Talk:Wales/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

BREAK - on the United Nations quote

A UN document has been found that lists Wales under Principality and not country: it is the only quote so far whch seems to possilby have something to it. However, the document doesn't explicitly say "Wales is not a country" (and nothing yet found does). Can we find evidence of the UN calling Wales a country? Wales is clear proof to me countries can be a Principality too! Wales has been considered a Principality since 1216 when the Princes of Wales were Welsh! --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The ISO 3166 standard does not list Wales as a country: [www.guavastudios.com/country-list.htm] Unlike what you said, this one has not been disguarded thank you. Gozitancrabz (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
For the upteenth time: England, Scotland and Wales etc are not on that country list, or most lists like them. The reason? Because the United Kingdom is there instead of them!! The UK represents the 'Constituent countries'. The United Kingdom is a collective and a unity, and for obvious legal reasons is seen as the 'country' in International law. It does not mean Wales, England etc cannot be a countries in within the union! You have never once adressed this, Gozitancrabz. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Is all this necessarey? Just show both sides of the argument and let the reader make up their mind. It is the most WP:NPOV!WikipÉIRE\(caint) 23:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Who says there is "two sides"? Who says Wales is not a country? I have never once read that line: just stuff about it being a Principality, and endless lists with the UK in them instead of the constituent countries. The evidence FOR Wales being a country is the same as for England and Scotland - massive and all-encompassing.--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems that if they are going to enforce their POV and refuse any of the links, then unfortunately, it is neccessary. -.- If by the morning, they are still refusing to listen to the links, can someone pleae file a mediation request. I am going to bed now. Night! Gozitancrabz (talk) 23:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
By carrying on just repeating like a parrot that you have 'all this proof that Wales isn't a country' (you don't), and never addressing comments like my one above on the UK you are simply destroying debate. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The whole issue is that legally Wales isn't a country ie UN,EU, lack of sovereignty etc but can be seen as a country by virtue of history and ethnicity. Thats the whole point.WikipÉIRE\(caint) 00:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't say the EU doesn't class Wales as a country: I'll look at the UN tomorrow. Generally the United Kingdom is the country in "international law", yes - but the EU sees Wales as a constituent country of the UK, and as having an identity that is classed as a country. The notoriously "PC" EU was created to be flexible with these matters. It doesn't have to hold member capacity to be recognised in this way.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


If a mediator is involved then they should look at the debate under constituent countries as well. Todate the argument for Wales being a country has cited official UK Government sources. The argument against has cited no source of any repute (school web sites, cult sites from the US) and has misinterpreted many of its own sources. The only argument which has any cited authority is the reference to a Principality. However this phrase is also used by the UK Government in conjunction with statements that Wales is a country. There is precedent elsewhere in the world which established that Principalities can be countries. Welsh history when it was independent was also based on Princes not Kings.
A simple review of the material here indicates that we have two editors who have a POV on the use of the word country and are trying to create a smokescreen in the face of official UK Government statements to get that POV across. Country is the neutral term and is in common use. The other thing that a review will reveal (if it includes the constituent country discussion) is the persistent refusal of the protagonists to engage with the evidence or show any respect for other editors attempting to engage them in the project. On the constituent country page one editor (also an administrator) put all of the evidence into a summary table and this was ignored.
Matt, I think we have at least one Troll here and I would not be provoked. This is a simple matter of evidence, and we should focus on that. --Snowded (talk) 02:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Alright - I've just caught that. He has actually got under my skin, so I'm going to back off a bit. He is pilling on the text and going for a war of attition - mainly by trying to scroll out of view all the stuff we write (most of which he is totally ignoring). I can't keep writing the same stuff again and again. Wikpeiire isn't reading it all either - it is evident in some of his comments. I spent a stupid amount of time in here yesterday and have to focus offline anyway. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
"The argument against has cited no source of any repute (school web sites, cult sites from the US" - if that is what you are calling the BBC, the EU, the UN, and the ISO?
"I think we have at least one Troll here and I would not be provoked" - please remain civil thank you. I am exhibiting no viewpoint, and am simply basing it on the sources. Gozitancrabz (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I back snowded here. AGF was kept past anybody's idea of a reasonable point. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Show the common decency to respond to the detailed criticism of your "sources" and also discuss the issues raised by other editors rather than ignoring them and I will happily with draw the label of Troll. Your only reputable sources reference Principality but do not say that Wales is not a country. Most of your sources turn out to be obscure sites (school web sites, news stories about insurance companies that you have not even read. Your BBC quotes are not from any formal BBC statement and have been countered. For the moment Troll is an accurate description, either that or you are politically naive and know nothing of research, source validation etc. --Snowded (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Have you even read the ISO list? (a very well internationally, reliable standard, I will add). It lists every single official country, and guess what; Wales isn't listed. The UN does not list Wales in its list of countries, and lists it as a principality. The same seems true with the EU one. So how about you discussing these issues. And how have I ignored what you are saying? Also, if I am a troll, then you should go report me to an admin right now - so do so; otherwise, retract the statement. If neither, I will raise the issue myself. Gozitancrabz (talk) 16:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The ISO list doesn't list England - is that not a country either? Who made you the judge of whether the alwasy-listed 'United Kingdom' can have 'constituent countries' or not? The EU recognises Wales as a country. The UN calls Wales a Principality but doesn't say whether that can be a country or not (it can).--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Colons again Gozitancrabz. I have made several comments on the fact that listing Wales as a principality does not exclude it being a country and the difference between lists of sovereign nations and countries. SO have others but you have not engaged with the debate. Until you do I have no intention of retracting the statement. Feel free to report me to whoever you will. I and others put a lot of effort into editing many pages. This whole debate (which you initiated) has consumed a huge amount of time and your refusal to engage with views of others plus your quoting (without withdrawal or apology) highly dubious sources (some of which you have not even read) makes your behaviour provocative. As I said above there comes a time when there is a need for a compromise. The suggested edit by Wikipiere makes the sovereign nation point well and handles the UN list in a way which I think is acceptable. I suggest you read it.--Snowded (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Are we talking about the same ISO 3166 list that includes Svalbard and South Georgia on its list of countries ? It's pretty arbitrary. Why does it have Svalbard, a legal part of Norway, as a country but not Shetland, a legal part of the UK ? Nevertheless if that list is evidence that South Georgia, with no legal system, government, or citizens is a country. Then surely Wales which (at least has citizens, never mind its assembly) passes Gozitancrabz's country test with flying colours. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you telling me you are going to ignore the UN, EU, and ISO sources? Gozitancrabz (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you once again going to completely ignore the conversation and repeat yourself over and over again? If you continue to do this people may start to think there is no point talking to you! --Jack forbes (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
You are the one ignoring us. Whatever your oppinion of the UN, EU, and ISO, they are reliable sources. And in response to someone saying they do not say Wales "isn't" a country; well these lists list everything they consider a country, and the fact Wales has been left out is significant. Please stop ignoring that point. Gozitancrabz (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Gozitancrabz, I now consider this abuse. It is not unlike holocaust denial: I live in a country of 3 million Welsh people for Christ's sake! We are not 'New Mexicans' or something like that.
  • The ISO list uses the collective title of 'United Kingdom' above using the 'constituent countries' of Wales, England etc (as all country lists do, including Wikipedias).
  • The ISO and EU examples CANNOT be used with the UN example: the UN accepts 'constituent countries of the UK', and the ISO and EU use the UK as the collective title! (and the EU calls Wales a country anyway).
  • The EU was built to recognise constituent countries like Wales (its not just about member states) - it really is clueless to say the EU. The EU recognises Wales as a country.
  • The UN document (the SINGLE shred of evidence I have seen) list Wales as a 'Principality' WHILE AT THE SAME TIME CALLING England and Scotland constituent 'countries'. The question is: do they recognise that a Principality can be a country too? Of course they do! Why the hell wouldn't they? Wales itself is proof of it. The UN is a representational body (what else is it?).
I have now repeated the 'United Kingdom in lists' issue in particular so much (without any response) that I feel happy calling Gozitancrabz a troll. Shall we get mediation? He/she has no reason to be here other than to disrupt. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Political organisations aren't particularly reliable sources. And if there's one thing that the UN, EU and ISO have in common, it's that they are highly political organisations. I would not want to use their opinions to settle whether Tibet was an independent state, nor to settle what might constitute or not constitute a country, since they are so much influenced by their members political interests and territorial ambitions. Ignoring them would definitely be the sensible thing to do. An academic source would be far better. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Please don't take his word for his statements above: he's a troll. I 've gone through them again. I agree that academic consensus is strong though (with a significant weight of good historical texts) - good point. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
"Ignoring them would definitely be the sensible thing to do." Totally... if you want to push POV that is. You have no right whatsoever to push your views these are not reliable sources. Wikipedia clearly states they are, and as such, their views must be reflected. Gozitancrabz (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't get excited - this is clear trolling. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Can people please give their opinions on the compromise introduction sentence which shows both sides of the argument, instead of all this continued arguing?WikipÉIRE\(caint) 17:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
"Compromise" over my country - no. I've already said in Talk why I feel Principality should be at the bottom of the Intro - refer to earlier in Talk if you want to see why: It is formal and not used colloquially at all. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
If we are to use what is used colloquialy then take note of: the word "country" can be sometimes viewed as synonymous with "sovereign state," as one may often find in colloquial usage. If Principailty is a formal definition then it should be there. The compromise includes both.WikipÉIRE\(caint) 18:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Why should it be up there because it’s a formal definition? I'm having a break here now - I've got really wound up and it's affecting my offline life. I cannot accept a line (or suggestion) in the article saying that "there is debate" about this when there ISN'T. This horrible shit only happens on Wikipedia. Everyone was happy with the existing parag on Principality (which puts it in its historical context) - to move it up the top would disrupt that context and would give a rarely used word over-prominence. I don't accept you and Gozitancrabz as a 'party' to "compromise" with, however persistent you are: it would make a mockery of Wikipedia if I did.
THE ARTICLE IS FINE AS IT IS ON THIS MATTER. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) Please remember to keep your comments civil, for about the fifth time Matt. Swearing, capitalizations, personal attacks such as your frequent reference to me and Wikipiere being "troll"s, all contribute to unvility. Please stop, or you could be given a warning, or a block for your actions. Gozitancrabz (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Any reasonable person would get frustrated at your unprofessional refusal to engage with any argument placed in front of you, your assertion (but not withdrawal) of poor quality sources, or sources that do not actually support your position. I don't see that Matt is behaving unreasonably here, the disruptive element is clearly you. It is a long time since I have seen this degree of abuse of wikipedia by an editor clearly pushing a position without any intention (or it seems ability) to engage in debate in a reasonable way. --Snowded (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
It's a shame this had to go to mediation but at least now the arguing will stop. Let's all now sit tight and see what judgement is made.WikipÉIRE\(caint) 21:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I'm back. (From the archives that is.) Phillip's Great and Collin's world atlases don't include wales in the lists of countries, while having Wale's borders marked as an admin. devision. And while i'm at it, can you tell me one single difference between Wales and a USA state. 122.109.250.74 (talk) 10:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

First Minister over Prime Minister?

I would like to suggest that the First Minister should be shown above the Prime Minister as the article is actually about Wales. If you look at articles on American states, Australian states, and Canadian Provinces you will see there is no mention of Presidents or Prime Ministers in the infoboxes! I don't actually propose the removal of the PM, just the reordering of the names. A discussion on this subject is currently going on at the Scotland talk page and I was wondering if anyone at this talk page would agree with this change to the Wales article. --Jack forbes (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Normally, I'd agree to this. But, seeing as England has no First Minister? I'd suggest keeping status-quo (UK PM above First Minister). GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
England having no First Minister has no bearing on this proposal. I feel as though I've been here before! --Jack forbes (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The fact that England has no First Minister has nothing to do with this article. I therefore support the proposal Welshleprechaun (talk) 00:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind either way, although with the Queen at the top, the PM is 'next in line' so to speak. Yet if we ordered by 'hands-on' importance, we would put the Queen at the bottom, with the Secretary of State and then the PM above. Then Jones, and Morgan first. We certainly need colons in there - it reads like two columns! --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree first minister (also agree with Matt to take it further) --Snowded (talk) 04:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there an agreement to change the infobox? If so, is it the change mentioned by Matt and agreed by Snowded, or the one I suggested? For the record, I would be happy with either one. --Jack forbes (talk) 13:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

We could see what the longer one looks like. I'd rather not make the edit at the moment, if you fancy it doing it: I'll support it if it looks appropriate. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I've just changed the names around for the moment. If a longer format is needed perhaps someone with more expertise could do it, I'm still learning as I go along! --Jack forbes (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have also left the monarch at the top of the page. If there is a consensus to move her down we will do that. --Jack forbes (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine. The Queen would have to go at the bottom for it to make sense, though (ie. as a top-down 'hands on' importance list). I think it needs colons too, just to stop it from looking like two columns (which it did before). --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll do that later, the wife is dragging me out shopping. Ahhh...the joy :< --Jack forbes (talk) 15:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Queen at the bottom sounds good --Snowded (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Looks tidy. Good call WL (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Country

I have noticed that the English and Scottish articles state in the opening paragraph that they are countries rather than constituent countries. I believe to be consistant we have to change the Wales article to reflect that consistancy, ie: country.Would there be any agreement on this proposal? --Jack forbes (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed --Snowded (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

FFS guys! Are you trying to give me a coronary? I've never been a fan of cross-article consistency (if something works, it works) - and with respect, I find both England and Scotland two of the more bland country Introductions, as I've said before. Why the change? Is it about NI? In my opinion that is clearly a created country (they even planted people in it) - but for Christ's sake lets not argue that here. If you want to do it, do it - sometime's it's best to be bold.
I have to say I favour the full-length UK title in these country articles: we are one of the few places that it makes sense to have it. Are you thinking of:
"Wales (Welsh: Cymru;[1] pronounced /ˈkəmrɨ/ⓘ) is a country of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"?
If it a nationalist push then I'm not into that - Wikipedia is simply not a manifesto as far as I'm concerned. If you just wanted the words "one of the four countries" out, why not just say:
"'Wales (Welsh: Cymru;[2] pronounced /ˈkəmrɨ/ⓘ) is a constituent country of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"?
It is the most useful in encyclopaedic terms to clarify immediately what Wales' link to the UK is - ie that of a "country within a country" (as the PM's site says) - or a 'constituent country'. I favour using it.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm a little surprised you think that way, it's nothing to do whether someone is a nationalist or not. During the constituency debate you were arguing with statements like " I know Wales is a country, I live here ". Note you never used the term constituent country, It does'nt quite roll off the tongue, does it? The PMs site never mentions the word constituency country. It goes on simply to say the UK is made up of four countries. As Snowded says below, the article makes it perfectly clear were Wales is in relation to the UK. PS, I'm still trying to figure out were N Ireland figures in this proposal, could you tell me? --Jack forbes (talk) 11:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to work out why you suddenly want to change the first line after what we've just been through! Is Wales not a constituent country? - I don't get it, Jack - I'm just looking for a reason for change. We've had nothing but disputes lately and I can't see any good reason to do this.--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Matt, the dispute that occurred, was, I think you will agree nonsense, we all know Wales is a country. My point is when you I or anyone else refer to Wales we refer to it as a country, not a constituent country. I understand you may be sick of the disputes that have gone on recently but I do feel quite strongly that Wales should be referred to as a country in the opening paragraph. This may not work, but perhaps piping country to constituent country as in country might do? --Jack forbes (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


User:Matt I completely agree with you. Honest.WikipÉIRE\(caint) 00:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Consistency is not an absolute, but it is important. I really don't see why this is a problem, the relationship of Wales to the UK overall is clear in the article. I suppose that getting Matt and Wikipeire to agree could be counted as progress, but my vote stays with the simple form. --Snowded (talk) 05:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I can't work you out re him at all! Can you explain why the current 'constituent country' is not good, and why 'country' is superior? If you have a decent argument I'll go with it - I cannot see any reason for change at all.--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Not sure why there is an issue to be honest. We all had a fight on the "constituent country" page against attempts to say that Wales was not a country. In the context of a page with that title (assuming that page has any utility) the phrase constituent country has meaning. On the Wales page itself the constitutional reference is clear and the word country is far clearer and simpler. Its not something I feel is a life and death issue, but I would argue (i) its simpler and no meaning is lost in the article as a whole and (ii) if Scotland and England use country I think Wales should as well. However I don't want you (Matt) to have a heart attack. Not sure about Wikipeire though  :-) --Snowded (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I feel as though my reasoning for wanting this change has been put into question. I will drop this proposal and leave the Wales page to those who take a temper tantrum and say they will die if anything is changed he does'nt approve of! --Jack forbes (talk) 15:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Can I just make this point? Why is there a simple English form of Wikipedia? This new proposed introduction removes a lot of accuracy and detail and could be seen as 'dumbing it down'. Just because its simpler it doesn't mean its better. Quite the opposite in fact.WikipÉire ♣ 08:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The fact that country is being rejected here, is sorta expected. However, I need some smelling salts for what's happening at England and Northern Ireland. What I expected to happen at those articles, isn't occuring, - go figure. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page823.asp I cant see how people can argue with that, if the UK parliament defines it that way, on equal terms for all four countries of the UK.. then I think wikipedia should reflect the same.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazlink (talk • contribs) 19:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
ok, heres me discussing it a bit more, Scotland and England use this reason http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page823.asp to define themselves as countries, and Wales is listed equally among them. They use it to define themselves as countries quite rightly because it is the UK parliament it is the ruling body over England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Its a kingdom, of four united countries, and the united kingdom parliament says so... Gazlink (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I think we need to settle this (seeing the reversal on the main page. From what I can see the clear majority here is for country? Can we have a simple agree/disagree list below? --Snowded (talk) 19:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Clear majority? I count 3:3 in votes. Gazlink, Snowded, Jack forbes vrs GoodDay, Matt Lewis and myself. I'm sure everyone's sick of all the debates and there's clearly no consensus we should just leave it the way it is. It is a fine term and its clearer.WikipÉire ♣ 19:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
OK lets see what people think, that is you and I so far lets have the other opinions and forgive me for being slightly suspicious given your earlier attempts along with a now banned sock puppet to get rid of any reference to country. --Snowded (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
As I've said recently in my Talk, this is not something I'm intending to make an edit-exchange on either way. I dont see anything wrong with constituent country (it strikes me that it has its obvious uses in explaining the 'UK' to readers). I've always argued on WP against using consistency as the main argument for something (especially as people can go from article to article building it!) - I probably got suspicious of a bit of nationalism having fairly recently been on the British Isles talk so much (and I don't think, given all the history, facts and backgrounds here, I can be called OTT for being a little suspicious!) At the end of the day, it makes little odds to me either way: obviously I don't want the article locked or warred on again, though! I think we really need a period of productive edits (like the EU one below). I don't want to be seen as tantrumming, or trying to lead the show - I was just hoping for a period of stability and we got straight into 'country' again!--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I go along with Snowded. We should have a simple agree/disagree list. Just like to add, I apologise to Matt if I sounded a bit short with him, but you have to trust me that any changes I propose are not influenced by feelings of nationalism. Every one has a bad day(and I had one!). --Jack forbes (talk) 13:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
We all have bad days. It doesn't really matter to me what anyone feels politically (we all have our views) - but I do believe an article always has its own correct encyclopedic balance - sometimes it suits us, sometimes not. Sorry if I didn't AGF.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change to the line on Europe

I've been having a discussion with Matt Lewis about how we can improve the sentence on Wales' post-devolution links with the EU. Regular editors will know that I think the present text may be a bit misleading, for all the reasons I listed in those two discussions. Ideally, I wouldn't mention the EU in the Intro, but hey, Wikipedia is all about compromise and consensus. So as a courtesy to the regulars, here's my suggestion - change:

This clarifies things using a rephrasing of text used by WAG itself in its response to the EU budget review.[1] Any objections? Pondle (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

None. You've removed the misleading bit and clarified it well.WikipÉire ♣ 10:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Come on, clarified what? If you remove the original intention how can a totally new line clarify it (ie what is "it"? - the original line wasn't inteneded to be about Foreign policy as such, and trade is now removed completely. Sorry I didn't reply in my talk Pondle I've just been busy. With respect I don't think it reads well - and what about the Welsh Assembly EU office? The new line does not really show the poitive development since the Welsh Office days - which was the first lines intention. I think the format needs to be 'while...but'. I'm removing the new line (I genuinely don't like it). Perhaps we can try and get it right off the main page. I don't think it reads like an intro line with terms like "reserved matter" - it's more for the politics section like you say. I'll try and look at it again over the weekend. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry you don't like the line, it's accurate (check out the link I provided) and I thought it was quite succinct. The WAG Brussels office seems like relatively small beer to me - it doesn't get much profile on the WAG's own webpages about the EU.[2] I'm happy to tack it on the sentence, as long as there's a recognition of the political and legal fact that the Welsh relationship with the EU is not independent.[3]
I didn't understand the reference to trade, the associated ref led to a news item about the Amazon investment at Jersey Marine (which I presume is serving the UK domestic market, but was probably supported by ESF - a different issue in its own right). Shouldn't a line on trade be linked to some kind of wider statement about the economy of Wales? Pondle (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The new words are accurate and should be there, but Matt is also correct and WAG has extended its direct contacts with the EU (as have Scotland and others). The same is true of other EU regions such as Catalonia. I suggest we combine the two as they do not contradict each other. One is a constitutional statement, the other is a statement of practice. I am concerned with much of the recent debate on these pages that there seems to be an ideological position to restrict as far as possible any statements that imply any independence (with a small i) regardless of the facts. Some of that seems to be motivated by creating precedents over Northern Ireland/The Six Counties however the pages on Wales and Scotland are not the place to resolve those. --Snowded (talk) 06:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Snowded, I think we all believe compromise is possible. They key thing is working out what we want to say, and why we're trying to say it.
I'm honestly not interested in POV, either unionist or nationalist. I simply want the present reality to be described as accurately & objectively as possible, without value judgements or undue weight given to particular aspects of it (which itself can support subtle POV).
I was worried about the use of the term "independent ties" - independence is a loaded word, open to interpretation and mis-interpretation (what was it Humpty Dumpty said to Alice, "whenever I use a word it means exactly what I choose it to mean, nothing more and nothing less"!) While WAG has undoubtedly increased its direct links to Brussels post-devolution, the UK is a unitary entity in the EU decision-making bodies and adopts a single negotiating position on EU policy questions, such as the future of Structural Funds[4]
I think we will be on safe territory if we try to use, as far as possible, words that WAG itself has used to describe its relationship with/representation in the EU. Check out the Word document here[5]Pondle (talk) 11:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
How about "direct ties" and avoid the independent word? No political overtones and an accurate description. We could also use "making direct submissions on budgetary matters" which would match the web site your quoted. --Snowded (talk) 12:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy with "direct links/ties" but I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the budget review submission - the paper I linked to is a consultation response to the European Commission, WAG submits similar consultation responses to other bodies (mainly to reviews and reports by the UK Government, public enquiries and bodies like the Sustainable Development Commission). The EU Budget itself (as distinct from the long-term Budget Review in my link) is drafted by the Commission then decided on by the EU Council, which refers it onto the European Parliament and then back to the Council. At least that's what I *think* happens!Pondle (talk) 10:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Looks like we close to an agreement - Matt, are you happy with this? --Snowded (talk) 10:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
"Direct" instead of "independent" is fine - misunderstanding that word was clearly the main problem. We can always look at it further after the change. As it's late I'll do it now. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I modified your change to the article to say "direct" rather than "independent", assume you intended that, but editing late at night is never easy! --Snowded (talk) 23:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - I meant to use "ties" and "links" - I probably did it to the diff I took if from. It's late, like you say. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I made a few minor additions to clarify - I don't believe they effect the meaning of the sentence. I'm happy to discuss further revisions next time I'm able to edit. While we're at it, do we have to mention "closer links with business"? I know that WAG has its Business Partnership Council[6] and the Government of Wales Act mandates them to consult with business (and other stakeholders), but in reality, business bodies don't like much of WAG's policy agenda, especially their position on Private Finance Initiative, Public-private partnership and markets in public service provision generally [7]Pondle (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The "international bodies" has gone. The EU was originally one example of it. I'll make a slight adjustment. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I've tried this:
"Today, Wales continues to share political and legal structures to varying degrees with the United Kingdom, while now maintaining more direct ties with various international bodies and the business world.[3][4] The Assembly Government has also increased its direct links with the European Union, although foreign policy remains the reserved responsibility of the UK Government.[5][6]"
I'll look for another "international bodies" link to give it weight. I'll find another positive business ref too. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Business issues / Amazon ref in the Intro

What's the purpose of the Amazon reference here? We've had other big inward investments before and after devolution - Ford, Sony, LG. I'm not sure what it does to explain 'closer ties to the business world'. If the investment was supported by ESF, well they were managed by the Welsh Office before devolution - there's been little change in that sense.[8]

I'm generally nervous of making too much of the Assembly's links with business. If you had no knowledge of Wales and read this sentence so early in the article, you might start to think that Wales was some kind of bastion of free market neoliberalism. But in reality, 3 of the 4 major parties in the Assembly opposed public service reform, the Private Finance Initiative and Public-private partnerships in Wales.[9] Pondle (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

(It currently says "more direct ties" - 'closer' was removed)
An immediate connection between 'business' and 'free market neoliberalism' is not something I personally make - but I have been a businessman while remaining a socialist too. I haven't had much time today but I will look for some better refs. The Amazon ref mentions the WAG being involved in bringing them over - and it's no small deal. I don't mind carrying on until the line (and article) is at its best at all - but I don't personally think that people will be seeing Wales as an EU member state, or a capitalist haven, just from reading these lines mentioning the EU and business! I also think the WAG (which I voted for) after a shaky start has been coming good. Re those policies - Wales was always left wing. For me, "more direct links" is just an obvious fact with the WAG - and it's what devolution is all about. I'm not trying to exaggerate anything. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
To be honest Matt, I don't really know what you're trying to say with your line 'more direct ties' with the business world - are you talking about the Assembly's policy stance on economic development? [10] Business support policy specifically?[11] The 'business scheme' that is part of the Government of Wales Act?[12] Or something else entirely? And are you really sure that any of these are notable enough for the Intro?
Re: Amazon, yes, it's a sizable project, but there's nothing unique about it. Attracting inward investors has been a major part of economic development policy in Wales since the 1970s! All the Assembly's functions in this regard were previously carried out by the Welsh Office and the Welsh Development Agency, and there is also a UK-wide agency which markets the UK overseas and seeks to attract foreign investment - UK Trade & Investment[13] Pondle (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Pondle, sorry I've been waylaid. I was in town yesterday in Cardiff and walked through the central development: it must be close to doubling the size in terms of shopping, which is sizable anyway as I'm sure you know. It will certainly be one of the very top shopping cities in the UK (and Europe, outside of the major capitals) when it is done. In terms of office space and large companies, the train ride from Queen street to Central is like one I took through the London docks development in the 90's - the buildings of the last decade have literally been built around the track. And we have our own large 'Bay' development of course (where the Assembly resides), and all the business estates around the suburbs (the once-smallish one where I grew up in Llanishen now has shopping with it and all manner of large companies). And that's just Cardiff. Newport looked a lot stronger when I was up there last. It would be interesting to what see the Swansea centre looks like these days. I just think a line explaining all this is needed.
The current line is 'general' I admit - but it just strikes me that "more direct ties/links" is the case with all these matters: perhaps we just need a the right group of examples. Some of those links you have given could be used, as could the WEFO one. I'll look at improving the links today - maybe the text if I can think of something better. The Amazon example probably won't been needed if enough acronyms are in line. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Matt, Cardiff (and more recently Swansea and Newport) are amongst many British cities that have experienced regeneration and renewed population growth over the last few years - see for example DCLG's State of the English Cities report.[14][15] The main reason for this has been the positive macroeconomic environment (i.e. the 'nice decade' of non-inflationary constant expansion) and a booming property market.)[16][17]
Undoubtedly WAG - and before them, the Welsh Office, WDA, and Cardiff Bay Development Corporation played a big role in urban renewal in Wales. However, most of the recent developments in Cardiff city centre have been market-led rather than driven by the public sector. For example, 'St David's 2' is a joint development between Land Securities and Capital Shopping Centres. Even the Marina Tower in Swansea (a city where commercial office development is uneconomic without public sector support) is a purely private sector scheme. Pondle (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I go with that to a point, but you must have an existing 'climate' (as well as a future one to build into for 'countdown 2009' etc) - I'm sure Cardiff has certainly exceeded most (if not all) other UK cities over recent years. Markets don't just build anywhere. I couldn't personally divide the two factors, though I'm sure they can be separated. The extension connecting Bute Street and St Mary Street where they moved the Bute statue too, and the Dutch bank ING built an large block - those type of space-creating developments surely needed decisions (in quantity and weight) that the Welsh Office and council will have found less easy to make than the WAG has.
I'm putting the new refs up (you have found some excellent ones) - what do you think? Remember the phrase says "more direct links" (not necessarily 'better' links): so if inward funding now goes through the Welsh Assembly Gov instead of the Welsh Office (say through WEFO), and the WAG is more 'direct' than the WO (surely the case - however the actual extent of it) - then the phrase fits in a funding capacity. If WAG is involved in a deal such as Amazon (as Rhodri Morgan essentially boasts)- even if it may have been through the WO before - the phrase fits in that capacity too. Certainly the Assembly government has more prestige, money and manpower than the WO to deal with, well, everything. Who knows what guarantees they offer too.--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
In terms of 'guarantees' they can offer to investors, the Assembly Governent is constrained by the same state aid rules as its predecessors.[18] Also remember that macroeconomic issues - fiscal and economic policy, trade & industry, employment law, social security, immigration etc. are reserved matters.
Re: the WAG finding it 'easier' to facilitate inward investment - I think that's highly debatable. The CBI argued that the abolition of the WDA was likely to slow decision-making (the UK Civil Service tends to be very bureaucratic and process-oriented).[19] Former WDA staff have criticised the running of the post-merger economic development department.[20]
Yes Cardiff is a relatively prosperous city, although Wales as a whole is at the bottom of the average earnings table. See the GVA per head comparisons here.[21] A recent article in The Economist said we'd grown more slowly than any other UK region over the past decade![22]
Something tells me you're not a huge fan, Pondle! Even Cardiff has always been low wage compared to England (don't I know it). I think the sentence is ok now: we could argue over 'good or bad' (and show criticisms) all day: but clearly there are "more direct links/ties" since devolution (and the WAG isn't a choice that's on offer - its embedded and not going anywhere, lets face it).--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I would say keep those criticisms in the relevant section. The Intro doesn't say "the WAG is perfect!" - it just briefly mentions "more direct ties" with international bodies and business. And we have the EU on another line so we can mention "reserved matters". It's hardly a Saatchi and Saatchi advert for the WAG!--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Matt, I'm not trying to use the article to express a value judgement - though (like everyone) I have my own inherent biases. I guess the essence of my argument is that I believe that WAG's statutory duty to consult the business community where the exercise of the Assembly functions impacts on the interests of business is a little too specific/obscure for the Intro. Personally, I would like the intro to be as brief and succinct as possible, expanding on points of detail elsewhere in the article. However, if the majority of other editors like the present text then it's not a point I'll push ad infinitum. I'm a reasonable guy! Pondle (talk) 10:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree we all have underlying opinions - we stick around particular articles precisely because of an interest that invariably involves opinions. I think we've done pretty well on this part of the Intro. Wales can confuse people 'politically' there is no doubt about that, be we've made things pretty clear without wasting too much space at all. We've given a reasonable idea of what Wales can/does and cannot/doesn't do. Re-reading the Intro, I think it gives a fair overall appraisal of Wales, though still needs work in parts of course. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Anthem officiality

Certainly Wales has no national anthem by royal decree or any act of government (as far as I'm aware), but then nor does the United Kingdom as a whole. Should "God save the Queen" be marked as unofficial on the UK page? Or what does it mean for an anthem to be official? garik (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you prefer de facto instead of unofficial?WikipÉire ♣ 16:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Garik brings a good point about God save the Queen being official. How is an anthem made official? More to the point, why don't we leave it without any additional comment because there's no comment stating that an anthem is official on any other country page. Seems like another attempt to patronise Wales. Welshleprechaun (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Please assume good faith. It is about getting a neutral point of view. It is there because it says about the anthem on its own article page. Though it has no official or legal status, Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau is recognised and used as an anthem at both national and local events in Wales That has to be acknowledged. Either unofficial or de facto should be mentioned. If you want to edit the UK page thats your own matter.WikipÉire ♣ 17:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Who says it has to be acknowledged? You? or someone more official? An anthem is an anthem Welshleprechaun (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
It's called a neutral point of view. Its a pillar of wikipedia. People's opinion on things does not override fact. Wanting to ignore a fact is pov.WikipÉire ♣ 17:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I see no problem with saying "de facto"; but it does look as if the same should be added to the United Kingdom page. Before anyone goes ahead and does that, however, does anyone know if there is any official difference in status between God Save the Queen and Hen Wlad fy Nhadau (independent of the difference in status between the UK and Wales)? garik (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
There are no official anthems in the UK. [23] [24]. It's tradition more than anything, so the answer to your question would be, there is no official difference in status as neither are official. Jack forbes (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The United Kingdom's anthem is God Save the Queen; that covers the entire sovereign state (thus including Wales). GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
God Save The Queen isn't official either! Its the defacto anthem of the uk. I'm sure GSTQ is not the anthem of the nation of Wales. For example when they're playing rugby or football gstq isn't played. That makes whatever is played the de facto anthem of the nation. So whats there is correct.WikipÉire ♣ 21:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Holy smokers, if ever there was a sovereign state with multiple identities? the UK is it. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
We seem to be having exactly the same discussion here at Scotland.--Cameron (T|C) 20:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Official Welsh Government bodies refer to Hen Wlad fy Nhadau as "the Welsh National Anthem" here, here, and here. Seems conclusive to me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It being the anthem isn't it doubt, its whether its official or not. Due to lack of legislation and law about this it saying de facto is correct.WikipÉire ♣ 21:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Quite, but "official" is not necessarily the same as "the UK Government says...". What the Welsh Assembly Government says is (at least) equally "official" on a matter such as this. And I think some other editors do show a certain amount of doubt on the question of whether it is the anthem... Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
If you could find a source from the Welsh assembly that confirms it as official I would agree with you. Jack forbes (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I find it increasingly difficult to accept Wikipeire's edits as good faith, there seems to be an agenda here of some type. Not many countries have a law to state what their national anthem is. If it is sung at all sporting events, the opening of WAG etc. then it is the national anthem. It is hypocritical to amend it here, and not do the same for God Save the Queen. Putting in "official" or "unofficial" is unnecessary. The info box simply states what the national anthem is. I cannot believe we are having to deal with this degree of pettiness on this page. --Snowded (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree trying to making it factually correct and have a NPOV is an agenda. It doesn't say official/unofficial. If it is sung at all sporting events, the opening of WAG etc. then it is the national anthem. Exactly the de facto national anthem!!! Thats what it means!WikipÉire ♣ 09:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Incredibly Wikipiere has amended the UK page to add in "de facto" so the charge of hypocrisy is reduced, but we are now in Alice in Wonderland territory. Can we deal with this quickly? We have as a result of Wikipiere and a sock puppet wasted a huge amount of time on issues of language (the removal of official/unofficial was accepted there by the way), country and now anthem and motto. This is not about a neutral point of view, any more than the other debates were. Its either pedantry, ego,perversity or a political agenda, none of it is about fact. --Snowded (talk) 01:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
That is diagraceful. That is unbelivably uncivil. Hmm. Hopefully for your sake an admin isn't looking at those comments. By the way I didn't make that edit! [25]WikipÉire ♣ 09:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I think my comments were mild by your standards. Sorry I consider your acts here to be petty vandalism - and the latest in a set of such changes. I am very happy for an admin to check back through the history --Snowded (talk) 11:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
One potential misunderstanding here is that the constitution and legal practice in the UK is not solely confined to statute. Precedence and practice are recognised by the courts. God Save the Queen, first performed in the 18thC has never been subject to legislation, but it does not need to be within the British legal system. It is performed in front of the Monarch and on all state occasions, it is the National Anthem of the United Kingdom. The Welsh national anthem starts in the late 19thC and is similarly established by precedent. Further evidence of the role of convention is given at National anthem which states "An anthem can become a country's national anthem by a provision in the country's constitution, by a law enacted by its legislature or simply by tradition" --Snowded (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
And that's the exact meaning of de facto! What are you trying to debate here?WikipÉire ♣ 09:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Could we all please calm down? First of all, it was me, not Wikipéire, who changed "unofficial" to "de facto". And I'm no sock puppet — even if my feet do smell a bit. Anyway, I certainly don't always agree with Wikipéire. That said, it certainly seems that all the national anthems used in the United Kingdom are established de facto rather than de jure. This seems to me to be an interesting fact, which does nothing to diminish their status. If anything, it enhances their status: it implies that they're more grass-roots, rather than being imposed on the nation by government fiat. Well, that might be an over-Romantic interpretation, but you get the idea! The point is that there's very little to debate here. The only question is whether it's worth mentioning the fact in the infobox. It seems it me that it is: first, it's an interesting fact that some people might not know; second, the United Kingdom infobox includes the same point about the English language. Writing "(de facto)" doesn't take up much space and tells the reader something they might not have known previously. That's my take anyway. garik (talk) 10:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want to go through every page and change all national anthems which are not established by law to "de factor" then you might have a case. However it is a fact that most national anthems are established by tradition, in the case of Wales over 100 years. To say that "qualified by tradition" is the same thing as de facto is to mangle the meaning of language. It shows gross ignorance of the precedent basis of British Law. For the moment I think there is a clear position in fact. If people think that defacto should be added then they should debate and agree that on the {{National anthem]] page and create a common agreement. For the moment it is petty minded to make Wales an exception. --Snowded (talk) 10:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I certainly agree that Wales should not be an exception. I made exactly that point at the top of this section. But I'm afraid I disagree that this does show gross ignorance of the precedent basis of British law (we should really say English law — modern Welsh law being based on that, as distinct from Scots law). The national anthems of Britain have not been established, as far as I know (and I'm open to being corrected) by judicial precedent. There is certainly an analogy to be made, but the situation is slightly different. And I also disagree that to say that the anthems are established de facto is "to mangle the meaning of language". Wikipedia may not be the most reliable source, but its definition of de facto seems pretty good to me, and the status of the national anthems of Britain (as well as those of many other countries) seems to fall under that definition. But I see no problem with raising the question on the national anthem page. I, for one, would be interested to know what countries have their anthems specified in law. As you imply, it's not a matter of great import: it boils down essentially to whether we want to include a small bit of information or leave it out. I find such information interesting. Many clearly don't! garik (talk) 11:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I am happy to agree with you that it is English Law. I will also freely confess that my initial irritation with this was the use of "unofficial" on top of similar attempts the designate the Welsh Language as "unofficial" and to describe a country as an "area". That is to say I was reacting to a stream of edits which to my mind sought to denigrate Wales, its people and culture. De facto is more innocuous but I think unnecessary. If it was to be adopted consistently there would be a lot of investigation needed on each country page. However at the moment Wales and the United Kingdom are now exceptions, despite many other countries having official anthems that have not been established by legislation. In these circumstances the proper procedure would be to debate it o the talk page of National anthem and in the mean time revert Wales and United Kingdom back to their state of a few months ago before all this (the anthem is just the latest episode of a saga) began pending resolution on National anthem --Snowded (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Where are you getting this despite many other countries having official anthems that have not been established by legislation. The one example you me was Sweden. And even that's infobox mentions thats it not the official anthem. Wales is not in some minority displaying de facto. It is seen in infoboxes everywhere!WikipÉire ♣ 12:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Funny how none of these countries' national anthems show any sign of being official or de facto, neither on the country page nor the anthem page:

...I could go on. Although it is mentioned that South Korea's Aegukga isn't legally recognised, there's no notation on the country page. Other anthems which are official have no notation on their respective country's page, which they should if you want non-official anthems (or anthem - just Wales', as seems to be Wikipéire's agenda) to be displayed as de facto, otherwise you are giving Undue Weight. Welshleprechaun (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC

I agree, Wales seems to have singled out over the last month for a series of these edits. Starting with the insertion of comments like "unofficial". The real place for this discussion is elsewhere. National anthem in effect states that anthems can be established by law (common when a new state is set up such as Italy) or by tradition (the UK, Wales etc). If Wikipiere wants to have that changed then (I hesitate to suggest this) he should edit that page and engage in the discussion. The conclusion there can then be implemented on other pages including this one. In the meantime, under no circumstances should "unofficial" be allowed back in and the use of "defacto" is at least dubious. For the moment Wales seems to have been picked off for some reason to make a point. --Snowded (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like you could do with playing one of these Snowded.WikipÉire ♣ 20:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Too true, playing the violin would introduce peace and harmony after the cacophony of a Gen Y Indie Rock fan --Snowded (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Intervention

Has any requested administrator intervention either for the anthem dispute? Welshleprechaun (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Do we need one on the way the Wales page is being used systematically for what appear other agendas? --Snowded (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

de facto again

The word had been removed from the United Kingdom page and I think we need consistency. I would propose removing it, for the reasons stated above. As it wasn't just our dearly departed second sock puppet who supported the change I am asking here first for opinions. --Snowded (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I supported our dearly departed sock puppet, but if you want to remove it I'm not too bothered. Jack forbes (talk) 23:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Nor am I. I have to say the issue isn't going to keep me up at night. garik (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Get rid of it. It's annoying all of us Welshleprechaun (talk) 18:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Literature

Its a bit of a disgrace that we have nothing here, given the richness of the tradition. How about a brainstorm here? It would be nice for this page to be occupied with improving the article rather than defence against the dark arts sock puppets such as He who shall not be named. I'll start in a partial date order, please add in the list add comment here --Snowded (talk) 02:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The Welsh Academy encyclopedia has a very long article on this, as you might expect. They start off with the early Welsh verse of Taliesin and Aneirin, talk about 9th and 10th century saga poetry, William Morgan's translation of the Bible and a whole range of 18th, 19th and 20th century authors. Don't forget the article on Anglo-Welsh literature either.Pondle (talk) 11:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

We have a List of Welsh writers, which I have added as a See link for under Literature. It is very incomplete. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Welsh_novelists seems to be more complete. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I have proposed moving "Welsh Literature" to "Literature in Wales", as the article is about Welsh and English language literature, not just Welsh language as it seems to suggest. The Introductions was confusing (the content is clearly all Welsh-language literature) - I've now proposed making Welsh Literature a disambiguation page to Welsh-language literature and Anglo-Welsh literature (which as Pondle says, already exists, though is very small.) --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Provisional list of welsh authors

Resolve Constituent Country or Country

  • Option 1 Country
  1. Snowded
  2. Jack forbes
  3. Welshleprechaun


  • Option 2 Constituent Country
  1. GoodDay
  2. Wikipéire
  3. Signsolid —Preceding comment was added at 23:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  4. Kman543210


  • Option 3 Country within a country [26]

"Wales is a country within the United Kingdom...."

  1. MickMacNee (talk) 23:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Even thought we can discount Wikipéire I think it would be fair to say that it is best left as Constituent country, that will also resolve issues in England and prevent GoodDay bursting out in tears  :-) --Snowded (talk) 03:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I am voting to keep it as "constituent country." I said the same in the discussion on the England talk page that I don't consider it a country for many reasons, but "constituent" is pretty well explained, as well as I realize the country can be a broad term. You can find legitimate sources to back up all points of view because it's just arguing semantics. Personally, I think it can be misleading or confusing to just have the sentence say "Wales is a country" with saying "within the UK". Kman543210 (talk) 04:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. The article had been constituent country, and Snowded's last comment was "I think it would be fair to say that it is best left as Constituent country," but it was just removed by that same editor? I thought we were just going to leave it as constituent country? Kman543210 (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there - call Wales whatever you like! I think saying that 'Wales is a country within the United Kingdom' is a form of words that prevents giving the impression that Wales is an independent country, but at the same time avoids the needs for the artificial phrase 'constituent country'. However, if you really want to describe Wales as a constituent country, I assume that you will want to change the use of the word 'country' on all occasions it is used to describe Wales in this article. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely not. The article was stable the way it was before it was changed today. There's no need to use constituent throughout the article; it was used in the first sentence, and the rest of the article was fine. Please don't think I'm stirring up trouble, as I was not making any changes to the Scotland or Wales (just changed back once after it was changed); someone else was in an edit war in the Scotland article. I'm just restating my opinion based on what I remember the previous discussions being. I shan't be thinking about Wikipedia whilst sleeping tonight, so it's really not a big thing and is up to the group. Kman543210 (talk) 14:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I am still confused how we discussed this and how it's been constituent country for such a long time, but now all of a sudden it's being changed without discussion. Here are all the references for the use of constituent country in the text, some from the UK government: [[27]][[28]][[29]][[30]][[31]][[32]][[33]][[34]][[35]][[36]][[37]][[38]][[39]][[40]][[41]] [[42]] [[43]][[44]] These are just several examples where they are not just called countries, but constituent countries. I think it should be reverted back to what it was yesterday, constituent country. Kman543210 (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to get some consistency between Wales, Scotland and Ireland. In effect I am being bold by combining country and constituent country using a hot link. Scotland has just country as does England, Wales has constituent country and is thus an anomaly. The previous vote includes a sock puppet by the way. I will not revert for the moment, but open up to discussion. By the way, you say " we discussed this", does that mean you engaged in the previous discussion under another name? (sorry my mistake, just saw your May edit) --Snowded (talk) 21:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I only have one name. I only have one comment from May 24th, but I meant "we" as in the group (I don't tend to get involved in heated debates because I'm not an argumentative type; last time it seemed pretty heated). Even you stated, "think it would be fair to say that it is best left as Constituent country", so that's why I was confused. I thought we couldn't come up with 100% agreement, so that's why we kept it as constituent country. I do remember that much of the debate was whether it should even be country, but most agreed that the word country was fine, and I think at least half wanted to keep constituent. Again, I shall go along with consensus, but even the UK government does use constituent countries. And to reiterate a previous post of mine, I think using that term once in the introduction is fine, and then the term constituent country doesn't need to be used again in the article. Kman543210 (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

RIP Constituent country

Sniff sniff, it appears this term is being rejected. GoodDay (talk) 23:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Just found another intesting reliable source about this: [45]. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  16:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Just noting that I've been made aware of this part of the discussion page, but think I'll abstain. I have no strong preference for either term (at this stage!). --Jza84 |  Talk  00:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm abstaining too. I prefer "constituent country" of the two (I don't see anything wrong with it, and it has a useful explanatory element that "country" doesn't have) - but it's not something I would want to get in an edit exchange over, and I feel a bit awkward adding my name to a list about this. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"Country within a country" wording proposal

Come look see here and vote. MickMacNee (talk) 02:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Editors need to be aware that a consensus is being built on Talk:United Kingdom to replace reference to Wales as a country with the following phrase "Wales is a semi-autonomous constituent subdivision of the United Kingdom occupying the west of the island of Great Britain" --Snowded (talk) 00:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


if Wales will no longer be referred to as a country then some people might take offence to that. It is an accepted legaly that the four nations of the United Kingdom be referred to as 'constituent countries'.Ryanofwales (talk) 01:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

you need to contribute to the discussion on mediation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-06-22_United_Kingdom

Rank by population

"This would make Wales the 132nd largest country by population if it were a sovereign state." - does this take into account that if Wales were a sovereign state, likely so would be England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland? --Random832 (contribs) 02:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point, but "likely so would be England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland" is not necessarily so. The article is correct on this point as it stands. It would make it a bit confusing to add the E/S/NI (and any other) possibilities. Dai caregos (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
It might be more meaningful to compare Wales with other European countries with similar sized populations? --Snowded (talk) 23:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia: Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-22 United Kingdom

I hope ya'll can give us your imput. GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

New Official Coat of Arms!

The heraldic badge of Wales Herald Extraordinary which depicts the Cross of Neith atop a Welsh Talaith, logically that of Llywelyn.

love it! The Arms of the Princely Aberffraw Family representing Wales! I would like to add this here, but dont know yet about the copyright issues. (this was my post from earlier, hehe) ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 13:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Pitty that crown is on the top! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.56.50 (talk) 02:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

With independence it can be replaced by Llywelyn's coronet with the Cross of Neath as well. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 16:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we need an auto-archiving bot?

Is it wise having a 30 day 'auto' archive, when discussions have literally been left on hold for periods even longer than a month(!) - mainly due to the endless arguments over 'naming' technicalities that have inflicted Wales in direct succession. Take away those arguments, and the page is easy to archive when needed - it was never remotely fast-moving up until it suddenly got sock infested. The entire Wales archive has more than doubled in size since April - in just 3 months!

I suggest removing the bot, and doing it manually via Talk when eventually needed, with giving maybe a week or so for people to 'refresh' any sections made before a certain date - which I've seen work elewhere (and have done myself) many times. Using 'collapsible archive boxes' for certain concluded discussions that got too long, is another alternative that could be used in the future. IMO, bots should only be used on admin stuff, user space, and the article talk pages which couldn't survive without them, like Barack Obama etc. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent archiving

When archiving the recent debate on country (as requested by Keeper), I've changed the archives back to a manual procedure - when things get back to normal we shouldn't need the bot. Manually is easier for naming archives, and archiving single debates too. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Map

Avoiding the above discussion... I must ask, do we really need the second map? The first map is in use at Scotland, and I'd like to propose it become the sole map here. Honestly, I'd just like to see a single map here. The double maps is confusing and (as far as I can tell) unique. -MichiganCharms (talk) 07:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree the first map is enough --Snowded (talk) 09:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I also agree that the second map is rather pointless.Pureditor 12:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe that showing Wales in the greater context of Europe is important. It showes Wales' posotion within the context of Europe and within the European Union♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 16:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Wales is barely even discernable on the second map. Pondle (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete the second map , where Wales is in Europe isn't important as where the UK is in Europe. GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that there should only be one map. Chances are though, that those who know where the British Isles are, probably know where Wales is. Whereas, someone who doesn't know where Wales is, is much less likely to recognise a map of the British Isles. Some other countries use a single multi map (the Monaco article is a good example), which would be worth considering. Dai caregos (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
While I agree we should delete the second map I wish to record my profound disagreement with the comment by User talk:GoodDay), much as I respect him/her as an editor. --Snowded (talk) 21:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I didn't know GoodDay was an editor? (only joking, GD, I expect they are in your Canadian interests or elsewhere!). I tend to click on images to view them - they are all basically thumbnails. Doing it doesn't offer much though! My main problem is that the colour orange changes context over the pictures. My old geography would have given a straight 0/10 for doing that, especially without a discernable key. If it wasn't for that I'd put up with the size. Ideally to me, the first one would be closer (and have some place names on it for those who clicked on it) and the second one would be a somewhere the middle of these two.
Maybe the first one could instead be the political map that is currently a bit lower down the page, and the second one could be the first map here, maybe with some labels photoshopped on (Europe, maybe France, Ireland and the UK countries would be enough)? Neither of these two are labelled at all. Because of Wales' position and small size, having two maps is fair enough imo, though I agree the second one here isn't great.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I do now see how it comes across, therefore I apologies for any offense I've unintentionally caused to you (Snowded) & to everybody. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey you are one of the good guys! No offence was taken --Snowded (talk) 22:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree, the second map seems pointless, and in any case the difference between dark orange and red is too subtle to see; so even if we would want a second map, this version is not very helpful. Arnoutf (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
It looks like there is consensus for the removal of the 2nd map. Might as well do it now to speed along the consensus building of the first map.Pureditor 23:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


In view of the fact that Pureditor has been shown to be a sockpuppet, it seems reasonable to re-open discussion on this subject. We should be able to improve on the map shown on the Wales article. Looking back, it seemed unanimous that we only show one map. However, before we agreed on any one choice, Pureditor seems to have taken the decision for us. For example, the maps on the Andorra, Liechtenstein and Monaco articles are of a much higher quality than the one chosen for us. We should agree changes before those changes are made. Any thoughts? Daicaregos (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

i like the Monaco example you suggested before. That way we could show Wales within Europe as well as the UK, in effect combining the two that used to exist. --Snowded TALK 16
57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure of the next step now. Sadly, the creator of the Monaco & Andorra maps has a notice on his talk page saying 'No more map requests'. I posted requests for help/advice on two separate Admin's pages, but neither even had the courtesy to acknowledge the request, let alone to reply. So, does anyone have any idea where to go, and/or who to ask instead. The Monaco & Andorra maps look really good, and ours doesn't. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 13:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
You might try here --Snowded TALK 13:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Good thinking. I've put in the request. I may not happen soon, though. There are unactioned requests there from 2005 to date. Daicaregos (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The new map is on the main page now. All credit to User:Kmusser, who's done us proud, fair play. What do you think? Daicaregos (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The new map is good it would look good on the england page, northern ireland & the scotland page --89.240.246.101 (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Edward I and the Conquest of Wales

It is generally accepted, and stated in this article, that Edward I conquered Wales. But is that actually true?

As I understand it, it was only the Principality of Wales that was made part of the Kingdom of England by the Statute of Rhuddlan, enacted on 3 March 1284, not the whole of Wales. The Principality comprised just two thirds of Wales, mainly in the north.

These territories did not include a substantial swathe of land from Pembrokeshire through south Wales to the Welsh Borders which was largely in the hands of the Marcher Lords and were not subject to English law.

So, is it correct to say that Edward 'conquered Wales'? Jongleur100 (talk) 09:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It might be more accurate to say "completed the Norman conquest of Wales". The term Principality does not really apply the the pre-Edwardian position by the way. --Snowded (talk) 09:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. But I get tired of reading 'Edward conquered Wales' In my dictionary the word 'conquer' is defined as 'to gain control of by force'
He only did this in the north and north-west. Nitpicking, maybe, but most of the south remained largely independent of the Crown until the Laws in Wales Act 1535. I should have written 'principality' with a small 'p'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jongleur100 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Worth a change, although Wales was conquered, just by several people over a century or two! Edward also used the welsh princes against each other and it was a lot more than the north and north west. The territory is that covered by the Treaty of Mongomery and included most of mid Wales and a large proportion of the south. --Snowded (talk) 10:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Strangely enough, the article doesn't include the word 'Norman'. Maybe it should read something like : 'The 13th Century defeat of Llewelyn by Edward I completed the Norman conquest of Wales and brought about centuries of English occupation'. What do you think? Jongleur100 (talk) 10:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I really like that, although you may attract the Unionist POV guys with the final sentence. --Snowded (talk) 10:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Opening para (again!)

I'm going to reopen discussion on an old chestnut in the opening para - the references to the Assembly's "business ties". I compromised on this before, but the more I look at this, the less I like it.

  • Yes, business support policy is a devolved matter, but I see no reason to priviledge it over other devolved matters such as health policy or town planning or anything other aspect of public policy that doesn't get a mention.
  • Yes, the Assembly has a business partnership council,[46] but it also has a partnership with the voluntary sector.[47] On what basis should one devolved matter or form of partnership be mentioned and not another? I don't think that this lives up to WP:UNDUE or follows the guidelines at WP:LEAD Pondle (talk) 15:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
How about "...direct ties with various international bodies, xxx (or xxx, xxx) and the business world." That could deal with any 'undue' (in terms of it being more evenly weighted). Notability is fine, imo - is there any specific (or other) way it fails WP:LEAD? --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
IMO it fails WP:UNDUE as I explain above - "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement". I don't think we should be singling out a particular devolved matter or interest group for special emphasis in the lead. The choice seems purely subjective.
Why it fails WP:LEAD IMO - "the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article... Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article... the relative emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject". Pondle (talk) 16:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
What do you think of my suggestion? We do both disagree on the importance of the Assembly to Wales, but for me it's simply here and is clearly notable. We just have to get it right. I thought you could look at filling in the extra words as you've been thinking about it (and know a lot about governmental workings too). How about "... more direct ties with domestic matters, various international bodies, and the business world." Can you work on that? --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I think you're missing my point. The Assembly is here and is notable - no argument from me on that! - but you shouldn't give undue weight to one devolved matter over any others, especially in the lead section of the Wales article. I'm happy to include more detail on business support policy or any other aspect of economic development in Politics of Wales or Economy of Wales if you are anyone else feels that coverage is inadequate, but I don't think it belongs in the lead. Pondle (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be coming from two angles. Maybe I'm confused? You seem to me to be suggesting that it is 'undue' in the sense that other factors need to be there to balance it (so I suggest putting them in). But you also seem to be saying it is not notable enough for the Introduction (which is why I wrote the above - I think is, as needs to be got right). --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Once you single out one particular devolved matter or one particular interest group, as is the current position, then you're giving undue weight; two possible solutions:
a. either list them all - becoming cumbersome and blowing WP:LEAD apart completely;
b. delete or demote (which I favour).Pondle (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
We don't have to list them all! There are collective nouns in this world. I'll search for them as soon as I can, but I can't help feeling that you could do it a lot more easily than I could. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a courteous note that I added a tag about the sprawling lead to the article (without actually seeing this healthy discussion). There's a bit of a trend at the moment to cram everything into the leads of all things "British Isles" (scare quotes intentional!) - we need to get into the habit of letting go of/saving some material for the main article. What that material should be is, well, upto you fine folk, but I'm noting my opinion that the lead is in a bad way at the moment and needs a a trim, if not a pretty significant rewrite. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This is just your subjective opinion - and this discussion is a lot less healthy now such a biased admin has got involved. What are you up to? Apart from the now-resolved 'country' issue and this Assembly issue (mostly just myself and Pondle), this parag has been stable for months. Why did you not look at Talk before putting the template in? It looks massively provocative. With you coming from the UK (as has Pondle come to think of it) this looks appalling. You've suddenly got the hump about these intro's - you never had it before. And you seem to be buzzing around a couple of editors who share your view - I notice you just awarded one of them "the right to Rollback". I don't know about anyone else, but it looks really bad to me. Your template on Wales was a unnecessary blot to the article - so I've reverted it.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Quite right, this is my subjective opinion, I freely admit, but... I don't think that it's "just" my subjective opinion (implying it's a totally void concern). My subjective opinion is actually based on WP:LEAD - part of our style guide - which stipulates that we need a maximum of four paragraphs. That's discounting some other peripheral issues like overlinking and over citation which I said, is over to you folks. No need to be quite so defensive - I was just trying to help.... Jesus. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree ML. The tone of your post is overly reactive, and should be more proactive. I've seen you contribute very positively to this article and I know you'll continue to do so, please don't let emotion and, what I can only read as a "paranoia of collusion" (what does granting rollback have to do with any of this?) otherwise adversely affect your positive contribs. Keeper ǀ 76 21:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I did freak a bit, but the template looked horrible. I might be paranoid about the Rollback thing, but the editor it was given too didn't look that great to me (a personal opinion) and he just happened to back up Jza on the UK Intro drama yesterday (as did Pondle) - it was just an unfortunate combination, perhaps. I agree that we can do the Intro in here - it doesn't need the template. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for slowing down on the "freaking" :-) Your cleanup efforts look good on first glance, nice work. By the way, I just gave you rollback rights, ML. They are entirely trivial, inconsequential, and have developed a reputation of "being a big deal" because an admin has to grant them. They are to be used quite infrequently for vandalism reverts only. If anyone else here wants rollback rights, let me know, I'll grant 'em. Snowded? Anyone? Whoever! It doesn't mean that I will require you to agree with anything and everything I say on any talkpage. Only most things :-) Keeper ǀ 76 21:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thanks Keeper - but I have rollback rights, got them for cleaning up vandalism on Knowledge Management, but the offer is appreciated as is your engagement. --Snowded TALK 21:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Rollback isn't a great deal, it's just a tool, like adminship. Red Hat is a great editor, who's been with us ages. On the flipside I wouldn't grant anyone who is abusive to other users the right to rollback. Would you? (Rhetorical!) --Jza84 |  Talk  21:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Who's Red Hat? And who decides what's "abusive?" If they go quietly into the night, reverting vandalism to their hearts content instead of abusing other editors, who wins? Also all rhetorical. Except the first. Who's Red Hat? Keeper ǀ 76 21:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Well I decide what's abusive to me, and convention and policy mixed in with commonsense informs me (personally) how I respond to that abuse (sorry couldn't help responding, for clarity!). By Red Hat I mean User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick - I think he's a respectable user. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I've removed it again. Jza, this template has obviously stirred up some strong feelings, readding it is not the way to work the strong feelings back down. I agree the lead is cumbersome. Give constructive advice, or make the changes, don't do drive-by tagging please. Keeper ǀ 76 20:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I think a lot of us are still recovering from the extended discussions over the first paragraph. Otherwise I think it would be useful to tidy up the rest of the lede and some advise would be useful so that we can work on it. Just please don't touch that first paragraph again ... --Snowded TALK 21:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anyone disagrees that the lead needs more work. It's cumbersome, has LEAD issues, too many refs, too much minutia. Just no changes to the first sentence anymore, at least for a while :-) Keeper ǀ 76 21:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I've done some very basic cleanup work on it - I've simply lifted it into 4 parags (per WP:LEAD), and removed the line with "citation needed" (The one on 'cultural revival - as I've failed to find a decent ref for it). Maybe the good stuff in it comes through a bit better now. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm ok with everything in the Intro up to the reference to the Assembly's "links with business" - a comment which is complemented by a series of refs on economic development policy, which is just one of a number of devolved matters within the Assembly's competence. Singling out one devolved matter for special attention in the lead is entirely subjective and gives the issue undue weight. The line on Cardiff is also inaccurate/subjective; it was made a city in 1905 - i.e. not the Victorian era - and I don't think it's been "prosperous" (meaningless adjective) continuously since then - what about the Depression, the 1970s, etc etc.?Pondle (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I proposed this change to deal with the problems I note above - instead of: Today, Wales continues to share political and legal structures to varying degrees with the United Kingdom, while now maintaining more direct ties with various international bodies[3][4] and the business world.[5][6][7][8] how about Today, Wales continues to share political and legal structures to varying degrees with the United Kingdom, but the National Assembly has competence in a range of devolved matters and maintains some international relationships[3][4]. Shorter, sweeter, more descriptive, good link, no undue weight. Any objections? Pondle (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
What does 'competence' mean? I can't be the right word. What's wrong with finding those extra collective words? I don't agree with the general demotion: with repect, I think it's your specific intention here! OK, that's your prerogative, but the detail we already have won't be "entirely subjective" if we cover it all - and that can be done with a few extra choice words. I'll look for links to somethimg along the lines of "...direct ties with various international bodies, domestic issues[new links], and the business world."
I think we worked out quite a tight sentences a couple of months back - it might need a little more work, but I don't really want to see half of it lost. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
"Competence", especially with reference to devolved matters, is an established politico-legal term[48][49][50] - but I'd be happy to change it to "authority over" or something similar.
If you maintain the reference to business links, you continue to fail WP:UNDUE and WP:LEAD as I mentioned several times above. I think you misunderstand the nature of the Assembly's "links with business" - apart from the business partnership council (which also involves unions) this is simply as aspect of economic development policy (as reflected in the refs). Economic development policy is one of several devolved matters. We shouldn't use the lead of the Wales article to single out a particular devolved matter unless there are extremely good reasons. I'm quite happy to work with you to improve more relevant articles or sections if you feel that the Assembly Gov's role in economic development is insufficiently covered elsewhere.Pondle (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
This is around the fifth time in almost a row you have deliberately ignored my solution of mentioning/referencing the other types of 'devolved matters' too. Can I ask you not to do it again? It is too many times, and is almost provocation now (esp as you now say "several times" as if I have ignored you!). It's a clear insult to just repeat the same thing over again when somebody has addressed it from the outset, and every time it was repeated thereafter! I feel like sending you a warning for stonewalling, but I've actually left your edit in! I'm on and off the PC at the moment. When I have time I'll look at doing something I'm sure would take you 2 seconds yourself - finding those extra words, and some refs. Thank you.
And I know what you mean by 'competence', but does the 'general reader'? It is obviously not the language of an introduction - and I think you know that damn well! You are clearly being deliberately obtuse IMO. As I'm sure you know, when it gets like this I speak my mind. Please look at my repeated suggestion of how we can easily cover the other devolved matters too. "Domestic" perhaps? Either that or kindly admit that it is simply not your desire to see these matters in the lead, and stop covering that by completely ignoring me while saying I am actually ignoring you!--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to provoke you, but I do feel that you've ignored my criticisms. My revision links to a list of the devolved matters - it would be too long-winded to try to list, in the Wales article lead, all 20 fields where the Assembly Government can legislate, don't you agree? If you don't feel that we can make any progress, and no other editors express an interest in this issue, we can go for dispute resolution. Pondle (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I've asked for a third opinion.Pondle (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I have not ignored a single comment of yours! The idea of general importance is subjective, and I simply disagree. Devolved matters are fully Notable in my eyes, and you know I feel that anyway.
As for a "third opinion" - as long as he/she shows some respect - but it really is far too soon. I haven't had a change to phrase my own version yet (!!) - which is why I've left your reductive changes in. A third opinion right now would be wasted, surely. I suppose there is an outside chance you will get - "This is all irrelevant - off with it!"
You could help me by listing what you see are all the types of devolved matter - and I will find the words to fit them in, I guarantee it. I'll also do the donkey work on the refs too. What do you say? That way I won't miss anything out, and it won't be so 'back and fore.' I certainly bow to your knowledge in these matters, as you know.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Matt, I don't disagree about notability, I disagree about weight and placement. We've just been talking past each other on this for a while now, so for that reason alone I'd welcome comment from other editors. Besides, I don't want to be possessive about this - the more people who are interested, the better!
Anyway, re: your specifics: this is a list of the devolved matters where the Assembly has competence to legislate (my revision links to it). The page on reserved matters says that "certain matters are explicitly devolved to the National Assembly for Wales and the remainder implicitly reserved".
If you want to put a long list of devolved matters in the lead remember that WP:LEAD advises that significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. The section on Government and Politics doesn't even list the devolved matters at the moment! If you want to change that section feel free... personally I'd prefer more detail there and a very short, succinct intro.Pondle (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
You are a very outrageous debater, Pondle! When I say "notability" it is clearly in terms of the introduction (ie placement), and I've specified that a number of times. I have also said many times it wont be a long list! - just or two collective nouns like "domestic" (next to the "political" we already have). And I also agreed straight away that the "business world" needs to be weighted with the other types of devolved matters! So stop treating me like a wazzock! Do you honestly think I don't know you cannot place a long list in the introducton? (despite the fact you keep saying it). I've worked on a number of introductions, including this one as you know. Don't assume any 3rd eye will be so daft either! I'm a serious man wasting my time building an insane encyclopedia - so give me a break. I'll follow the link and write the words. And I'll add it to the relevant section, so you can't Wikilawyer me on that one too!!! By the way, I'm only 'possessive' in the sense that this Intro in particular matters to me - I haven't removed your current edit, or denied anyones input at all. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I want to get the intro right just as much as you do, although it is doing my flippin 'ead in at the moment! I'm glad you don't want a long list of 20 devolved matters in the Intro - although you do seem to generally want to lengthen it (come on, admit it...) whereas I generally want to shorten it. Anyway, I like where it's at now - as you'd expect - but let's see what you come up with, and look at it again tomorrow.Pondle (talk) 23:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Is that what you are worried about? You've got me all wrong! Far from wanting to expand the Intro, I'm perfectly happy with its size and content. It just needed a bit of clarity in places - we've been doing this today, no? I certainly don't want it any longer once this is sorted out! I am a very concise editor, and I shortened the intro earlier today too. Despite all the added detail, the Introduction is actually no longer now, than before I first worked on it in March/April. Compare the intro as I found it to my last edit earlier today (not long before you cut the Assembly text) - both Intro's look the same size to me. I certainly know which one I prefer. I'm now proposing a very small addition, yes - but it's basically to satisfy yourself (though it will also improve things I'm sure). --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I came here from the request for 3rd opinion page. I don't have anything at stake in this article, but do think that the intro is currently too long. Therefore, I would be inclined to make it shorter, rather than longer. Unless someone can make a very persuasive case for including a summary of devolved duties, brevity would be preferable. The whole intro needs to be shortened, honestly.Aroundthewayboy (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, this is why I resent the completely daft '3rd opinion'. What do you can benefit from by saying that? 3rd opinion is just an inlammatory thing to do - and I don't respect Pondle at all for doing it, esp when he did (and with the turn the debate took too - I think he was playing a card a bit). There is no logic to it - it's like a playground numbers game. Either someone is interested in this article or they are not! I will at some point add just a few more words to a perfectly sound Lead. Honestly, it's what I'm going to do. Thank you. You've popped in, taken someones side, now will hop off. What a mad place Wikipdia is. I'll ask the bus driver later today to see what he thinks.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't sound like you have the right temperament for WP. There's a policy on no personal attacks, as well as assuming good faith. Perhaps it's time for you to bugger off and get pissed at your local, or whatever the slang is these days. Oh and I'm not sure "what do I can benefit" from writing the above, brilliant point.
The fact is, the intro is crap, not appropriate for an encyclopedia. This debate is a distraction from the larger issue that the intro needs a fundamental rewrite, which will probably obviate the need for this debate since the whole section will hopefully be excised.Aroundthewayboy (talk) 04:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Matt, why are you so defensive and quick to take offence? We seemed to be making no progress in a dispute. No other editors expressed an interest. I invited a neutral comment in good faith. It's a perfectly legitimate aspect of Wikipedia. We're all trying to help the article, not hurt it. If someone doesn't agree with you, don't take it personally.Pondle (talk) 16:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Wales... with the United Kingdom? Should be Wales... with the rest of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
You could argue it - but it's better to revise it for clarity. I'll use "wider Unided Kingdom" when the sentence is recontructed to include the other types of devolved matters. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Don't forget that England and Wales still exists as a legal subset of the United Kingdom. That's why I changed UK to England in my revision, because Wales shares more law with England than with Scotland. Pondle (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
England looks misleading though for "political and legal structures"... the 'wider UK' is fine (or "England and the wider UK" - though some might think that has more 'England' in it than needed). --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I linked to a list of those matters in the chain above - Schedule 5 of the Government of Wales Act 2006.Pondle (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ Also spelled "Gymru", "Nghymru" or "Chymru" in certain contexts, as Welsh is a language with initial mutations— see Welsh morphology.
  2. ^ Also spelled "Gymru", "Nghymru" or "Chymru" in certain contexts, as Welsh is a language with initial mutations— see Welsh morphology.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wales/Archive_7&oldid=1152289707"