Talk:Cooperation and Brotherhood

Political parties used with singular or plural pronouns and verbs

At least one British style guide calls for treating political parties as singular always. The Economist's style guide says:

"A government, a party, a company (whether Tesco or Marks and Spencer) and a partnership (Skidmore, Owings & Merrill) are all it and take a singular verb. ("Singular or Plural". The Economist.)

The Guardian's style guide says,

Corporate entities take the singular: eg The BBC has decided (not "have"). In subsequent references make sure the pronoun is singular: "It [not "they"] will press for an increase in the licence fee."

Sports teams and rock bands are the exception – "England have an uphill task" is OK, as is "Nirvana were overrated" ("Guardian and Observer style guide: S". The Guardian.)

There are several sources that call for consistency, meaning not to mix singular and plural in one construction, or one sentence, or short group of thoughts. Collins English Dictionary says,

Collective nouns are usually used with singular verbs: the family is on holiday; General Motors is mounting a big sales campaign. In British usage, however, plural verbs are sometimes employed in this context, esp when reference is being made to a collection of individual objects or people rather than to the group as a unit: the family are all on holiday. Care should be taken that the same collective noun is not treated as both singular and plural in the same sentence: the family is well and sends its best wishes or the family are all well and send their best wishes, but not the family is well and send their best wishes ("collective noun". Collins.)

William Cobbett (1763–1835) wrote in a grammar book,

Nouns of number, or multitude, such as Mob, Parliament, Rabble, House of Commons, Regiment, Court of King's Bench, Den of Thieves, and the like, may have Pronouns agreeing with them either in the singular or in the plural number; for we may, for instance, say of the House of Commons, "They refused to hear evidence against Castlereagh when Mr. Maddox accused him of having sold a seat;" or, "It refused to hear evidence." But we must be uniform in our use of the Pronoun in this respect. We must not, in the same sentence, and applicable to the same noun, use the singular in one part of the sentence and the plural in another part. We must not, in speaking of the House of Commons, for instance, say, "They one year voted unanimously that cheap corn was an evil, and the next year it voted unanimously that dear corn was an evil." ... The rule is this: that nouns of multitude may take either the singular, or the plural, Pronoun; but not both in the same sentence.

I will just observe, however, that consistency, in the use of the Verb, in such cases, is the main thing to keep in view. We may say, "The gang of borough-tyrants is cruel", or, "that the gang of borough-tyrants are cruel;" but if we go on to speak of their notoriously brutal ignorance, we must not say, "The gang of borough-tyrants is cruel, and are also notoriously as ignorant as brutes." We must use is in both places, or are in both places. ("The team are - Collective nouns in British English". Random Idea English. 25 May 2014.)

Lancelot Oliphant (1881–1965) also called for consistency:

A collective noun in the singular may be followed by a verb in the singular or the plural, according as we regard a thing as an undivided whole or as consisting of individuals that compose the whole. But the noun cannot be treated as both singular and plural at the same time. Write, ‘The frenzied mob was now seen at its worst’; or, ‘The frenzied mob were now seen at their worst’.) ("The team are - Collective nouns in British English". Random Idea English. 25 May 2014.)

The American Heritage Book of English Usage also calls for consistency:

In British usage, collective nouns are more often treated as plurals: The government have not announced a new policy. ... Be careful not to treat a collective noun as both singular and plural in the same construction. Thus you should say The family is determined to press its (not their) claim. (The American Heritage Book of English Usage: A Practical and Authoritative Guide to Contemporary English. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. 1996. p. 11. ISBN 9780547563213.)

Regarding pronouns and verbs used with political parties, I believe the call for consistency is correct and I think it should be followed in Wikipedia, except, of course, in direct quotes.

Conservative Party (UK), Labour Party (UK), and Liberal Party (UK) are all very substantial articles, far longer than most if not all Wikipedia articles about Israeli political parties, and with many times more page views. All three articles use both it and they to refer to the subject party, but never in close proximity. This is compelling evidence supporting the call for consistent use of singular and plural pronouns in close proximity in reference to a political party.

Number 57 calls for the sentence, "In the 1969 elections the party retained its two seats with a small increase in their share of the vote to 1.4%." (Revision of 18:50, 24 June 2015) The plural pronoun their agrees with "two seats" but refers to the singular "party". There is no reason to impose this hiccup in the reader's understanding of the sentence. There is no reason to go against the sage advice of style guides on this matter. —Anomalocaris (talk) 04:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Rather than producing walls of text in an attempt to teach a grandmother to suck eggs, may I suggest you simply respect WP:ENGVAR and accept that plurals and singulars are mixed in British English. Convoluted attempts to convince someone that they do not know how to write their own language are not going to work. Number 57 08:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

And trying to recruit a third party to the discussion who has previously supported your position in a different debate is not really cool either. Number 57 21:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Number 57 There is no reason to be rude to User:Anomalocaris just because s/he disagrees with you. Quoting several different style guides is one way to lend support to one's point of view. What Anomalocaris presented was not "walls of text", arguing a point of view ad nauseam with sentences that go on and on, but rather neatly presented and sourced quotes from several style guides from both sides of the Atlantic. Anomalocaris' statement was fairly short and to the point. This has little to do with WP:ENGVAR. As you would see if you read the quotes above, every one emphasizes the importance of consistency when the pronouns (and possessive adjectives such as its and their) and the noun to which they refer are in close proximity. In the sentence in question, it is clear that the use of the plural possessive adjective their – after already using the singular its – immediately following a plural noun ("seats") creates ambiguity, and it is commonly held that avoiding ambiguity makes for better writing (unless it is used deliberately as a creative device, usually in literature). The way the sentence is now written is sloppy writing and Wikipedia articles ought to contain the clearest, best possible writing. CorinneSD (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree there is no need to be rude because someone disagrees with me, but continued violations of Wikipedia guidelines (after numerous requests to stop) do become a little tiresome after a while.

As I pointed out, it's perfectly acceptable to switch between singular and plural, even within a sentence; it's effectively at the whim of the writer. Whilst this may appear to be "sloppy" to someone unfamiliar with the idiosyncrasies of British English, I'm afraid that's simply how it is. I refer you to the first sentence Ipswich Town F.C.#History (a featured article about an English football club), which starts "The club was founded as an amateur side in 1878 and were known as Ipswich A.F.C....", or Norwich City F.C.#History (another featured article): "Norwich City F.C. was formed following a meeting at the Criterion Cafe in Norwich on 17 June 1902 and played their first competitive match...". Number 57 08:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't know what Wikipedia guidelines you are referring to. Also, do you really think two articles on sports that reached FA status is sufficient to support your point of view? There are small grammatical and style errors in many Wikipedia articles, and this could have been missed in the peer review. CorinneSD (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm referring to the guideline I mentioned in my first response. Number 57 16:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

'The club was founded as an amateur side in 1878 and were known...' No, that's not good writing: the 'was' and 'were' are too close together. The styles can be mixed in BrE, but not so close that it jars. Rothorpe (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Number 57: Your argument here seems to be: Major premise: According to WP:ENGVAR, if the article is written in correct British English, it should not be changed to agree with a non-British variety of English. Minor premise: the mixed usage of it and they in the same sentence to refer to collective nouns (including political parties) is correct British English. Conclusion: Articles with mixed usage of it and they in the same sentence to refer to political parties should not be changed to unmixed use. An obvious problem with this argument is that substantial evidence has been presented that undermines the minor premise, that is, the mixed usage of it and they in the same sentence to refer to collective nouns (including political parties) is not correct British English. Of course, many speakers of British English may use such mixed use in speech and writing, including in English Wikipedia sports team articles, but that doesn't make it correct. There are native English speakers who say things like "Us Tareyton smokers would rather fight than switch!", but style guides say that us is an objective pronoun and we is the correct subjective pronoun. References to uses in and out of Wikipedia are helpful, but style guides are more authoritative. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

But I'm afraid it is correct British English, although "correct" is not really the appropriate word; there is no right or wrong here – it is more about what is normal or acceptable. The writer chooses whether to use the singular or plural, depending on what feels natural (as the Economist style guide you quote also states, "There is no firm rule about the number of a verb governed by a singular collective noun. It is best to go by the sense". And as Rothorpe said, usage can be mixed, and the form used can be based on a judgement of whether something jars or not; to me, this does not jar. Number 57 14:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

[page stalker] I happened to see this, and am surprised by a discussion of grammatical correctness that is divorced from the possible meanings of the text involved. Yes, in [British or any other] English a party can be considered either singular or plural. The most recent edit to the page produces "In the 1969 elections the party retained its two seats with a small increase in their share of the vote to 1.4%." What that means is that the share of the vote that those two seats captured was 1.4%. It seems to imply either that there was a population increase, or an increase in voter turnout in those two seats. I find it hard to believe that the sources support such a statement. The intended meaning, I believe (without checking sources) is that the party increased its share of the vote. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea how you come to that conclusion :s Israel is a single nationwide constituency elected by proportional representation; there are no individual constituencies. Number 57 19:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, that explains a lot of the confusion. Readers might come to this page with preconceptions from other parts of the world, and it needs to be clear enough for them to understand. In Australia, where voting is compulsory, and in Canada, where voting is optional, how the population is apportioned among ridings is a matter of considerable discussion (along with accusations of gerrymandering), and that could influence what people expect the meaning of that sentence to be. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

While you were writing that, I changed it. It jars no more. Rothorpe (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad Rothorpe changed it, but I'd like to add in connection with User:Sminthopsis84's comments, that I hadn't even thought of the issues that a Canadian or Australian might have thought of, or been confused by. I was simply thinking that, besides what I feel is simply illogical writing (using both the singular its and the plural their to refer to the same antecedent within one sentence), when a reader comes to the plural possessive adjective their, which almost immediately follows a plural noun ("seats"), the reader's mind will connect their with "seats", or at least will be confused: does their go with "seats" or with the political party, recently referred to with its? That's ambiguous. It slows down the reader. Thus, it is not good writing. CorinneSD (talk) 23:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm placing this at the left margin because whatever it is commenting on already has several new threads following. Regarding the UK football club articles mentioned by User:Number 57, Norwich City F.C. is the more important of the two, as this club is one of 20 members of the Premier League. The Premier League team articles are long and it would be tedious for me to carefully read all of them, but I did read the first two, Arsenal F.C. and Aston Villa F.C. I noticed that both articles almost always refer to the team in the plural, and in the rare places where the team is treated as singular, such references are not near plural references. Both of these articles are also featured articles. I wonder if Number 57 selected the two football team articles at random and just happened to discover they mix singular and plural references to their subject teams, or if (s)he had to search for such articles. No matter. I didn't scrutinize Arsenal F.C. for anything other than singular/plural references, but I did scrutinize Aston Villa F.C., and I found numerous usage errors. A modest selection follows:

• He was replaced by his softly-spoken assistant manager Tony Barton* who guided the club to a 1–0 victory ... [*Comma required before nonrestrictive clause.]
• For the rest of the Nineties* however* Villa went through three different managers ... [*Comma required.]
• ... Doug Ellis finally decided to sell his stake in Aston Villa due to ill-health.* [*Should not be hyphenated.]
• Aston Villa's current home venue is Villa Park, which is a UEFA 5-star rated stadium, having* previously played at Aston Park (1874–1876) and Wellington Road (1876–1897). [Subject of having is Villa Aston, but by structure of the sentence, subject should be either Villa Park or UEFA 5-star rated stadium; this is a dangling modifier.
• Villa Park is the most*used stadium in FA Cup semi-final history ... [*Hyphen required in this space.]
• It was announced on 6 August 2014,* that Villa Park would appear in the FIFA video game ... [*Comma should not be here.]
• He was chairman and substantial shareholder of "Aston Villa F.C." from 1968–1975* and the majority shareholder from 1982–2006.* [*Per WP:NDASH, "Do not mix en dashes with prepositions like between and from.]
• In Ellis's last year in charge Villa lost £8.2m* before tax, compared with a £3m* profit the previous year, and income had fallen from £51.6m* to £49m.* [* Per WP:NUMERAL, "M (unspaced) and bn (unspaced) may be used for million and billion after spelling out the first occurrence (e.g. She received £70 million and her son £10M)." There is the use of "million" just before this sentence, so the first occurrence is spelled out, but the style guide requires M not m.]
• ... the charity would gain significant additional visibility and greater fund raising* capabilities. [*Should be fund-raising or fundraising.]

This is just a partial list of the usage errors and violations of Wikipedia style guides I found in the featured article Aston Villa F.C.. I don't think it's correct to say that just because a usage appears in a featured article, said usage is correct, or in compliance with Wikipedia style. —Anomalocaris (talk) 03:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

You appear to be saying that an article where the singular and plural are not mixed in proximity is riddled with grammatical errors, which I'm not sure proves the point you intended...

I selected the Ipswich article because they are the club I support and I'm aware that the article is an FA. As an aside, the claim that Norwich are more important is frankly insulting and shows a distinct lack of knowledge of English football ;) Number 57 09:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I claim no knowledge of English football. I infer that Premier League teams are more important than other teams, just as in the United States, the 30 teams in Major League Baseball are more important than the 246 teams in Minor League Baseball. If this is incorrect, I apologize for insulting Ipswich. The points I intended are: (1) Two Premier League articles I selected from the top of the list (not after determining their suitability to my argument) both comply with the rule against mixing singular and plural references in close proximity, which supports my theory that this error is so egregious that it is rarely made in "important" Featured Articles. (2) But even "important" Featured Articles are riddled with usage errors and Wikipedia style violations, so we can't infer from finding mixing singular and plural references in close proximity in two Featured Articles that this is correct usage. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Because English football has promotion and relegation, clubs change leagues regularly – Norwich and Ipswich were in the same league last season. My point was the you were citing errors in an article that did not feature mixed usage in proximity, which does not make any sense as an attempts to prove mixed usage is an error; instead I would have expected an analysis other "errors" in the two articles where mixed usage occurs (this is not an invitation to do; I think this discussion has already reached peak tediousness). Number 57 17:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)