(Translated by https://www.hiragana.jp/)
Talk:Jersey - Wikipedia Jump to content

Talk:Jersey

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeJersey was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 5, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed


Origin of the Name

[edit]

Under this heading in the article I see:

"The Latin name Caesarea was also applied to the colony of New Jersey as Nova Caesarea', as well as in the ancient times of Zargon, were lord Zork ruled dominion of the slaves of the middle ease"

Really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.95.226.40 (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Jersey

[edit]

the description of the battle of Jersey is contradictory ("although touch and go, and decisive"). It also contradicts the information contained in the main wiki article on the Battle of Jersey (duration of main engagement, number of combatants etc.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.60.68.114 (talk) 22:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 17 external links on Jersey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jersey has no designated capital

[edit]

The infobox claims that St Helier is the capital of Jersey, this is both unsourced and untrue. Danrok (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have added a note to reflect this. Tumericiangovernment (talk) 10:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Map is not clear

[edit]

The map gives an overview of the world and of Europe, but based on this I'm still not completely sure where it is located. It might be good to include a bit of the French coastline in the most detailed map. 119.24.243.102 (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jersey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jersey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Jersey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Jersey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jersey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Apple history to Jersey

[edit]

Essentially the history section is about old topics and barely discusses modern history. Something relevant wouldn't hurt the article, even if it is discussed in the main history article. The history section of this article isn't so large that it can't contain something relevant to modern times and after a certain period of time it could be rotated out.

Notations suggesting that my edit had undue weight is a spurious argument that suggests a certain viewpoint was inherent. It clearly had no viewpoint as it cited the article and the facts contained there in. My edit expressed neither a pro or con position. Adding numerous reasons to a revert to see if anything sticks regarding a cited edit may be the actual undue weight here by omitting facts. Leitmotiv (talk) 04:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Leitmotiv: Hello, Leitmotiv. Thank you for engaging in discussion. I see from your edit summaries that you've taken umbrage at my not giving this page my top priority. No offense was intended.

Your understanding of "undue weight" appears incomplete. My concern is not that you used slanted language in your recent addition. Instead, my concern is with the inordinate weight given to an episode that had no significant impact on Jersey. This, too, is an element of "undue weight", as noted at WP:BALASP.

Jersey has developed a reputation as a tax haven and is home to thousands of re-domiciled companies. The mere fact that two of those thousands of companies were overseas subsidiaries of Apple simply is not a significant factor in the history of Jersey. This is even more evident from the information in your own source, which tells us that Apple's association with Jersey lasted only for one year (2015). And during that year, not a single editor at this article though that Apple's corporate presence was worthy of mention. And neither did any editor at History of Jersey. And not even at Economy of Jersey. And yet, in spite of this lack of significance, you seem intent on adding this minor episode to the historical summary of the top-level article on Jersey. This truly is "undue weight".

Having now had the chance to look into the facts more closely, I've come to the opinion that -- for the same reasons as above -- this minor episode does not belong in the History of Jersey article, either. Indeed, I doubt that you could make a compelling case for adding it to the Economy of Jersey article, given that Apple's subsidiaries were just two of thousands of foreign companies domiciled there.

Your edit summaries suggest that you've become emotionally involved in this question. Rather than have this end up at the Edit Warring noticeboard, I invite you to start an RfC on the matter. Or, I'll be happy to participate in mediation at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard.

I look forward to your response. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NewYorkActuary I'm not emotionally involved. Just irritated with someone who responds that they don't have the time but make time to edit war. You can't have it both ways, sorry. I've seen way too many editors indulge in edit warring and avoiding their own recommendation to take to the talk page.
As for the topic at hand - I will use your own above argument against you. You note that Jersey has developed a reputation (a history, if you will). I see that the article has some info on tax havens, but none of that history is... *drum roll* in the history section. That smells of undue weight to me, especially considering that this latest headline has made world wide news. I think there's room for a blurb in the history section to reflect that. So sorry, I totally disagree with you. Impact, or no impact, to Jersey seems irrelevant at this point when we're talking global news - and to me, your suggestion that its had no impact is suggestive of original research, but I guess you can't prove a negative. But I can prove a positive, this is a global news event that has impacted Jersey and its reputation and has become a part of its history. So you can call it a "minor episode" all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a major global news event. Leitmotiv (talk) 02:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Leitmotiv: I won't edit the content directly because as a Jersey resident I have a WP:COI. However I question the wording of "it was learned that multinational company Apple moved their firm to Jersey to avoid paying almost any taxes." I don't think that statement is supported by the citation given. Firstly, Apple has multiple companies and the article only refers to two of those companies, its Irish subsidiaries Apple Operations International and Apple Sales International. The current wording implies Apple as a whole was moved. Secondly, the detailed section of the article (rather than the headline) states that those companies "were managed from" the island which sound like a different thing to moving the companies. This would be supported by this statement from Jersey's financial regulator which says that the companies aren't registered in Jersey. Lastly, "to avoid paying almost any taxes" suggests knowledge of what motives Apple might have had - that seems like pure speculation to me - and Apple has made a statement saying they have not avoided paying any taxes, yet that isn't reflected here. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Curb Safe Charmer Feel free to edit it to reflect the source, but I don't agree with your personal opinion that we don't know what motivates Apple. In fact it's not up to us. This article clearly says Apple was "shopping around for a tax haven" by "[moving] the firm holding most of its untaxed offshore cash, now $252bn, to the Channel Island of Jersey." This one line seems to suggest the firm is behind it, and that the firm is looking to avoid paying taxes, which makes your entire argument a moot point, because we're talking about tax havens. I'm not making any opinion on the matter, I'm using the reference but it seems like you glossed over the entire first two paragraphs. I question if you or NewYorkActuary are being partial to a certain point of view. Ultimately, your entire argument seems to be about semantics. I'm just quoting the article - perhaps it could be clearer, but I think your argument looks to dilute the statement and seems to be ignoring the obvious facts. Leitmotiv (talk) 00:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Leitmotiv: Thanks again for engaging in discussion. I second CurbSafeCharmer's concerns -- your summary of the BBC article does indeed fall short of being accurate and neutral. But this issue is overshadowed by my original concern. You have not convinced me that any mention of this brief episode, even if accurately phrased, belongs in a discussion of the history of Jersey. Your response to me is essentially "The Paradise Papers are in the news, the Papers motivated the BBC to write an article about Apple, and that article mentioned Jersey." All of that is true, but none of it offers us any reason to put aside the guidance at WP:BALASPS, which specifically cautions us against putting undue weight on recent events that happen to be in the news.

I expect that you'll disagree with that assessment. But there's no reasonable disagreement about your failure to generate a consensus for including the material. And so, pursuant to WP:NOCON, I'll be removing the material, both from this article and from History of Jersey. I'll raise no objection if you wish to add a fair and accurate summary of the BBC article to our Economy of Jersey article (probably best-placed in the section on Financial Services).

Thanks again for the discussion. If you still feel strongly about including the material here, I'll renew my offer to participate in an RfC or, if you prefer, in mediation at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NewYorkActuary I see your point sort of, but you haven't described how this is a minor event. You call it that, but so far haven't provided substance to back that up. I've also stated that given the attention it's received in global news, it should at least get a one or two sentence mention in the history. I don't interpret that as undue weight per your citing of WP:BALASP. I interpret that to mean, if I wrote and entire paragraph or two and put it in History and focused squarely on Apple. I'd agree that it was undue weight, but a single sentence is barely giving any attention to the topic at all. You are arguing against that and I don't see how that's justified. This is a historical event whether you choose to see it or not. If anything, I've provided neutral content with a reference - I feel the onus is on you to submit an RfC since you disagree with the cited content, because 1. My edit fits squarely in history and is cited and 2. is the opposite of you suggesting it is a minor event. Leitmotiv (talk) 02:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems unlikely that we are going to change each other's minds about this. Pursuant to WP:NOCON, I'll be removing the additions both here and at the History of Jersey article. I also reaffirm my willingness to participate in your choice of an RfC or mediation. Thank you again for the discussion. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Read your reference to WPNOCON: "a lack of consensus normally results in the article, page, image, or other content being kept" for "deletion discussions". You're arguing to delete my cited material and quoting WPNOCON opposite of what it says. Sorry reverted your disingenuous edit. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think given that this is a new addition to the article, what we are seeking is consensus on whether to add it, not on whether to delete it, and either way it's not the first bullet (deletion discussions) that applies but the second: In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. In light of this and the fact that this recent news trivia I have removed it from here, and History of Jersey (along with several other insignificant recent news stories). —DIYeditor (talk) 01:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to seek consensus to add it- I did it before the discussion begun. Everyone wants to remove it, so this discussion is about deleting cited material that pertains to Jersey and Apple's decision to use it as tax haven. It's a world wide news event but strangely it's not even mentioned in the history for the place for which it occured. Are we arguing that for all the history this place has as a tax haven, that it cannot have a mention in the actual history section? This is a world wide historical news event, and one sentence ain't gonna break the article. Omitting is biased in favor of a clean image. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jersey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More Cheers!--02:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
[edit]

The current links for the lieutenant-general point to McColl, and it appears that as of beginning of 2018, the LG is Stephen Dalton. Probably only worth listing to the position out of the Infobox, and looking to set up a call to Wikidata for the position; and removing the others through the article. If that is not the preference then those links and context sensitive parts of the article need to be updated. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea. Tell me about it.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 02:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automating Updates of Statistical Data, by Extracting from WikiData

[edit]

The article's given value of population count in outdated. Newer values are available (Jersey (Q785)). However, I notice that {{InfoBox}} templates are able to transclude data from the WikiData project. The WikiData entry for Jersey (Q785) has (more recent) values for population. Since WikiData is rather easier to update than a MediaWiki template (especially for muggles), surely there is a way to have Wikipedia retrieve the relevant data from WikiData, and even recompute the the related statistics (such as the population ranking position). This does seem to be what WikiData is for. I would do this myself, if I knew how; it seems like deep template wizardry, though. Thanks for your attention. Feedback and suggestions appreciated. — Lee Carré (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's Template:Infobox country. Changes to the template should be proposed and discussed at Template talk:Infobox country (or, for a more general discussion, maybe WP:Village pump/Technical?), not on the talk page of one specific page that uses the template. That said, personally I'm very skeptical about having much information displayed on Wikipedia that isn't controlled by Wikipedia's policies. Huon (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for the pointers. I'll lodge a proposal there. — Lee Carré (talk) 00:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent idea. I will look into it for Guernsey and elsewhere.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 02:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Climate

[edit]

@WakeMn: Please could you provide a reference to support your change of the climate from temperate to Warm-summer Mediterranean(Csb)? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To add to article

[edit]

To add to this article: mention/explanation of the "Jersey way." 173.88.246.138 (talk) 07:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And if I may ask what is this "Jersey way" of which you speak? Jèrriais janne (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have since become aware of content of the Haut de la Garenne report, of which I was not aware previously. Jèrriais janne (talk) 09:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

definition of a country

[edit]

i have seen this multiple times Jersey and Guernsey are not countries they are over seas territories apart of the britsh crown dependency please stop saying its a country thank you Dubstar44 (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dubstar44: As a Jerseyman myself I am not used to Jersey being called a country, but the statement in the article is well supported with reliable references ("Definition: What is a country?". Worlddata.info. Retrieved 2022-02-25. and "Constitution and citizenship". Government of Jersey - Island Identity. Retrieved 2022-07-18. The Board concluded that Jersey is accurately described as a 'Country', or even as a 'Small Island Nation', and as such has a distinct international character. This has been agreed with the UK and by constitutional experts, and in 2007 the Lord Chancellor and Chief Minister signed an agreement entitled 'Framework for developing the international identity of Jersey', which also acknowledges that Jersey's 'international identity' is different from that of the UK. However, legally-speaking the term 'identity' has no defined meaning; the appropriate term for a country is 'personality', and this report adopts that usage throughout when describing how we are viewed internationally. which say that it is an island country. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ok thank you for cleaning it up with me as i go by the UN recognised countries and sometimes breakaway states but what i know as a definition of a country is being recognised by other countries having diplomatic relations along with its own uniqueness thank u either way Dubstar44 (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to add country to the definition in line with what a number of sources now and in the past have used to refer to Jersey.
The international standard for what counts as a country is ISO-3166-1. That standard considers Jersey to be a country and issues it a country code JE/JEY.[1] Comparatively, countries such as Scotland and other subdivisions of a country are given a code under ISO-3166-2, such as GB-SCO.
The key report which I've cited there is the Island Identity Report. This was formed out of a Board supported by the Government and included a large range of on-island organisations as well as some off-island. That includes local heritage/history charities, the tourism agency. This report states that "Jersey is a small nation with an unusually rich cultural heritage, including its own language and a rare degree of legal and political independence." (: 6). It found confidently that "The Board espoused and recommended a confident understanding that Jersey’s unique mixture of cultural and constitutional characteristics qualifies it as an Island nation in its own right." (: 6). For another example, Jersey Cricket's upgraded grounds at Grainville have now been called the National Cricket Centre.
But this report is just a report from the last Government, and not necessarily reflective of the years of history that mark Jersey as a nation/country. The report highlights one: a Connétable election in St Helier, 1856: "I am a Jerseyman, jealous to preserve our nationality. I am proud of the title of being a British subject, […] but I will not allow our nationality to be swallowed up into that of England." (: 20). A book on Jersey written in 1808 by Thomas Lyte (A Sketch of the History and Present State of the Island of Jersey) terms Jersey a country multiple times: "Jersey, his native country, was no longer an abode for him" (:78); "The whole Island was now subdued [...] Plunder and devastaion were univerally extended through the country" (: 74); and "The lower class have a spirit of independence seldom seen in other countries" (: 90).
Finally, country is not synonymous with sovereign state (see: England, Scotland, Faroe Islands, Curaçao and French Polynesia) and the use of "country" alongside "Crown Dependency" and "Overseas Territory" is common in other dependencies. Bermuda has its national football team and is mentioned as a nation by other sources [2][3]. Perhaps more relevantly, the Crown Dependency the Isle of Man consistently refers to itself as a nation: https://manxnationalheritage.im/; https://www.visitisleofman.com/ ("The only entire nation in the world to be recognised as a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve"); Jèrriais janne (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Duke of Normandy'

[edit]

I've noticed recently that an IP editor has changed the term Monarch in the side bar to 'Duke of Normandy'. I question the aptness of this and would like to hear the views of other editors (including the editor who made the edit if they would wish to) so we can determine the correct way forward and attempt to establish a consensus on the use of 'Duke of Normandy'. If we are to recognise that as the correct title, then I think for consistency's sake that needs to be used across the island's articles.

I can see that the article is linked to (a now outdated) page on royal.uk which states "In the Channel Islands The Queen is known as The Duke of Normandy. At official functions, islanders raise the loyal toast to 'The Duke of Normandy, our Queen'.".

However, there is some debate over the use of this title. Some sources argue that as Henry III renounced the title, the British monarch has no right to use it, except in a historic sense. Channel TV: https://www.itv.com/news/channel/2022-09-09/why-do-channel-islanders-call-the-queen-the-duke-of-normandy. Jerripedia quotes an article from the Jersey and Guernsey Law Review which argues the title was given up in 1259, and since then the job of the French monarch to issue the title (to a Frenchman, not an Englishman) and that the King is the sovereign of Jersey in right of being the Monarch, not the Duke of Normandy. There is no legal recognition of a distinct royal title in Jersey and the use of Duke of Normandy is "a piece of harmless after-dinner whimsy".

I would definitely argue that in common usage the King (/Queen) is more commonly referred to as monarch by the island rather than Duke of Normandy.

Therefore I would argue that the word in the infobox should be "Monarch" and not "Duke of Normandy", also in line with other territories in which Charles III is King. Jèrriais janne (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having just attended the proclamation there was certainly no mention of Duke of Normandy. I would say 'Monarch' is definitely more appropriate. Jèrriais janne (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
correction : having rewatched the video, it seems the Bailiff says "His Majesty, our Duke", so maybe Duke may therefore be appropriate. unsure, and hence would like to hear others opinions. Jèrriais janne (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed at least two instances in the Bailiff's speech: "His Majesty King Charles III sits on the throne, and is our Sovereign and our Duke" and then later "to bless His Majesty, our Duke with long and happy years". The Queen was often referred to as both ("the Queen, our Duke") when I was growing up, so I'm not necessarily saying which one the infobox should use. Bratch (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The title 'Duke of Normandy' doesn't actually exist now; Islanders use it because it reminds them of their Norman origins. Therefore, monarch is correct. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Bailiwick of" Jersey

[edit]

@Mikebisson Hi, I want to clarify whether your intention with recent changes to the article is that the "Bailiwick of Jersey" is an incorrect/contentious secondary title for Jersey or to change the scope of the article to refer to the physical island of Jersey ("the Jersey mainland" so to speak, sans Les Minquiers or L'islet/Elizabeth Castle etc.)?

If the former, it would be worth sharing the sources for such a contention, as I'm not aware of one, though I suppose it could be argued that "Bailiwick of Jersey" is simply an anachronistic title, but I don't know of any source to back that up.

If the latter, that would entail a change of this article's historic scope from the Crown Dependency of Jersey (which, of course, includes the islets and reefs other than Jersey) to the physical feature, the island of Jersey. [Note: I was the instigator of an inverse of this discussion on French Wikipedia a couple of years ago, which resulted in the merging of previously separate articles of the island and Crown Dependency: [2], not that this dictates how English Wikipedia should be organised]. If so, I would say a proper discussion of the merits/implications of such a change would be beneficial before any such change is made. Jèrriais janne (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Geology

[edit]

Could a Geology section be added to Geography? -- Dough34 (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jersey&oldid=1252254068"