a balancing had to be performed based on how established a certain style of spelling was. Since the S.T. rule takes precedence over the E.S. and F.C. rules, if there is disagreement about the spelling to be adopted, the determination of whether to apply S.T., or instead E.S. and F.C., should not ordinarily take into account the current spelling in the article. It is a simple matter to change the spelling once and for all if people cared enough to bring the matter up and that course of action has been deemed appropriate.]

Specific criteria

These criteria address the issue of what threshold a topic must meet in order to be considered to have a strong tie to a specific English-speaking country. They are not intended to determine that certain topics are unlikely to interest speakers of other dialects, but rather to resolve cases in which no compromise is possible, such as when a choice must be made about spelling or about synonyms such as lift and elevator. Where compromise is possible, the Common Words rule may retain a high degree of relevance for the weakest cases such as The Lord of the Rings. While spelling and similar issues in these cases will be determined solely by the usage of the country the topic is related to, efforts to clear up confusion such as by writing for example "football (soccer)" at he first occurrence of the word football are to be encouraged.

Examples of clear country-related topics

The places, institutions, population, culture, history, geography, economy, politics, media of a particular English-speaking country.

A person who identifies unambiguously as a national of a particular English-speaking country and whose notability is not predominantly associated with another English-speaking country or countries.

Non–English-speaking countries

Countries which are not English-speaking and topics specifically associated with them are generally not associated with any English-speaking country in particular. This applies regardless of the particular form of English favoured in schools in those countries or the form of English they use when they produce official documents in English. (However, if an offical English translation of some proper name, such as that of an institution, specific to the country exists, then the choices made in rendering the name into English may be taken into account.)

Japan is not country-related in the sense of WP:ENGVAR.

France is not country-related.

India is India-related. The Philippines are Philippines-related.

International organizations and treaties

Ordinarily, determined by the membership of the organization. The particular form of English, if any, used in the organization's official documents is irrelevant.

For European institutions of direct relevance to British, Irish and Maltese citizens such as the ECJ, the EC, and the European Parliament, British/Irish/Maltese English is preferred. Between these three countries, the variety used is determined by the Established Spelling and First Contributor rules.

For NAFTA, US/Canadian English.

For La Francophonie, Canadian/Cameroonian/etc English.

For ASEAN, no favoured form.

For the UN, UN-affiliated and similar institutions intended to have worldwide membership, these criteria may not apply in the same way. For example, if the UK and the US had not rejoined UNESCO, as they did in 1997 and 2003 respectively, that still would not have made UNESCO solely a Canada/Australia/New Zealand/Ireland/etc.-related topic. Similarly, though the US is not a party to the Kyoto Protocol, it is a UN treaty whose membership is intended to be worldwide in scope. Hence it is not country-related.

Things found in many countries, including some English-speaking ones

Similar principle to international organizations.

Works of literature and art

In most cases, associated with the same country as their creator. Exceptions if the notability of the work is predominantly associated with an English-speaking country in particular.

In most cases, films can be identified as being from a particular country.