Talk:Berwick-upon-Tweed

The page Reform Act of 1832 has links to a number of other Reform Acts: might the one mentioned here be Reform Act of 1884? -- Tarquin

I suppose you could say that Berwick is really part of Scotland, on permanent "loan" to England. (Hence the neccesity of the Wales and Berwick Act 1746.) Doops 05:40, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please link to Berwick, Pennsylvania as it is the sister city to Berwick-Upon-Tweed, there is an annual exchange between the two municipalities and a close relationship between the two.

Berwick is, at present, not part of England or Scotland. As far as I recall, the Wales and Berwick Act simply states that the laws that have effect in England shall have effect in Berwick. That's not the same as being an integral part of England - at best, it is a semi-intergrated territory. I think this article should be amended to reflect that, although due to my inexperience with wiki-editing, I will not be doing it myself.

Exclamation mark

I was under the impression that exclamation marks were a Wikipedia no-no, as they don't really give a sense of NPOV. I pretty much always remove them when I see them (except when they're in things like quotes), so I'm surprised that there's dispute on this page.

I'm not sure I see how the use is 'perfectly valid' here, as, like the other examples I've found, it makes Wikipedia look like a informal, jokey encyclopaedia, which of course it isn't. BillyH 13:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

What makes you think exclamation marks are only for humour? Judging by some of the crap on wikipedia elsewhere, e.g. articles on every aspect of Pokemon, your talents would be better employed in other places. --MacRusgail 16:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

What is the name for a phobia of exclamation marks anyway? --MacRusgail 11:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Literacy. - Mark 14:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. MacRusgail, why have you inserted it back in again? From what I can see, MarkGallagher rewrote the section both to improve the grammar and make it so that an exclamation mark was no longer needed, and to end this (admittedly silly) war once and for all. And now you've put it back in, almost as if you're making a point.

Let's try and get a consensus on this, please. I don't want the page locked because of one punctuation mark. BillyH 15:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd also be pleased if User:MacRusgail would temper his/her remarks on this page. Other wikipedians do not share his/her view; they are not phobic (i.e. suggesting an irrational fear of exclamation marks). Insulting people is never a way of winning arguments, and to date you have failed to set out any rationale for the mark. And whilst their talents undoubtedly are employed to good effect elsewhere on wikipedia, that does not diminish the legitimacy of their concerns in respect of this article. Like four others who have to date been involved, I would prefer not to have the exclamation mark. I think the words speak for themselves. I note that to date two users support the mark. --Tagishsimon (talk)

I am perfectly "literate", thank you, and am well aware that "!" is as valid as a means of punctuation as anything else, particularly when highlighting bizarre situation of allegedly being at war with Russia for a number of decades. That I consider to be worthy of an exclamation mark.

Again, if you think Wikipedia is not "jokey", I suggest you go visit the reams of pages about trash culture, computer games, non-notable popgroups etc etc. You'll find exclamation marks, spelling errors, horrific grammar, and abysmal translation galore out there. --MacRusgail 15:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC) p.s. No personal insults have been tendered.

I'm not going to argue over an exclamation mark (lamest edit war since Lincoln's Darwinist birthday!), but I'd like to point out that you're explicitly referring to poor writing as an example for good writing to follow. I don't think you'll be convincing Mark, Billy, or Tagishsimon with that. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The thing you appear to be missing is that in highlighting [a] bizarre situation you are by your own explanation expressing a point of view. Why not let the readership judge for themselves whether they think a thing is bizarre or not? That is one essence of NPOV. --Tagishsimon (talk)

So you think it is not bizarre for a small town of under twenty thousand to be technically at war with the world's largest state for much of the twentieth century, while the rest of the UK is not? Most people would consider that somewhat bizarre. Or perhaps you consider that normal, perchance. --MacRusgail 15:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC) p.s. Would strongly recommend exercising NPOV tactics on Pokemon articles (please).

You still have not got the hang of this NPOV lark, have you? It is your opinion that it is a bizarre thing. It is your opinion that most people would think it bizarre. It is my opinion that the words should speak for themselves, leaving readers to decide for themselves whether they think it bizarre or not. The use of the exclamation mark imposes your world view on what would otherwise be a neutral treatment of the subject. And that is POV. To answer your question: my views on whether or not it is a bizzare thing are entirely irrelevant. The thrust of your question - what is my opinion of the event - demonstrates your lack of grasp of NPOV. Your repeated allusions to the pokomon articles are completely and utterly irrelevant. Umm. Can we have the fullstop back now, please? --Tagishsimon (talk)

You could have used a few exclamation marks in that one. Here's one if you need it! Unfortunately, the opposite is true as well. By leaving a perfectly valid piece of punctuation out, you effectively claim such a situation is normal. You obviously have a good few "points of view" yourself (anyone who wishes to avoid the vulgarity of exclamation marks should, for consistency's sake, avoid abbreviations too.) --MacRusgail 11:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC) p.s. My repeated allusions to "pokomon" (Pokémon, if you wish to spell it properly) are perfectly valid. You have made general claims about Wikipedia to justify your argument here. The Pokémon articles are also on Wikipedia, and contain all the things I stated.

Sigh. I do indeed have point of view. Unlike you, I try to keep them from article pages and take them out for walks only on talk pages. I do not think I have made general claims about wikipedia, so much as pointed to the NPOV policy. I disagree that "the opposite is true". Lack of opinionated comment does not imply normalcy, merely lack of opinionated comment. The fact that Pokemon articles may be shite does not in any way serve as justification for introducing POV in this article: what a cruddy argument that is. Why are you so opposed to letting the words speak for themselves. Why must you qualify words with your opinion? What's wrong with you? --Tagishsimon (talk)

You still haven't answered the question about whether you think that Russia's "war" with Berwick was somehow normal. If we let "words speak for themselves" we would use no punctuation then we wouldnt know where one sentence began and the next ended and the same goes for exclamation marks MacRusgail 1346 6 October 2005

What difference does it make whether he thinks it's normal or not? I don't think it's normal, but I agree the exclamation mark is inappropriate – especially in the new version. Your comment about other punctuation is not merely twee, it's irrelevant. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, if s/he thinks it's normal, they can get rid of the exclamation mark, if not, then perhaps they ought to ask why it isn't there. --MacRusgail 13:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

You still haven't answered the question about whether you think that Russia's "war" with Berwick was somehow normal. I have. I've told you that that is at the heart of this disagreement - that to have a neutral point of view one avoids inputting one's opinion into the article. Techically, the situation - apparant war with Russia - appears to have arisen. And, err, that's it. I'm quote happy to leave it there and seek to ascribe neither normalcy nor extraordinarines to it. You're wasting our time by deploying fatuous arguments such as a) if we should not have exclamation marks then we should not have any punctuation or b) other articles are crap so we should not take exception in this article. Judging by the debate above, we are not going to change your mind. So looking at the debate and the edit history in the article, I find that 5 people are against the exclamation mark and two people are for it. Will you now have the good grace to give way and allow the exclamation mark to be removed without revertion, or are you going to dictate to the rest of us how this article should be? We've wasteed entirely enough time talking about it. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Just one more against voice. An exclamation mark is punctuation that marks an exclamation and an exclamation is a short, often shouted, complaint or outcry. Stop! Ouch! Shut up! are exclamations. Exclamation marks are not used to highlight odd or bizarre information, a smiley would be better but certainly not encyclopedic. The bizzareness of the 'war' is obvious enough it does not need highlighting with misused punctuation. O.K. I admit it I don't get invited to enough edit wars so I thought I'd try to put this lame one out of its misery. MeltBanana 15:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

You'll find plenty of exclamation marks in respectable novels for all the things that you've just claimed they're not used for. Such as longer phrases and sentences. Obviously not very long ones, because that destroys the point, but Faulkner, Hemingway and Norman Mailer certainly used them in the ways you say not to. --MacRusgail 13:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Faulkner, Hemingway and Norman Mailer wrote encyclopedias. Once more: Will you now have the good grace to give way and allow the exclamation mark to be removed without revertion, or are you going to dictate to the rest of us how this article should be? --Tagishsimon (talk)

I used them all as examples of writers of good English. Unlike many of those on Wikipedia. I suggest you set up a wikipedia caucus for the abolition of extraneous and frivolous punctuation. --MacRusgail 18:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. But you did not consider, and throughout this debate appear not to have considered the context of the writing. It is a wee bit arrogant of you to so ostentatiously ignore the question at issue: will you give way on this matter or do you insist on dictating the form of the sentence under consideration? If you would be so good, at the third time of asking, to respond ... it is getting a little difficult to believe you are in good faith in this matter, and whilst it is your prerogative to jerk us around as you see fit, it is more than a little impolite. --Tagishsimon (talk)

I've added the Coat of Arms of Russia to the "at war?" section, because something so momentous as to require an exclamation mark surely cries out for an image. I'd actually thought to draw up some "clash of symbols" graphic, but I couldn't find a symbol for Berwick (apart from the river, which I feel would be inappropriate). Despite the temptation to remove the exclamation mark while I was editing, I've left it in. I suspect it would be best for all concerned if, assuming the offending punctuation is to be removed, it were so done by MacRusgail, and not by Yours Truly. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 00:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Come on guys, you can't actually be having an edit war over one tiny exclamation point! The situation with the 'war' being 'bizarre' is POV, pure and simple, and thus if an exclamation point is used to illustrate that bizarreness, then the point itself must be POV. And POV has no place in an encyclopaedia. I have chosen to be bold and remove the exclamation point. - ulayiti (talk) 19:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I for one think that the exclamation point deserves to be left in there. If such a mark should be anywhere, it is in a situation as this. For what is an exclamation point, if not to designate things deserving of exclamation? And certainly this deserves exclamation.

Exactly, if it should be anywhere in a serious encyclopaedia, which shouldn't. - ulayiti (talk) 18:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

If the exclamation mark implies that it is bizarre, and the full stop implies that it is not bizarre, maybe we should invent a new type of punctuation that signifies no emotion whatsoever. But that would be implying that other punctuation marks are not good, wouldn't it(!/.) Damn, it seems we shall never rest. Daniel 21:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You have to love wiki. A whole host of individuals visiting this page saying they can't believe there is an argument over an exclamation mark, then proceeding to add thier POV and fuel the arguement. By the way, what is wiki policy on whether it is an axclamation point or exclamation mark? My entirely personal POV is: 1) The exclamtion mark shouldn't be there. 2) It is a mark, not a point. 3) Debates, even as trivial as this one, are an essential part of the value of Wikipedia. It would be better if they were kept civil and avoided buggering about with the main page through sheer cussedness, however. Epeeist smudge 05:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Surely if, on Wikipedia, we really needed to call attention to a situation which many people would consider bizarre, you could just write "<whatever it is>, a situation many people would consider bizarre", rather than relying on the vagaries of people's understanding of what an exclamation mark means. But of course we don't need to do that at all. 203.2.218.145 01:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Forget about it for 5 seconds, will ya? <unsigned comment>

The exclamation mark is inappropriate. Inflection has no place in encyclopedic writing. Let the reader judge what is bizarre. 208.103.180.154 08:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Correct - and well said, that User! Some people need to go outside, breathe in and out a few times and say "Hello World - what's this Real Life I've read so much about in Wikipedia?" 82.110.109.208 15:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Article Cleanup Notice

This notice was on the main page, although it seemed to pointlessly upset the formatting of the page, so I have put it here instead. I assume it refers to the 'Berrick' bit, which seems perfectly acceptable to me.Rob 23:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I've put it in IPA. Hopefully I understood the intent of the original author. -- Arthaey 07:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Richard III and Berwick

Berwick was taken, for the final time, by English forces commanded by Richard in 1482, when he was still duke of Gloucester, not king. Rcpaterson 23:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Language of Berwick

Are we certain that we a) believe b) want the list of local words in this article? Some appear to be common to the north east (e.g. gadgie) and all are unsourced. Might we not be better with a pointer to an article which covers borders dialect - which is what we're really talking about? That said, I guess there is or was a difference between berwick lingo and Jedburgh.

North east of where? The words listed can be found in both Newcastle and Edinburgh in many cases. The language itself is a mixture of the Scots language and the Northumbrian dialect of English. It shouldn't be written off as slang though - this underestimates its great age and usage.--MacRusgail 16:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Good to see it has been deleted today. unreferenced, unverified, mostly cobblers. --Tagishsimon (talk)

That was me. We really don't need to assemble a local dictionary of unreferenced material, much of which is far from being unique to Berwick. --Guinnog 09:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. A load of utter hogwash. I have been in Berwick countless times and have not noticed the locals speaking a language I did not understand. Slang should not be held up as a language, local or otherwise; "great age" means nothing unless it is being claimed that because people spoke badly for long enough that it somehow transforms into a language. English has been the language in Berwick for at least 1000 years. People either speak the Queen's English, or they don't. No excuses for bad speech. David Lauder 10:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Anglocentrism

The article is still very Anglo-centric. The fact that it has been contested by Scots for centuries has largely been written out of it, not to mention the anomalies, or the fact that its true legal status makes it a town which is not fully part of England. Not that the historical legal situation seems to count for much in the eyes of the English council which now runs the area. But then again the "Brits" (if they can be called that) have always been good at putting borders where there were none e.g. Hong Kong, Northern Ireland, Gibraltar, or ignoring ones that were already there e.g. Iraq, Palestine, Scotland and Wales.

Also, I think it is worth pointing out that Berwick's position in Scotland was always far more prominent than in England. In England it has been a provincial town, a minor port, and a garrison. In Scotland, it had a mint, was a major port, and a county town. --MacRusgail 16:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

I think your last paragraph is very fair comment (the first a little too political). The simplest thing to do is to source the info you mention and add it it to the page. David Lauder 10:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the article is Anglo-centric just because it is missing information, jumping the gun? I think a short piece concerning the people of Berwick and their feelings on nationality may be interesting, i have read that the youth feel English while the older residents identify with Scotland. gazh 14:05, 24 Apr 2007 (UTC).

As someone who was born in Northumberland and knows that part of the world extrmely well, I am heartily sick of Scottish Intellectual Expansionism. Berwick has an interesting history that is for certain, but having been to the town many many times, I can tell you at present it thoroughly enjoys being Northumbrian and English. I see no reason other than petty nationalism why anyone would advance that it is somehow Scotland administered by England, as the poster suggests and as much of his former editing wished to make out. The Brits that you speak of (and you are quite correct) contained a disproportionate amount of Scots. Wikipedia is not an appropiate site to make out petty ethnic nationalist claims on neighbouring parcels of land.

Berwickshire

I have added the category "Berwickshire". I hope people don't mind this, I realise it is no longer considered to be in Berwickshire, but it is relevant to it for several reasons, including the fact that the county is named after the town. --MacRusgail 17:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It was in Scotland as long as it was in England. In addition it is in the Scottish, not the English, football league. David Lauder 18:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, though, I think it would belong in a "History of Berwickshire" category, if such a thing existed.--Pharos 20:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Was Berwick a separated entity from England and Scotland?

In 1746 the Wales and Berwick Act (since repealed) was passed, which deemed that whenever legislation referred to England, this encompassed Berwick. The act did not attempt to formally annexe Berwick into England however and no act has yet done so. Berwick remained a county in its own right however, and was not included in Northumberland for Parliamentary purposes until 1885.

— [[Berwick-upon-Tweed#Modern history|#Modern history]], the current version of the [[Berwick-upon-Tweed|article]]

According to the current version of the article, it seems that Berwick(-upon-Tweed) was a separated entity not included in both England and Scotland until 1885. Therefore, did the mainland of the Kingdom of Great Britain until 1885 technically consist of England (including Wales and Cornwall), Scotland and Berwick-upon-Tweed? Was Berwick recognized as a separated entity in Great Britain? If it was right, since when? Since the Union of the Crowns? It looks very ambiguous. ― 韓斌/Yes0song (談笑 筆跡 다지모) 10:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

If it looks very ambiguous it is because the situation was ambiguous. Although it is possible that prior to the Wales and Berwick Act it was technically part of Scotland under English military occupation. PatGallacher 11:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)