Talk:International English/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Is the first meaning of the term "International English" restricted to English spoken in British Commonwealth countries? What about the forms of English spoken in the non-Commonwealth countries like the United States and Ireland?

Yes. English spoken in the United States is referred to as American English. Irish English I'm not sure of. --Robert Merkel

This article simply has to go - I've been researching this for weeks, placing a dozen posts on alt.usage.english and reading every manual of English usage I can find, and simply NONE of them validate this term "International English" in the context of a grouping of non-American Englishes.

All of my references provide only two valid meanings for it: as a term used in the computer industry, and as reference to "English as a utility language for international communication". - MMGB

Since the only person who was supporting it has now gone, you can do what you like with it. --Zundark, 2001 Nov 18

It is outragously illogical to define "International English" as "English language used in the British Commonwealth ...", This should be termed Commonwealth English.

I'll remind you english is used extensivly in europe (between foreign countries), India, Africa (There are hundreds of african languages, english is officialy used at schools), in the UN, scientific publications, english is the official Internet language, International affairs, and much more I have not written. Rotem Dan 15:19 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)

Feel free to correct the article. The person responsible for propagating this term (in the sense of "Commonwealth English") all over Wikipedia left very suddenly in November 2001 and hasn't been seen since. Most references to the term have been removed, but the article itself remains (although the most absurd claims were excised). Manning Bartlett (MMGB) was intending to rework the articles on English dialects, but never got around to doing it. I assume his remark above about there being only two valid meanings is correct. --Zundark 17:10 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)

I am not a linguist by any means, but I've found an interesting definition (with a cite) from alt.english.usage from 2003-01-06 04:14:30 PST:

International English

[Late 20c: with or without a capital i]. The English language, usually in its standard form, either when used, taught, and studied as a lingua franca throughout the world, or when taken as a whole and used in contrast with American English, British English, South African English, etc., as in International English: A Guide to Varieties of Standard English, title of a work by Peter Trudgill and Jean Hannah (London: Edward Arnold, 1982) that reviews both standard and non-standard varieties worldwide.

See ISBN 0340586451 - International English: A Guide to Varieties of Standard English

-- Rotem Dan 09:16 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

Rewrite

I disagreed highly with the simplistic redirect to commonwealth English and have attempted as best as I can to define what the term International English means today: not so much a language or dialect, but a philosophical view toward English as a living and functional lingua franca, that belies earlier aspects of the English language as a tool, artifact or product of Western imperialism. -S V 05:47, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Still far from perfect. I have included both meanings of the term as both occur. Jallan 04:20, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think this now covers the various ideas about International English reasonably well, with a good variety of links giving different POVs. But I am not an expert in this area and expect that there is still much improvement that could be made by more knowledgeable people. Jallan 05:02, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This article has come very far in a short time. Thank you.

I do wonder about capitalizing the "International" but you obviously know more than I do about this. Maurreen 05:19, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Examples

For anyone still dubious about the use of "International English" as a rough synonym for "British English", I have added some primary examples on that as references in the article. They are not academic reference, as this usage is not commonly found, it seems, in academic works or references to ESL (English as a Second Language). But the references do indicate the existance of this usage. Further examples contrasting "International English" with "American English" or "U.S. English" (or North American English) and so equating it with British English follow. They are purposely a mixture of casual postings, announcements, advertisements, and commentary, indicating common use of "International English" to mean approximately "British English" as oppposed to "U.S. English".

The new Microsoft Office 2003 integrations to Microsoft CRM will be available in both American and International English in August. [1]

Languages Supported: US English, International English, Basque, Simplified Chinese, ... [2]

Constant shifts between U.S. and International English spelling could do just that. [3] (Other examples on this page of this usage.)

Harry Potter was written in English, but in what is known as "British" or "International" English, as opposed to the American English spoken in the United States. [4]

My site is written in 'International English'. I'm reasonably happy with my keyword ranking (no 1 for one keyword, no 13 for a second). ... Many of my keywords end in '..ise', '..ised', or '..isation'. An American user would be unlikely to find my site, because they would use the American English spellings of '..ize', '..ized', or '..ization' when searching in Google. [5]

(Choice of video messages in "International English", "American English", and "Spanish".) [6]

But if somebody contributes a British (rather, international) English variant, what's the problem with maintaining this also? [7]

I had originally downloaded the international english version, so i figured i should try the north american english version. [8]

For this reason, only Microsoft Office 97 Professional Edition for Windows is released as a separate "International English" version. All other differences between the U.S. English and the International English versions are behavioral differences that are based on the settings in the Regional Settings control panel for the system. [9] (Here Microsoft is moving away from earlier software which distinguished only between U.S. English and "International English" meaning essentially British English.)

On balance I would say (as a Brit) that American spellings are on balance slightly less irrational than International English spellings, but I would have problems with American use of prepositions. [10]

Indeed, word processing and desktop publishing programs generally regard International English as essentially UK English. [11] (This is now less true than it used to be.)

Unless you insist on proliferating the conventions of each nation, which will surely happen if US standards are imposed here, it makes sense to use w:International English, which includes by the way many British spellings: honour, flavour, neighbour. These too must eventually be standard if we want to be understood all over the world, as that's what people learn in the former British Empire, i.e. most of the planet, and from British journals, e.g. w:The Economist. Likewise we should stick to metric where we can. [12]

When you write (or type) in English, what 'type' of English do you use? ... British (international) English spellings ... American English spellings [13].

The Demo version of 4-Sight Fax 4.1.2/3 is available in: * American English (v4.1.3) * International English (v4.1.2) * French/Français (v4.1.2) * German/Deutsch (v4.1.2) [14]

(Distinctions between "North American English Version" and "International English Version" of Baldur's Gate.) [15]

Use English (sometimes referred to as British English or International English—since it is generally used throughout the Commonwealth) not American English. [16]

Only original papers written in English, German or French are considered. Papers written in English should use UK English (that is British or International English) and follow spelling in The Oxford English Dictionary, except for authors in North American institutions, who may use US English if desired. [17]

Please note, this site is written in International English, and not U.S. English, and therefore does not contain spelling errors. [18]

If you chose English, the default idiom will be US English ("color" and "station"). We recommend that you choose International English ("colour" and "chainage"). [19]

Localization is planned for 14 languages: US English, international English, Japanese, Korean, French, German, Spanish, Italian, Danish, Brazilian Portuguese, Dutch, Swedish, traditional Chinese, and simple Chinese. [20]

All Trials are compiled with the International English Strings - US English and other Languages are available for registered users. [21]

The OmniGo 100 will be available in six different language versions. The English version of the OmniGo 100 comes in U.S. English and International English versions the latter being distributed in the U.K., Holland, Australia, Hong Kong, Singapore and Thailand. [22]

If your business is international, you need to hire writers who know the difference between North American grammar and British grammar; you need to hire writers who know the written difference between International English and US English; .... [23]

How is the progress on international versions, specifically German, coming along? How long after the release of the US English version do you anticipate releasing other language and international English versions? [24]

LightWorks GUI Framework provides full support for localisation of all user-interface text and messages, and comes with complete localised resources for International-English, US-English and Japanese languages. [25]

We use the U.S. English "Kbps" as the abbreviation for "thousands of bits per second." In international English outside the U.S., the equivalent usage is "kbits s-1" or "kbits/s". [26]

If your English is good enough, aim for British (or international) English. However if your audience is mainly US or Japan, use American English. [27]

The language used in a PP/ST should not distract or confuse the reader. Constant shifts between U.S. and International English spelling could do just that. ... A special case of refinement is an editorial refinement, where a small change is made in a requirement, i.e. rephrasing a sentence due to adherence to proper English grammar or changing the element to use a consistent spelling convention (U.S. English or International English). This change is not allowed to modify the meaning of the requirement in any way. [28]

Modern recording technology allows study of spoken English · Influence of overseas forms grows · US and International English dominant. [29]

The QuarkXPress Passport package contains U.S. English, International English, Danish, Dutch, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Swedish, and Swiss-German. [30]

Symantec regional product manager Norman Kohlberger said the problem had been noticed with the international English and US English builds of NAV 2004. [31]

This is really about the differences between American and Standard or International English. ... I am from New Zealand and use Standard English. Most people in the UK, Ireland, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, English-speaking Africa, Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, the Indian sub-continent, the Middle East, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Island countries also use Standard English. [32]

Here's the database in International English ... They switched to American English, and made the following changes: [33]

As stated in the introduction, we use international English spelling in many parts of POV-Ray for Unix. This means that many words that are normally spelt with a 'z' in American English (such as minimized) are spelt with the English 's' (e.g. minimised). [34]

I have posted what purport to be the image file patchers for French, German, International English, Dutch, and Danish 9.2.1->9.2.2 updaters to my ftp site (ftp://ftp.gps.caltech.edu/pub/kby). ... Note that the files necessary to make the generated systems non-OpenFirmware runnable haven't been done (the resource file would be the same as North American English, but the data fork patcher probably won't work). [35]

By the by - In American English, a muckraker is a journalist or an author who searches for and exposes scandals and abuses occurring in business and politics. ... In International English it has a similar root meaning but is highly pejorative. [36]

You do know that Australia uses International English (sometimes referred to as British English) spellings, rather than American English ones? [37]

4-Sight Fax is available in American English, International English, French, and German. [38]

Also the english dictionary is not international english but American english - to have an option of which version would be nice. [39]

It is important to note that the terminology used in the ICD-10 is international English rather than North American English, and that, as a result, word usage in ICD-10 is not entirely consistent with contemporary North American terminology with respect to functional limitations or depiction of social performance. [40]

If your English is good enough, aim for British (or international) English. However if your audience is mainly US or Japan, use American English. [41]

SmartSuite Millennium Edition Release 9.1 is available in: US English, International English, and Thai. ? SmartSuite Millennium Edition Release 9.0 is available in the following languages: US English, International English, Chinese Simplified (PRC), Danish, Dutch, Finnish, French, German, Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese - Brazilian, Spanish, and Swedish [42]

Since this thread is getting on to the meaning of words, can I regret the use of "international" to mean "non-USA", as in "international editions" of software packages and even "international English edition" applied to versions for use in the UK. ? Surely "international" should refer to matters concerning more than one nation or to the relationships between more than one nation. [43]

Sametime is available in several languages including: North American English, International English, Brazilian Portuguese, Chinese, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Korean, and Spanish, Danish, Dutch, Finnish, Norwegian and Swedish. [44]

Because of its origin within the European Telecommunications Standards Institute, the original OSP drafts used accepted International English spellings. In the final publication, however, ETSI revised the spellings to agree with American English. Because many OSP servers had been built and deployed based on earlier drafts, the client continues to use the original (International) spellings. [45]

When the translation is into English, it is into international (English) English or American English as specified by the customer. [46]

US or International English versions of Visio 5.0C [47]

Autodesk, Inc., the world's leading design software and digital content company, announced the availability of the International English version of Autodesk Building Systems 2005, which offers the Building Systems Bonus Tools that include localized United Kingdom (U.K.) content libraries and U.K. metric dimensional units. [48]

FileMaker, Inc. has announced that the international English version of FileMaker Developer 5.5 has been released today, and that the US version will be released on October 1st. [49]

AI is available in American English, Russian and German languages. The next release will add an International English version. [50]

Jallan 00:30, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Could you please find an authoritative reference — for example, from an academic, a linguist, or a dictionary of International English — that International English is regarded as British English? It is a claim I find somewhat contentious and POV, because it effectively ignores Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, and further implies that British English is one dialect, which also ignores Ireland, Scotland and Wales, not to mention the north of England where the dialect (written and spoken) is very different from the south. Just to give one example, Scottish schools teach -ize endings (or at least some of them do) in words like "organize." Oxford uses -ize, and I believe Cambridge does (must check this latter). Therefore, it's contentious enough to make the -ise claim about British English, although that's not my concern here. But when you stretch this to cover International English too, the claim becomes almost meaningless. I'm happy to stand corrected by an authoritative source, but not by Microsoft or a Harry Potter fan club. Slim 01:09, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

I have not yet found an "authoritative" teritiary reference.

But I have provided numerous good references indicating that the usage exists, that International English is used as a synonym for British English or Standard English or Commonwealth English or something like that. I say "something like that" because, as you know, and I know, there is not just one dialect involved. However, for literary purposes, publishers who want to tailor the language and spelligns can usually easily get away with two editions: a U.S. English edition and an International English edition, by which is meant essentially a U.S. English edition and a British English edition. For formal literary English, there is little or no difference between traditional BBC British English, literary Irish English, literary South African English, literary Australian English, literary New Zealand English, or literary educated English in India. One edition does for all.

Canada gets either the "U.S. edition" or the "International edition", depending on whim of the publisher or producer or depending on distribution agreements.

I am not supporting this terminology. I am only indicating that it exists, authoritative reference or not. And yes, it is somewhat meaningless from an academic point of view and a linguistic point of view, in that it does not go far enough, which is why now both Apple and Microsoft now distinguish British English also. But not all software yet does so. Which is why I made the claim about -ise. A company like Xerox produces two manuals, for the same product, one in "U.S. English" ( http://www.office.xerox.com/latest/740DS-02UC.pdf ) and one in what they call "International English" ( http://www.office.xerox.com/latest/740DS-01ED.pdf ) (with -ise endings) which is mostly what you will get, because -ise is more common in British English and still more common in Australian English. Xerox calls it "International English", not me. Quark Express calls British spelling "International English", not me. It is the editors of http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Aktion=JournalGuidelines&ProduktNr=223842 Folio Primatologica who say "Papers written in English should use UK English (that is British or International English) and follow spelling in The Oxford English Dictionary, except for authors in North American institutions, who may use US English if desired." (http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Aktion=JournalGuidelines&ProduktNr=223842) It is not only Microsoft and a Harry Potter fan (and Microsoft Office has acttually left such binary simplicy behind).

I gather that according to your personal POV, Microsoft should not distinguish between "US English" and "International English" as they do at http://www.certiport.com/portal/desktopdefault.aspx?page=common/pagelibrary/Support_officeSpecialistLogo.htm . You can write to them and tell them that they should use different terminology according to your POV. But since they and others do use "US English" and "International English" in this way, then your personal POV (and my personal POV) should not determine what appears in Wikipedia. Wikipedia should document both usages, because people encounter both usages, one in academic and scholarly and ESL references and the other on some occasions in the publishing industry and in some software.

To say that one of these usages is substandard would be POV. To remove it altogether is far more POV. No particular usage is not being advocated by an article. The article only states that what usages exist and attempts to explain them.

And I'm at loss as to what to make about your comments about -ise. I am well aware of the -ise and -ize usages (apparently more than you are as I have long been aware that Cambridge supports -ise). I was the one who entered the information on the matter in both the British English and Commonwealth English articles, information that many British do not know, because in general British schools teach the -ise endings. However UN and ISO standards use the -ize endings, which means there is indeed, as you indicate, no single British English or "International English" spelling, for those who prefer to use that term (and it is something many British do not know, believing that -ize is mostly American influence.)

Please recognize that NPOV means that varying usages should be recorded in Wikipedia, that a usage should be suppressed altogether because it disagrees with the more common usage found among academics and ESL teachers, which is also the one that is increasingly being found in the computer world also. As to being corrected by Microsoft and a Harry Potter fan, if your suspicion that no-one was using "International English" to mean approximately standard British English incorrect, then it is ad hominem to make any case about how you learned this. Obviously your suspicion was incorrect. You can no longer make that claim. You have now encountered primary references to "International English" being used as a synonym for "British English" or "Commonwealth English" or whatever.

That there is no good term for the standard literary English of British, Ireland, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand is part of the problem. International English has been taken up by academic for another use. Commonwealth English fits poorly mostly because of Canada. (That Ireland is not part of the Commonwealth does not mean that it could not be described as speaking Commonwealth English.) Standard British English lays too much emphasis on British usage, which is not always the same a elsewhere, especially in idiomatic expressions. So we have different terms for the same concept.

That you had not encountered this usage before makes your original deletion reasonable. But you have encountered the usage now. You know the usage exists. You know that it not limited to just Microsoft and a single Harry Potter fan. So why do you wish to suppress information that others will also encounter or already know about? Even if only Microsoft widely used "International English" in some special way that no-one else did, then it would be right that this article should have a line saying, "As used by Microsoft, it means ....." followed by whatever distinct meaning Microsoft was using. English usage is not yours to prescribe, unless outside of Wikipeida you can actually persuade others to adopt usage you prefer or refrain from usage you dislike.

Material should not be removed simply because you personally find it POV or contentious. Wikipedia contains much that is POV or contentious. Such material is supposed to be documented in a NPOV way, not omitted. But documenting such material in a NPOV manner does not change the material itself from being POV or contentious. The claim is not that any particular usage of "International English" is correct or incorrect, only that the usages exist.

MMGB has previously searched for references to "International English" meaning English spoken in the Commonwealth Countries, and had found nothing, probably because he was looking in the wrong places. Use of the term as an approximate synonym to "British English" is mostly not academic or linguistic. But it is an existing usage. So it should appear here, whether a linguist can be found who mentions it or not. As to finding the meaning in dictionaries, so far as I can find, dictionaries contain no entries at all for International English.

Jallan 06:01, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

General disagreement

Note: Jallan has interspersed editors' comments below with his own, making it impossible to tell who wrote what and when. Slim 07:50, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Jallan, I take your point about usage, but you still haven't show that International English is often used to mean British English. You could just as easily write that International English is widely regarded as synonomous with Australian English, because you're saying that International English is similar to Australian, New Zealand, British and South African literary English, but then you're picking on just one of those countries to equate with International English. That's my objection. Why pick on that one?

If you are referring to the statement in British English, it did not come from me. It was introduced over a year ago by User:Seglea (see [[51]]) in the form:

The term is often used to make a distinction from American English, though in this context it should be referred to as International English, since few if any other English-speaking countries have adopted the changes in spelling introduced by nineteenth century U.S. lexicographers.

All I did was NPOV it slightly to:

The term is often used to distinguish it from American English. In such context the written form especially is sometimes called International English, since few other English-speaking countries have adopted the changes in spelling introduced by nineteenth century U.S. lexicographers.

The point Seglea was partly making is exactly the same one you are making. Since Australian English, New Zealand English, South African English, Caribbean English, and standard British English all differ in the same ways, especially in spelling, from American English, why always pick British English for the comparison? The answer to that objection is to use a cover term such as International English to include all these variations. Whether "International English" is in fact a good cover term is arguable. Some prefer "Commonwealth English". Some would take it as silly nitpicking if the subject were brought up and would say that "British English" in such contexts also includes Australian English and so forth. See for exmple [52]. One list is titled "British English" but acording to the lead paragraph covers British, Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand usage. Why pick just this one? Wouldn't "International English" have done better, if it had not also acquired a conflicting use in which it also includes "American English" (or at least those pieces of American English which are not especially dialetical.) The problem is that it would be useful to have such a better term rather than having to pick between "British English", "International English", and "Commonwealth English". If one of the second two had triumphed, people would no more concern with Canada not quite fitting in than most concern themselves with the implication of "English English" that "Yorkshire English" and "Midland English" is somehow less English. Jallan 05:41, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by my personal POV. I have none in this matter that I'm aware of. What would you regard as my POV? Where did I write that Microsoft should not distinguish between U.S. and International English? A lot of your post didn't seem to apply at all to anything I wrote so I'm wondering if you're getting my objections confused with someone else's?

You did say: "I'm happy to stand corrected by an authoritative source, but not by Microsoft or a Harry Potter fan club." Your POV is that you are right and Microsoft is wrong. An NPOV attitude is to document both usages. There is no necessary right or wrong, simply different usages. Jallan 05:41, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think you can call International English "Commonwealth English" either, because that ignores Canada. I suppose my query to you is: Why do you want to call International English anything other than International English? Slim 06:23, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

Your POV ignores the fact that people do use "Commonwealth English" despite the discrepency. Obviously people can call non-American English that. I can call it that if I want to, though I don't. I might refer instead to "what is sometimes called 'Commonwealth English'". The usage exists, regardless of our POV's on the matter, and Wikipedia's job is to document such usages. And I don't want to call "International English" anything other than "International English" (or "World English"). I only explaining a usage that exists. Jallan 05:41, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The statement that "International English" is frequently assumed to mean "British English" is no doubt accurate, and it's important to note that this happens. However, it is also true to say that "its" is frequently mistaken for "it's", "affect" and "effect" are commonly confused, and millions of people couldn't identify where the U.S., Britain, Australia, or Canada are on a map without colors and labels (and frequently not even then). It's not so much a question of what is common, but what is correct. If there are no language authorities who are willing to state that International English is essentially British English, then that should strongly suggest that this usage is just plain wrong. It would be acceptable, however, if this is the case, to mention this usage and point out that it's misleading or possibly incorrect.

There are no English language authorities who prescribe English usage. If there were, they would often be ignored, as often happens in countries which have official language academies which attempt to regulate language. There are simply two usages here. I have no idea which usage came first. I suspect, though can't currently prove anything, that both meanings rose independantly and are equally valid, to anyone to whom that criteria matters. Pointing out the possibility of confusion is a good idea. One reason I want this material retained is to prevent such confusion by indicating there are two very different meanings for the term "International English". Jallan 05:41, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If citations from one or more truly international English language authorities can be found, then the implication without the qualification is reasonable. Language authorities from non-English organizations (e.g., the UN) might also be authoritative, if it's clear that a consensus was reached with participation from all English-speaking countries. (One would hope that would be true of the UN.) The ISO example is the closest thing to a legitimate source given thus far, but is still flawed because it doesn't explain what is meant by "international English" (note the lowercase "i"). It clearly implies "not American English", but nothing in the cited page suggests that there isn't a similar reason to convert "international English" to "British English" for a standard adopted by a British standards body.

Unfortunately ISO does not have a standard explaining its own standardization rules and unfortunately the two references mentioning ISO don't make clear whether they are taking the term "International English" from ISO's own literature or simply using a reasonable term for the English used by ISO. The English used by ISO is -ize British English, as I know well from perusing many such standards. That is standard United Nations English. I have no idea what the British standards body uses. They might leave it alone, or might convert it to -ise English as that is currently the norm for the British government, but perhaps not for every department. But I am not claiming that there is any authoritative source for any use of International English, only indicating what uses exist. For the first use, and the more common use, I have quoted from sources which define it more or less. But nothing is authoritative. There is just common agreement and minor disagreement for the first use.

As for the other "primary" sources, let me count the ways in which they don't measure up:

British, Commonwealth, and former-Commonwealth sources. Hardly impartial. (Where the source country isn't explicitly mentioned, I found several telling WHOIS registrations of the cited websites.)
American tech companies and technical specialists. These are the same people who misspelled "disk", so we now have "hard disks" but "compact discs". I can't speak for non-U.S. engineers, but as a professional technical writer myself, I am acutely aware of the general stigma (sometimes deserved, sometimes not) of tech writer incompetence even with their native form of English.
British tech companies. Two black marks, based on the above.
EU (which the UK is a member of, but the U.S. is not) and other European sources. More likely bias toward the assumption of "International = British".
Random off-topic websites, including a sci-fi fansite. Please!
Christian/Bible-oriented sources. The Bible is supposed to be the immutable word of God, but it has dozens of mutually-conflicting translations into English alone. (My father, an amateur Biblical scholar, is fond of quoting some of the more misleading translations from Greek to English by way of various other languages.)
The National Academies Press, a U.S. organization. Their motto: "Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine". Not on language, I notice. ("Advisors" is more common in U.S. academia, as any university student knows. At least they included the final serial comma.)
An NIST Working Group's proposal that "American English Is An Acceptable Refinement". This should be a valid view into formal U.S. opinion, but unlike most standards documents, it fails to define some important terms, like "International English". (It's also "inconsistant" in its spelling — not exactly an encouraging language-accuracy source.)
The "regret the use" example actually opposes the "International = British" argument. It argues that international English" is being used possibly unreasonably to mean UK English.

Ad hominem attacks on anyone from Britain, from any Commonwealth country, from any former Commonwealth country, on all Christians, on all techies, and on most technical writers. That is hardly a good argument for anything. And pointless, since what I am indicating is not necessarily that those using "International English" to mean approximately non-American English are the best and brightest, but simply that the usage exists, which seemingly is no longer an issue. Jallan 05:41, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The question here is whether to imply that the assumption that "International English" is "British English" is accurate, or to explicitly cite it as misleading. For that, you need references from truly representative organizations who have researched the subject and have made decisions and declarations based on thorough analysis, not organizations with inadequately representative memberships, nor ordinary individuals (newsgroup posters, tech writers, public relations agents, fans of unrelated topics, etc.) and professionals from unrelated fields who can be expected to frequently abuse even their native tongue, whatever the dialect.

I did not make an "assumption". That Xerox and Quark Express and other software companies have released products and documents as U.S. English and as International English is not an "assumption". Jallan 05:41, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Misleading references are worse than no references. If something is important enough to require a reference, it should be well-considered and authoritative, not merely Googled into existence. It would be better to wait to edit this article until such references are found, than to plow ahead with a large quantity of irrelevant, unauthoritative citations. — Jeff Q 09:40, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The references in the article were I think well-considered, considering. Which ones are "misleading"? How are they misleading? The ones outside the article are mostly to indicate the usage exists, though some of them are reputable. Jallan 05:41, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is there even such a thing as international English, is what I'm thinking now. Slim 09:56, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

Well, the term clearly exists, so it requires an explanation. But it should be thorough and accurate. If there are conflicting meanings (which is obviously the case), they should all be listed. I'm just saying we shouldn't imply anything that isn't backed up by solid references. — Jeff Q 10:11, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just because a term exists, Jeff, doesn't mean it refers to anything. The term "glass mountain" exists but there are no glass mountains. And why is "international" capitalized? Are there are authoritatitive sources that can be used for this article? Slim 22:06, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

There are other sub-meanings. Some use it mainly to refere to English used by people who learned it as a second language. Some use the plural form, referring to "International Englishes". But I believe what is here is accurate and that the references and further reading and links provided confirm its accuracy, both book references and web references, though of course, like most articles, it could do with expansion, increased clarifications, and so forth, including other meanings. This was intended as a beginning for others to enhance. But if neither of you know nothing about this topic, perhaps you should not be involved in it. Why is "international" capitalized? It appears either capitalized or lowercased, depending on the taste of the writer, as does "Standard English", "Business English", and "Global English".

I do not agree with the changes being made. None of them have been discussed, except for the matter of the partial identification with "British English", which might possibly be rewritten, but should not be removed without discussion. The text is now much uglified, to say the least. Should drastic changes be made by someone so ignorant that that person must ask whether "international English" exists, despite the web links and book references provided?

I have placed my currently preferred version at User:Jallan/International English.

Stop your ad hominem arguments and please provide references for your claims. See Wikipedia:Cite sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research. Wikipedia readers, ignorant and otherwise, have to be able to check the status of what they read in Wikipedia. The burden of proof is on the editor, not on the person who challenges that editor. The version that was on the page until earlier today was not only unreferenced, it contradicted itself. Slim 05:54, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

References

Very few of the claims in this article are referenced. There is a long "references, further reading and external links" section, but very few of them seem to be relevant to the claims in the article. Would the main authors please create a References section, and include in that section the material that was used in the creation of the article? Some inline references would be good too. The article contained several contradictory claims. I've deleted some of them, and others that made no sense, or were not written in good English (international or otherwise).

This article strikes me as "original research." The question is this: If we were required to write an article in so-called "international English," which reference book/style guide would we use? If there isn't one, there is arguably no such thing as "international English." Slim 23:40, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

I did a copy edit, getting rid of the many repetitive and contradictory claims, and the odd (international?) English. The claim "Two approaches to "international English" are the individualistic and inclusive approach, and the new dialect approach" needs a reference or should be deleted. Also, the authors who are quoted - Peters, McArthur and Chrystal - do they actually use the term "international English"? Slim 00:16, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Yes they do use the term, often. Perhaps the articles strikes you as "original research" because you know nothing about the subject? I intended nothing "original" in the article and believe I succeeded. And yes, as the article already indicated, there is "arguably" no such thing as "International English". Yet it is taught. Just search on the web for "International English" combined with "teaching". There are many books that can be used in the teaching of it, not just one required manual. The idea is to teach English that concentrates on the parts of U.S. English and British English that are the same and steer clear of localisms. The breakdown into new dialect approach and inclusive approach come from an attempt to boil down McArthur's Oxford Guide to World English, pp. 446–448 into a single summary sentence and also use Pam Peters usage of a mixed British/American set of spelling conventions in The Cambridge Guide to English Usage as an example. All the web links references, further reading reading, and external links sections were in my mind when writing the article. Admittedly, some of the books I had not read recently, but go over some of the same ground.

Why should an editor cooperate with someone who knows nothing about the topic yet wants to make all the decisions unilaterally? Personally, I've always preferred the Bibliography approach to referencing where all material is listed in order, not just references. After all, which works are actually cited in an article is often somewhat arbitrary. If you really want to, put Crystal, McArthur, and Peters in a Reference section for the works cited and everyone else as further reading and web links, though I believe all the McArthur weblink is now also found in the Oxford Guide to World English, mostly in the section where he actually discusses World English and Intenational English itself rather than the various kinds of English found in the world. So that perhaps is really a reference. This kind of thing is one reason I prefer not to make a rather arbitrary split between supposed actual references and supposed non-reference material. Much that is not directly cited is important in deciding what went into the article and what points to emphasize, sometimes by indicating what was necessary to put into the article to provide necessary background to appreciate the particular links. Jallan 07:06, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I requested a reference for "Two approaches to "international English" are the individualistic and inclusive approach, and the new dialect approach." I'll delete it for now. By all means re-insert it if you find a reference. Slim 07:21, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

I've deleted the claim below because it lacks references and doesn't make any sense to me. I did a Google search for "new dialect approach," and it returned one result: this Wikipedia entry. Slim 07:33, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

"Two approaches to "international English" are the individualistic and inclusive approach, and the new dialect approach. The individualistic approach gives control to individual authors to write and spell as they wish, within purported standard conventions. The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English, published in 1999, is a descriptive study of American and other forms of English, in which each chapter follows individual spelling conventions according to the preference of the main editor of that chapter. The new dialect approach appears in The Cambridge Guide to English Usage (Peters, 2004). This attempts to avoid any language bias, and accordingly uses an idiosyncratic international spelling system of mixed American and other forms, but tending more to American spelling."

The more I look into this subject, the more bogus the Wikipedia article appears to be. The academic references given - McArthur, Peters and Crystal - are not arguing, so far as I can tell, that there is such a thing as "international English." Jallan, I asked you before: Do they actually use this term? If so, in what context? Can you provide some quotes?

It seems to me that they are arguing exactly the opposite of what Jallan had them saying in the previous version, viz. that international English is basically British English. Instead, these academics appear to be discussing how differently English is spoken and written in the 70-odd countries in which it's regarded as an official or semi-official language, and how no nation or tradition has any claim to "ownership", because the language is evolving through use, and particularly through Internet use, with astonishing speed. The only academic references I've found to a global English (so far) are questions about what global English would look and sound like, if such a thing were ever to develop. I would say this article needs a complete rewrite if it's to be accurate and comprehensive. Slim 08:43, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

I also deleted the references to Linux and Microsoft, because the article said of Linux that they use the term "Commonwealth English" and don't mention "international English"; and it said of Microsoft that it gives users a choice between American English, Australian English etc, and also doesn't used "international English," so it wasn't clear why they were being mentioned. Who, in the computing world, does use the term "international English"? Slim 08:54, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

I just got a call from Jallan, referring to Slim's Versions (pun intended) as being out of hand. I agree. But in researching where things got out of hand, It has to be said that Jallan is far from blameless. Refresher, after me rewrite, which both Jallan and Slim simply trashed over:

I disagreed highly with the simplistic redirect to commonwealth English and have attempted 
as best as I can to define what the term 'International English' means today: not so much 
a language or dialect, but a philosophical view toward English as a living and functional 
lingua franca, that belies earlier aspects of the English language as a tool, artifact or 
product of Western imperialism. -SV 05:47, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Still far from perfect. I have included both meanings of the term as both occur. Jallan 04:20, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think this now covers the various ideas about International English reasonably well, with a good variety of 
links giving different POVs. But I am not an expert in this area and expect that there is still much improvement 
that could be made by more knowledgeable people. Jallan 05:02, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This article has come very far in a short time. Thank you. I do wonder about capitalizing the "International" but 
you obviously know more than I do about this. Maurreen 05:19, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Note that Jallan's quest is for perfection - and his choice of headliners were far from NPOV "Supposed Neutrality" etc... blech.

While Jallan's work was categorical, it was far from being based in NPOV. While Slim's work is "neutralizing" hes missed the point entirely. I hope you two can see how this antagonistic approach has not worked - rather instead has been an exemplary of the kind of problem with 'mediocritizing' that Robert McHenry [53] has written of. In 'younger days' I simply would have added back my own material and fought both of you off, until you came to sense. For the time, Ill leave it to you to decide. -==S V 21:01, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have not missed the point at all. I am asking that whatever point is made be referenced to authoritative sources, and that no "original research" be done; and that's my only interest in this article. Slim 22:10, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Are you saying that 'whatever point' i.e. 'every point' made in all Wikipedia articles must be attributed to someone with an academic credential? You would not be the first to suffer from this disease, nor would it be the first time that someone so suffered would feel it necessary that they use this claim to cover for their poor writing. Certainly you are not making the claim that such which does not fit your need for attribution needs to be removed. Certainly it's the nature of an open project, that there should be incongruencies with academia, and furthermore its quite common and natural for academics to desire dominance over open projects, regardless of their lack of interest. -==S V 02:11, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC) P.S. - please take a look at my rewrites of such titles as nature versus nurture (which settled a long-running edit war) and emotion, (which isnt too shabby IIDSSMS). Please consider the many ways for how one can edit these "unattributed" examples of "original research" into mediocrity. SV

I don't quite understand your point. Of course not every claim needs a reference and no one one has said otherwise. But any claim that is challenged by another editor must be referenced or removed; and it makes sense to supply references for any claim likely to be challenged. What I'm challenging is the whole concept of "international English." I don't feel that the previous authors know what it is. To the best of my knowledge, it's used by two groups: (1) language schools who try to sell courses in international English; and (2) academics who use the idea of global English as a theoretical construct.

My basic question is this: If we were required to write an article in international English, how would we find out what to write? Is there an international English style guide published by a reputable publisher? Is there an international English dictionary? If so, they should be used as references. If not, then the article becomes more complex, in that it will have to describe the extent to which "international English" exists other than as an idea. To do that, you require reputable references, preferably but not necessarily academic.

I'm afraid I didn't understand these sentences at all: "Certainly you are not making the claim that such which does not fit your need for attribution needs to be removed. Certainly it's the nature of an open project, that there should be incongruencies with academia, and furthermore its quite common and natural for academics to desire dominance over open projects, regardless of their lack of interest." Or "Please consider the many ways for how one can edit these "unattributed" examples of "original research" into mediocrity." If these are points you would like me to respond to, perhaps you could re-word them?

These are the policies that all editors must follow regarding research standards: Wikipedia:Cite sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. In my view, this article, as it was, constituted "original research" and what has elsewhere been called a "novel narrative." As this is a subject in linguistics, it might be better if a linguist were to tackle it. But at the very least, it must be properly referenced and written in good English. Slim 02:33, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

Comments

You have missed many points, Slim.

1.) You stilll keep insisting that I am identifying British English with International English. I have NEVER done that. The header sentence read:

It is also sometimes used in common parlance, mostly by non-Americans, as a cover term for British English and closely related forms of English found outside of the U.S.

Read that carefully. Are you misunderstanding it? Would this be clearer:

It is also sometimes used with a very different meaning in common parlance, mostly by non-Americans, as a cover term for British English along with the more closely national Englishes found outside of the U.S., opposed to U.S. English.

In any case, I have myself never accepted the equation, except in the way one does when one reads material that use different terminology than one uses oneself. Please, stop attributing a claim to me I have never made, and please stop suggesting that I support that usage. I don't. I support documenting its existence. 2.) I already answered you on the point about Tom McArthur using the term "International English". I provided his definition in the article. Why then do you ask again whether he uses it? Are you breaking Wikipedia policy by assuming bad faith on my part? If you think I am lying, then why ask? You could look it up yourself. First you removed Tom McArthur's definition, and then you wonder what International English might mean. The definition you removed says:

Basically, it covers the English language at large, often (but not always or necessarily) implicitly seen as standard. It is also certainly commonly used in connection with the acquisition, use, and study of English as the world's lingua franca ('TEIL: Teaching English as an International Language'), and especially when the language is considered as a whole in contrast with American English, British English, South African English, and the like. — McArthur (2002, p. 444–45)

The immediately preceding material in the books the header International material followed by:

This phrase (with or without a capital i) appears to have developed more or less as a staging post to something else.

Then follows the defintion which you removed. Why did you remove it? You may also see McArthur's usage at:

McArthur, Tom (2001). "World English and World Englishes: Trends, tensions, varities, and standards", Language Teaching Vol. 34, issue 1. Available in PDF format at Cambridge: Language Teaching: Sample article and Learning and Teacher Support Centre: McArthur.

I have already suggested you look there. Search on "International English" and "World English".

3.) As to Crystal using the term, search in the above reference above. You will find that quotation in a more complete text which shows he was talking about "International English". That is a well-known quotation. Do you really think I would take a quotation from Crystal talking about something else entirely and use it here? I have provided the sources. Why not check them yourself? Why ask me? Why not easily prove I am wrong?

4.) As to Peters, my reference was:

— Peters (2004, International English)

... that is, look in Peters' work for the year 2004, under the article International English. The work in question, The Cambridge Guide to English Usage is in dictionary or encyclopedia format. You removed the reference to International English yourself. 5.) I have already answered you on your question of the two approaches. I reproduce the answer again section again:

The breakdown into new dialect approach and inclusive approach come from an attempt to boil down McArthur's Oxford Guide to World English, pp. 446–448 into a single summary sentence and also use Pam Peters usage of a mixed British/American set of spelling conventions in The Cambridge Guide to English Usage as an example.

McArthur couldn't use it as an example because it came out after his book.

6.) It seems to me that they are arguing exactly the opposite of what Jallan had them saying in the previous version, viz. that international English is basically British English. Of course they are arguing the opposite. That international English is used by some to mean British English and closely related Englishes (not just British English), is an entirely different usage of the term, not at all what people like McArthur, and Crystal, and Peters, and Marko Modiano and others are talking about. That is why this second meaning was in a separate section of the article with a first level header. That was the point of indicating two distinct usages in the header section.

7.) A search on "new dialect" and "International English" does come up with nothing. But try "dialect" and "international English". Almost immediately I came across [54] with the statement (bolding is mine):

The concept of International English is a nebulous one because there is not a community of speakers of this variety – just speakers of regional varieties who happen to meet in an international forum. So it exists only as a slight modification to each particular regional variety. As greater numbers of English speakers divide their lives into home and away zones – by travel, by email, by allegiance to international organisations – perhaps the sense of an international community will grow stronger and the flow‑on in terms of the shaping of an international dialect of English will become more apparent.

Or try here [55], this being one of my references:

The alternatives are, therefore, whether linguists should work towards one type of International Standard English for transnational uses (there is no way, however, that use can be restricted to this category because the 'prestige' of such a dialect will be at a premium), or whether International English should become a network of mutually intelligible dialects that systematically enrich and challenge each other through contact.

Here are the two approaches laid out by Arjuna Parakrama. I do not know at the moment whether the exact words "new dialect" came to me from some printed source or whether it was my own wording that came in an attempt to compress longer discussion. So change it to internationl dialect following the first exceprt above if you will. Or substitute "World Standard English dialect", except that may require too much explanation about what "World Standard English" means exactly (unless someone wants to write an article on it).

8.) You totally miss the point that someone who doesn't know anything about a topic should not commandeer an article on it and attempt to improve it. You've rendered it unintelligible and then complain that it doesn't make sense.

9.) If you really want "no original research", then stop editing by your idiosyncratic "feelings" that something is bogus. Stop editing by your "suspicions". Do some research yourself and demonstrate that the material in an article is incorrect and so improve it.

Jallan 05:00, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To V], I quite agree on the imperfections of my article. A difficulty I had was attempting not to go all the way with your glowing endoresement of International English, partly because there are academics (and others) who are actively hostile to the concept. One must be NPOV and indicate there are two sides to the question. As usual, there are the romantics who delight in linguistic diversity and wonderful new Englishes and Creoles and so forth, and there are the down-to-earth practical types who favor the obvious advantages of one international language, or failing that then two: U.S. English and British English.

Unfortunately, the arguments are complex, and I felt I could not go much farther than to indicate there was debate on the neturality issue and let the additional reading material take up the slack. Supposed Neutrality as a header made me wince also. While literally neutral, the idiomatic nuence of the term was too suggestive that the neutrality was bogus. But "Claimed neutality" and other similar phrases didn't come out any better. I could have reversed it to something like Supposed cultural bias I suppose. This is a problem I've had in other articles. Sometimes the solution, when covering the same material in more than one article, is to use, to some extent, a glass half-full approach in one article and a glass half-empty approach in another, when language just won't let you be neutral, without expanding a discussion far out of reasonable bounds. But in this case, it is likely that a heading saying Neutrality would have done better.

Jallan 05:00, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)