Talk:Wales/Archive 8

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

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

The Coat of Arms Image used in the Infobox

During this evening, an anon IP user has been changing the image of the coa for Wales in the infobox. I reverted them, but the user simply reverted by reinstitution of the image without any discussion which I had asked for on the talk page. They are now on a short rest from wikipedia as a result. However, can I ask for comments about the image that was used for a long time and the one the anon IP user tried to insert on a number of occasions? DDStretch (talk) 00:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

A new coat of arms was approved in July, one source here it probably needs more than a BBC report to determine it but it looks authoritative. This in no way endorses the behaviour of the IP user and you were right to ban them in my opinion. From a quick glance I think they have the right image. --Snowded TALK 03:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we should restore the new image - any objections? --Snowded TALK 21:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Not from me. Looks good and appropriate (although I've only seen the BBC version). --Jza84 | Talk 22:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

There only seems to be one source for a 'new coat of arms' and even that source calls it a 'Royal Badge' (see para 3) http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/betsanpowys/2008/07/scotland_has_one_and_now.html#commentsanchor%7CMedia:I.

There's nothing on the College of Arms website, including 'Recent Grants of Arms'.

Coat of arms of Wales has it as 'Emblem of Wales'.

There's no requirement to have a coat of arms in the info box. For example France and India have their National Emblem and USA shows the Great Seal. (By the way, I see that the info box on Scotland shows only the escutcheon of the 'Royal Coat of Arms of Scotland' even though it is noted as 'Royal Coat of Arms'.)

I would prefer to have a 'National Emblem', shown in the info box, to a 'Coat of Arms', which isn't displayed anywhere. Whereas Y Ddraig Goch is all over the place, in various guises, and, therefore much more relevant to the users of this encyclopedia.

If we must show the new badge it should be placed in a less prominent position. Still just seems like decoration to me, though. Dai caregos (talk) 08:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The existing coat of arms, served with salad. Not particularly noteworthy, in my opinion. HLGallon (talk) 12:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm no fan, but it is the official one. No objection if someone wants to move it around a bit--Snowded TALK 12:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure it's the official coat of arms, Snowded, and not a badge? There is no reliable source, after all. As I said above, Betsan Powys called it "the Royal Badge" in her blog. Dai caregos (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I begin to have doubts, but Betsan is normally one of the most reliable of reporters --Snowded TALK 20:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Aye, beats me. If you were to trust any journalist, she'd be the one. Probably best leave it 'till we have another source, then. Does anyone have a dragon image we could use instead? Dai caregos (talk) 22:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This would be more informative, shown in the infobox, than showing a coat of arms:

The Welsh Dragon appears everywhere in Wales. Should we change the infobox? What do you think? Dai caregos (talk) 12:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well its already there on the Welsh flag, with the coat of arms next to it. If it is genuine then I think that is a fair balance.

The new badge appears on the front of Assembly Measures http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/wales/mwa2008/pdf/mwa_20080001_en.pdf and http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/wales/mwa2008/mwa_20080001_en_1 where the file is named "welshroyalarm"

I have added it to the infobox and changed the description to "royal badge" if this is not appropriate then please undo 81.103.105.75 (talk) 18:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that is the additional data we needed - looks good--Snowded TALK 18:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that showing a 'Royal Badge' would increase a reader's understanding of Wales. If a reader were trying to find information about Wales, this badge would barely help. Indeed, placing this badge in such a prominent position implies that it is in general use throughout the country. Clearly, it isn't, which makes it misleading.

If you look at some other countries' articles you can see why their emblems, coats of arms and badges have been included. For example, the USA article shows their 'Great Seal' next to the flag. This is used on passports, and variations on the 'Great Seal' design are used in an official capacity by the judiciary, and other government agencies. In many cases, the equivalent in Wales are UK institutions, however, many indigenous public and private institutions use a dragon symbol (The Welsh Assembly Government, Visit Wales, numerous local Authorities, including Cardiff, Newport, Swansea and St David's, Rhondda, Cynnon Taf, Blaenau Gwent and Carmarthenshire, the Welsh soccer team, Newport Gwent Dragons, Red Dragon FM etc, etc, etc). Indeed, the dragon is seen as a shorthand for all things Welsh, which is why we should show the dragon emblem in a prominent position in the infobox. The badge could still be shown, but in the 'Welsh Symbols' section. Dai caregos (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with Dai, and think that the Royal Arms are appropriate. It will be on every Assembly Measure from 2008 onwards, and is official. However, the Royal Aberffraw shield is also appropriate. Either would do in my opinion.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 00:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It's OK to disagree. We won't all agree on everything, every time. It would be helpful, however, to know what it is that you disagree with. Dai caregos (talk) 07:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that if the Assembly are using it then that settles it, although the Red Dragon will dominate in practice. We don;t need a royalist overlay however. --Snowded TALK 07:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You will have noted that the Assembly also use the dragon as their symbol (along with numerous other private & public institutions). Why didn't that settle it? And, as you say, the Red Dragon dominates in practice, which should be reflected in the prominence given to the symbols shown Dai caregos (talk) 08:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

because the section is on "symbols". This is not a matter of deciding which symbol we like the most, or which we think is the most commonly used. It is about showing symbols which have official or custom and practice use. --Snowded TALK 08:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The Red Dragon symbol has official use - the Welsh Assembly, local authorities etc, as demonstrated above. It also has custom and practice use here: "In Wales, where the red dragon has long been keenly felt as a national symbol, it could not become the emblem of any single princely family." "The red dragon, from early times, has been the national symbol of Wales -- at rugby stadiums and battle-grounds; as royal heraldry and as newspaper logos. "

The use of this badge is scant, to say the least. Whereas the Dragon is ubiquitous. It has nothing to do with whether I like it, or not. I agree with you, it is about showing symbols that have official or custom and practice use. What do you have against dragons? Dai caregos (talk) 08:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Its bound to be scant as its only just being created! The fact that it has been created is important in the history of Wales in respect of acknowledgement by Westminster of its statement. So it has official use and is notable. I will forgive you the suggestion that I have anything against dragons given your prior edit history. I have several representations around me in the study as I write. --Snowded TALK 09:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies. No offence was intended. Although, in my defence, I only posed a question, rather than made a statement. I don't disagree that the badge is notable. And it should be shown in the bulk of the article, under the heading 'Symbols'. I haven't seen the response by the London Government to the use of the badge. Would you mind giving me the link please? By the way, the fact that you have several representations of the dragon around you suggests that you are more that a little aware that, as I said above, "the dragon is seen as a shorthand for all things Welsh, which is why we should show the dragon emblem in a prominent position in the infobox." It would be misleading to a reader to show this badge rather than the dragon. I'd be willing to bet that you have no intention of having several representations of this badge in your study. Dai caregos (talk) 09:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

(indent) apologies accepted and I fully accept your point on the dragon being the single most important symbol, although in my younger days I did also dress as a giant leek at a Rugby International and still wear a daffodil on St David's day. You may also note that I changed "Welsh Royal family" stuff as soon as I saw it! However I do think its important. It was made official by the Government of Wales Act which for the first time since Henry VIII gives law making powers to Wales independent of Westminster so I think it has symbolic importance and deserves its place. [reference]

I'd like to have seen that. I may even start a campaign to have you upload any pictures of you dressed as a leek to be included on National Symbols. Would you mind giving the link again please Snowded? It comes up as '404 Page not Found'. Thanks Dai caregos (talk) 10:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

(No way) the picture that is. I have had over a decade of being sober at internationals since I started taking my son and have two more years before he is 18 and can join the family tradition. At that point pictures may become available again. I have changed the reference - it should now work --Snowded TALK 10:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Spoilsport (re the picture). Thanks for the reference. I think there may be some misunderstanding here. It is not the badge that was made official by the Government of Wales Act. It was allowing Welsh laws to be passed that was made official by the Government of Wales Act. It is the Government of Wales Act, rather than this badge, that is important and historic. Dafydd Elis Thomas was referring to the passing of the first assembly measure into law when he said it was an "historic milestone for Wales and the National Assembly for Wales". Yes, it has official use, and yes, it is notable. But it has sigificantly less importance than the dragon symbol and will always have less use. There was a 'Royal Badge' before this one. I'd never seen it before I started researching information on this subject a few days ago. That's how prominent a 'Royal Badge' is. Also, I read through the reference several times and could not see any reference to an "acknowledgement by Westminster of its statement." As ever, the London Government's euphoria, concerning things Welsh, is completely underwhelming. I have to stop now. I'm off to the Eisteddfod. You never know - perhaps I'll see thousands of depictions of this badge, and no dragons whatsoever. Catch you later. Pob hwyl. Dai caregos (talk) 11:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It was more the symbolism of it coming in with that Act that I was referencing. Its about time the Eisteddfod came back to Cardiff, I am hoping to complete a paper today/tomorrow to free up enough time to drive over the bridge and get a chance to see it (last time was in Mold) --Snowded TALK 11:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Such symbolism has its place and is fine for the cogniscenti. But the general browser of this encyclopedia is likely to see this badge in the infobox and be misled into thinking that it is in widespread use. And it isn't. You've linked the Welsh Assembly Measures to the badge. And I can see why you've done that. But as that link hasn't been made explicitly, very few people (and no general readers) would understand that a link is there. If you put the badge either under the National symbols or, even, the Government and Politics sections, you would have the opportunity to make that link. A point that is valid and worth making. If the badge remains in its current position, the general reader sees a shield with a disproportionate royal crown above it, surrounded by the symbols of other countries. Some may say that reflects Wales as it is today. Me, I think my country should be represented by a dragon. Alternatively, just use the shield. Dai caregos (talk) 12:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't put it in the first place but simply reinstated it having checked the sources for ddstretch. I would leave it where it is, but if you want to make the case to move it fine. I don't see it as a big issue but other editors should engage --Snowded TALK 12:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I would support either move. The Princely Aberffraw Shield stand alone would be appropriate as I mentioned, as Scotland on their page only has the shield as well. The Royal Arms (after inspection Im not too fond of them because it has Irish and Scottish symbolisms in them which is inappropriate given this is for use in Wales!) could go where the Government and Law sections are. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 16:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Its been 10 days since other editors were invited to engage and, other than Drachenfyre, none appear to have a view on the subject. I believe I had already made a case for using the dragon in place of the 'Royal' badge. However, as you oppose I have compromised and have reverted to the Aberffraw shield. If anyone would like me to add the 'Royal' badge to the National symbols section, where it would be more appropriate, please advise and I will do so. Daicaregos (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

And my last point was make a case if you think it shouldn't be there. The Aberffraw Shield is a historical one, the royal badge is not "offical" used on assembly documents etc. --Snowded TALK 22:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by your final sentence. Especially what constitutes the "etc". Daicaregos (talk) 21:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I am assuming that use will expand now it has been granted. --Snowded TALK 00:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone wrote "In any event the Wikipedia does not deal with the future, it deals with the citable present" on the Scotland talk page yesterday. I wonder if you agree. Daicaregos (talk) 09:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Just found this] by the way --Snowded TALK 00:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I had already seen the article. I note that the previous "royal" badge did not appear in the info box. I assume that this is because a "royal" badge does not represent Wales rather than representing the overlordship of the English establishment i.e. "royalty" over Wales. The assembly use the "royal" badge only for LCOs. The assemby itself is represented by a dragon see here, or go to the senedd. I've been to the senedd since the "royal" badge was so graciously granted to the people/peasants of Wales and there was no representation of the "royal" badge on show. I doubt if there is one there now and I doubt if there ever will be. If you'd managed (I hope you got the time) to get to the eisteddfod you would have seen as many representations of the "royal" badge as I did - none. There were, as predicted countless dragons. Also, there were several flags of either of Glyndwr or Llewelyn Fawr. If you go on the St David's Day march you will see the Glyndwr flags being carried. The reason that I put the Abreffraw shield in the infobox was as a compromise, in that the shield makes up part of the 'royal' badge and that is what they've done on the Scotland article's infobox. I do not understand why you would think that the queen of England's crown, red roses of England, Scottish thistles and shamrocks are representative of Wales. The shield is. Please reconsider. Daicaregos (talk) 09:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

(indent) Well my personal view is the sooner we get independence within an EU context the better, and even if we stayed "British" I would happily sell the royal family to the US who might find a better use for them. There is no question that personally I would display flags of Glyndwr and Llewelyn Fawr on any march, and I fret at least once a month at the failure of Llewelyn the last to support De Montefort at the battle of Evesham thus loosing the gains of the treaty of Montgomery; even more the failure to execute the Prince Edward at the earlier battle of Lewes. However this is the Wikipedia and its not about how either of us feel, or political positions. The Royal badge is official, it replaced in effect the earlier 1953 version, and it therefore belongs in the Wikipedia entry. It has the advantage of being based on the arms of Llewelyn and uses a motto from the anthems so there is historical continuity. The arms of Aberffraw represent one of the princely houses of Wales, OK the dominant one up until the conquest but only one. Even at their height (the said treaty of Montgomery) they did not cover the area that is now Wales which is a very different position from that on Scotland)

I think it is very important that we are seen to be objective on this and other issues. Otherwise we will be subject to the accusation of nationalism (you haven't been hit by the Cheshire Geography Mafia on that yet, but you will be as they are very very sensitive on the subject) when we are defending important citable statements such as the simple fact that Wales is a country. So I think there is no case for Aberffraw, other than in the history section. Equally the dominance of the dragon is clear and supportable and should not be replaced. The royal badge by the way is further evidence of Wales as a country for the next time that battle comes up.

Does that help? What do other editors think? (PS I did not make the Eisteddfod, next time in Cardiff for Blues v Leinster) --Snowded TALK 10:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that "The Royal badge is official". And I agree that "and it therefore belongs in the Wikipedia entry", as I have stated several times. However, you have not addressed my point that although the 'royal' badge "replaced in effect the earlier 1953 version", the earlier version was not deemed important enough to appear in the infobox. Nor have you addressed the point that the senedd only choose to use it for a small part of their business. I do not consider that the 'royal' badge is important enough to warrant being in the infobox as it does not represent Wales in anything other than a tiny fraction of what Wales does on a daily basis. It is misleading to a casual reader to pretend it does. Daicaregos (talk) 11:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

OK so are we agreed that it cannot be replaced by Aberffraw without a POV accusation? It could be moved to the Government section and removed from the info box. My inclination is to leave it (given my point about the status of Wales as a country above) but I would not fight for it not do I feel strongly other than (i) it should be in the article somewhere) and (ii) if there is to be a shield in the info box then his is the one. How about some other people give an opinion and we go with the flow? --Snowded TALK 11:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, lol I had left really monitoring the Wales page months ago when the Welsh language versions of important geographical features were edited-out of the opening paragraph. That was my final straw, lol.

Anywho, my point of view, as I mentioned above, was simply that the Aberffraw shield associated with the Princely and Royal Aberffraw family (direct line decendents of Rhodri the Great), is appropriate in the opening paragraph.

Because of a friend James Frankcom, actually I have learned that the absolute first person associated with those arms is Iorwerth ab Owain, third surviving son of Owain ap Gruffydd, who was displaced by his usurper brother Dafydd. Iorwerth ab Owain was the father of Llywelyn the Great, de jure Prince of Wales after all other native Welsh lords swore fealty to him at the Council of Aberdofi in 1216, giving substance to the Aberffraw claim as Prince and ruler over the whole of Wales as senior line decendents of Rhodri the Great, according to Dr John Davies. And the arms became the established arms or associated arms of the Royal and Princely House of Aberffraw, though now usurped.

As the Princely Aberffraw Arms are incorperated in the UK Royal Arms of the Assembly, I think it could stand alone, as the Scottish shield does itself on the Scottish page. Personally, I think the single image of the arms is more compelling then the UK Royal Arms of the Assembly.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 05:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

and I fret at least once a month at the failure of Llewelyn the last to support De Montefort at the battle of Evesham thus loosing the gains of the treaty of Montgomery; even more the failure to execute the Prince Edward at the earlier battle of Lewes. However this is the Wikipedia and its not about how either of us feel, or political positions

I completly and absolutely sympathize, though eschew the notion of political assinations. I think the Reckoning between Edward I and Wales was inevitable. Edward I had it in him to conqure the whole of the island in a way that no other English king had. Had Llyewelyn the Last been set against any other English king, things would really be different today.

Incidentilly, the idea that all or even a majority Welsh nationalists are somehow anti-monarchist is a mistaken concept. Plaid Cymru was founded by constitutional monarchists such as Saunders Lewis ... and the socialist D.J. Davies (a socialist!), though admittedly now with a significant corps of republicans in their ranks. Dafydd Wigley (soon-to-be Lord Wigley), Lord Ellis-Thomas, and Elfyn Llwyd (and in all likelyhood eventually Lord (Ieaun) Wynn Jones) all would find sympathy with a restoration of a Welsh Royal Family (as opposed to a continued UK Royal Family). Most anti-royalist sentiment, when expressed, is directed, usually, at the UK Royal Family and the UK government, rather then the idea of constitutional monarchy as a viable form of government.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 05:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Is Wales a country?

On the discussions page for England there was a very colourful argument about England, and if it is a country. Some people said that England is not a country because it doesn't have a government, and that England is a state within the country of the United Kingdom.

Now Wales doesn't have a government either. It does have a devolved assembly, but that does not constitute a government. A government must have full sovereign control, and the Welsh national assembly does not. So by that token: Wales is not a country.

Following extensive research it has emerged that there is no true 'legal' definition for the word 'country'. Officially wales is not a Country by the term. It is in fact a principality, see here, http://www.walesworldnation.com/server.php?show=nav.8248#principality However it is fair to call wales a country owing to it's current status and having it's own assembly. However under all legal terms it is currently a principality since it's annex. Whilst this is the cause of much upset for people who have extreme national pride, there are many references to cite the information above. Wales is not a country and the occupants officially fall under the term British or English, however it is understandable that persons with extreme national pride wish to call themselves welsh. Since wales is officially designated as a region, it is fair to say that someone is British and not English. However because of the fact that wales is not a country, calling themselves welsh is technically incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.154.88 (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Umm... the source cited above states: "In strict constitutional terms, Wales is not a Principality....Wales is, rather, a country." That is correct. Wales is indeed a country, but not a sovereign state. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Wales certainly is a principality. It is also most certainly a country. What it is not is a kingdom or a sovereign state. It differs slighty from other principalities that are also countries such as Monaco and Lichtensein as they are also sovereign states. --LiamE (talk) 06:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I must say that I am English, and out of pride my heart tells me that England is a country. But my head tells me that it's not a country. What are you thoughts on the Welsh question? Dharma6662000 (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it colourful, more or less one maverick editor against the majority. This issue has been extensively discussed here and on the Scotland site and if you look through the archives you will see that discussion. The current wording represents the results of a long discussion, some mediation and is stable. If you check the citations laid out here you will see that clearly establish that Wales, Scotland and England are countries. --Snowded TALK 19:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict; but fully agree with Snowded) This has been discussed here as well, it is all about the definition of the word "country". The UK defines its parts (England, Scotland, Wales, and Norhtern Ireland) as (constituent) countries; we can think of all kinds of weird definitions and even include dictionary definitions of a country, but a word only means what it refers to, and if in the UK context country refers to parts like Wales, that's just how it is. Arnoutf (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Jolly good show chaps. I couldn't agree more. Dharma6662000 (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

We have had all the discussions that are necessary on this issue, so let's have no more of this nonsense! England, Wales, Scotland are countries! End of discussion! -- Maelor 13:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that we'd already come to that conclusion, but thanks all the same. Dharma6662000 (talk) 15:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

My two cents: England is a nation and country (comprising of an English nation), currently part of the nation-state of the United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, for those that wish to include the full title, if it is in doubt). To say that English people are not represented by a government is a gross misrepresentation of the UK parliamentry system, in which there are no less then 529 English constituencies, and only 40 Welsh constituencies. Most of the Wales (and formerlly Welsh) Office ministers since creation coming mostly from English constituencies. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 05:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Wales is not a country in the true sense of the word. Not one major worldwide body recognises it as a country, and most importantly, this includes the UN. If the UN do not recognise Wales as a country, then it is not a country. I don't really see how anyone can argue otherwise.

read the exchange above, the citations here and multiple discussions on the archive page. Wales and Scotland are countries, live with it. --Snowded TALK 21:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Listen, sunshine.. I'm Welsh, born and bred, and I know my country, it's Britain. I don't pay taxes to Wales, I don't hold a Welsh passport and I didn't bloodywell fight for Wales in the war. Wales is not a country, if it was a country, it'd be recognised by the UN as a country! We don;t even have international borders for christ's sake. Anyone who thinks Wales is a country, is deluded.

18:23, 24th August 2008 (UTC) 92.16.196.211 (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You are entitled to you own opinion but if you had been following the discussions on this matter you would see that the majority believe otherwise. The discussion is over and a consensus has decided that Wales, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland are countries. -- Maelor 17:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It might also be wise to be a little less abusive - "listen sunshine" is hardly appropriate, as to the rest of the claims excuse me if I reach for the salt.

Ok lets end this debate. Yes there is discussion and argument about whether Wales is a country and although many Welsh argue that it is or that they would like it to be, under English and International Law it is not. As for England that also is not a country in it's own right. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is made up from Northern Ireland and Great Britain (obviously). Great Britain itself is made up of the country of Scotland and the country of England and Wales. Under English law Wales is a principality of England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.183.63.174 (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think your ending of the discussion by fiat and the consequent changes you have made to the article go against everything that a collaborative project like wikipedia stands for. There is a case for being bold, but not in the context of what you have done here. The discussion is not deemed over in the way you have decreed, nor can the extensive edits you have made be thought irreversible: you cannot ignore the many cited and reliable sources that refer to Wales as a country, pointers to which and where they can be found having been given to you previously. DDStretch (talk) 17:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If people refer to the Archive box in the top right corner fo the page, they will notice a "July 2008: Debate and Poll on "country"" link. That is where we got consensus for the pipe-linked "country" we have now. Unfortunately, at least one of the main contributers was a sock puppet of someone who has disrupted this Talk page for a long time on the matter of identity - previously as Wikipiere and Melvo, and as User:Pureditor most recently, and in the above mentioned 'debate'. He'll be back for certain, so people must be on guard.

As the main decision in the now unfortunately rather weakened discussion and poll was to pipe-link "country". I'm reducing "country which is part of" to "country of", which is closer in langauage to Countries of the United Kingdom, the piped link that we are using. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted this change [1], as per the archived agreement Talk:Wales/Archive_country_poll#Agreement.3F it is a significant departure from any of the wordings that were being considered in the final run in. I am not going to support a dismissal of the conclusions based on the results of the Pureeditor case, who despite being a pupeteer, judging by his case page contributed to that particular debate as one man, as I hope did everyone else. MickMacNee (talk) 02:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It was an ongoing thing with Wikipéire (and his socks) over months - he simply wore people down on this issue. We should have never needed mediation, and such a constricting poll - and you didn't help either, did you? Minus Pureditor, it was mostly just you being funny, wasn't it? And who are you? I've not seen you edit on Wales once, other than to revert the first line. Everyone who edits here recognises that the 'key' to the poll was the pipe-link, not the slightly awkward "a country that is part of" wording.

We all knew in time the line would be improved, but needed to keep things stable for a period, that is all. With Pureditor gone, as a regular editor on this article, I think the time to improve it is now. It is the introdution to my country - I want it to read well, not awkwardly.--Matt Lewis (talk) 02:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't question me aswell. I am sure you remember it was more than an issue of reading well, the issues were 1) to have country linked as country, and 2) to have the subdivisivion element recognised in the first line, with a piped link. Both of these were done. In fact I am not sure entirely how or why the subdivision link was changed to country either, but that is neither here nor there. But given the final options and the general point of that entire debate, it should be clear to anybody that your edit was not a refinement, but a general ignoring of that discussion. If you remember what started the debate, then by negating the outcome of that discussion, the only net change to the article would seem to be the replacemet of "constituent country of" with "country of", which is not a million miles from the heavily disputed "country of". Clearly, if that was acceptable way back when, then the debate would not have gone on so long, Pureeditor or no Pureditor. MickMacNee (talk) 03:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It's only you left. Why the hell are you? --Matt Lewis (talk) 03:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Must we suffer this humiliation over the country issue any longer?

I've left that first line as it was for ages, now and feel utterly humiliated and frustrated that two people - the constant socker Wikipeire, and MickMacNee should have forced me to have to do that. But I did, because people here couldn't face more disruption. With a major contributor to the poll - Pureditor - proven to be a sock of Wikipeire, the time must be now to improve the first line. If Wikipeire wasn't in the discussion, making his little insistences, it would never have got to the stage that it did. It is farcical to keep the lock on the line any longer. MickMacNee is all that is left who doesn't want Wales to be a country, and he's reverting my "country of" up to 3RR. I would like some support me on this. Nobody else says "part of", but us. Thanks, --Matt Lewis (talk) 03:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Given the above, and "I can't let one person have so much power. It's just you now. No way" after "It is the introduction to my country", I think you have severe ownership issues on this article. I am astonished you think it is OK to seemingly ignore the whole debate which led to the perfectly reasonable and perfectly logical solution backed by multiple people, on the basis of a single sock who you seem a little too obsessed with hunting down and discounting, even if it means ignoring other perfectly valid opinions. I am saddened that you don't even remember that I have always been a supporter of full recognition of wales as a "country" in the first line, and was instrumental in getting it shifted away from the awful "constituent country" neologism. And I am annoyed that your contribution to that debate seem to have just been a delaying tactic, in the apparent knowledge that you actually opposed the final solution but would accept waiting a while if it meant you thought you could revert it down the line. Your "cleaning" it up has fundementally altered it, which is clear when you read through the reasoning in the archive. MickMacNee (talk) 03:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Your stonewalling attitute and verbose comments upset everyone throughout the whole discussion, and you were referred to as someone who revels in disruption a number of times.

As for "severe ownership issue" - I'm simply always honest about want I personally want to see. You are just being typically argumentitive. It is the introduction to my country! Is is the introduction to yours? No it isn't - so show some respect to a Welshman, or anyone in fact.--Matt Lewis (talk) 13:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Any change to this should automatically be discussed on the talk page first rather than edit warring. Personally I think it is a mistake to reopen a position and I really can't see the point of removing "part" when we have "country" clearly established. However if Matt wants to propose a change here then he is obviously entitled to do so. In that case the two changes (from part and the celtic bit) should be discussed separately. --Snowded TALK 04:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If you actually favour the words "part of" (you've not said that before) why not just make you revert and say so? You have no right at all to demand someone "automatically talks first". My edit got reverted and re-reverted because the tendentious editor MickMacNee decided to do this. The next morning, you have now removed my edit because you seem to want to do so. "Edit war" is far to dramatic a term here - and it shows no respect for me, given that it was MickMacNee who reverted me.

Are you not embarrassed about Pureditor being Wikipeire, and the stress we have all been through because of him? Given MickMacNee's character and record I personally consider that 'debate' doubly decimated to about 5% of its value at the time. We were all made total fools out of. It was only such a painful issue because of those two editors, and neither of them had an interest in Wales at all. The pipe was a good idea fo sure - but as for 'consensus' on the awkward wording, it was a compromise at the time, and I 95% reject the poll we were forced into having now that Pureditor has been shown to be Wikipeire. I always said I found the line awkward too, and that I wished to change it in the future.--Matt Lewis (talk) 13:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Matt, I hold no brief for sock puppets or Mick (as you know from past exchanges). However I do respect Wiki traditions. If a consensus was won then it should be discussed first. Yes you are free to make a change, but if another editor reverts then it goes to the talk page. I am happy with the current wording as a compromise as it establishes that Wales is a country and is a part of the UK, ie its NPOV. I am also happy to look at changes, so feel free to propose something and see what other people say. --Snowded TALK 13:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Two points.

1: "Wales is a country which is part of the United Kingdom" is grammatically incorrect. It should be either: "Wales is a country, which is part of the United Kingdom"; or: "Wales is a country that is part of the United Kingdom"

2: As Wales is "of the United Kingdom" it follows that it is part of it. The phrase "which is part" is, therefore, redundant.

I too, was worn down and only too happy to compromise in the end, to achieve consensus. Even though I knew it wasn't perfect. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I think we were all exhausted! However if it is reopened then all those who want to say that Wales is not a country will come back and we may have the same debates all over again. Getting a grammatically correct version is a minor change if we are sensible about it. Wales is a country which is a part of the United Kingdom would work and would not reopen the issue. --Snowded TALK 15:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Anon reversions to accepted text still going on. Yawn.. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, please refrain from deleting the word "constituent" from the article. No one is denying it is a country. It is a constituent of the United Kingdom - fact. Also the extra information that the user wrote about the reasons behind Wales' exclusion from the union flag is valid and informative. There is no need for you to police an article you do not own the rights to. If the user was writing false information or words of a derogatory manner than so be it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe90pilgrim (talk • contribs) 00:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

If Ghmyrte refrains then I and others will take up the task. The question of what words to use was subject to extensive debate and the current form of words agreed sometime ago. If you or the anon want to change that then you need to discuss it here first. Why you would want to I don't know given the wasted energy. The current words establish that Wales is a country and that it is a part of the UK. In respect of the Union Flag the anon simply got their facts wrong (in respect of the Union Flag. Reference to "Act of Union of 1536" indicates a woeful ignorance of welsh history I am afraid. --Snowded TALK 05:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added a reference (sorry, I called it a link in the edit summary) which is present on both the the England and Scotland pages. It won't stop the argument , but I think it's relevant. ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 09:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I reverted. Not because I don't agree with the reference, but because it is only one of many, the inclusion of which are all given at the piped link under 'part of'. This was discussed in the long discussion in the archive. Also, refs are discouraged in lead sections. MickMacNee (talk) 11:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

'Part of' is a Wiki link. Mine was an external reference to the Downing Street site. What are you afraid of? ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 12:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Read the archive. MickMacNee (talk) 12:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't appreciated that your reversion of my reference was for pure technical reasons, and that the citation was not needed as the contentious issue of country has now been fully resolved. ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 13:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No, Wales is not a country. Go and ask someone at the UN whether or not Wales is a country, they will give the same answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.207.191 (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Jan 09

To explain it simply for everyone, Wales is not a country, it is a principality of England. England is a country as the Act of Union enacted by King Henry VIII state that Wales was annexed by England, not merged with. Therefore Kingdom of England included Wales, and England retained its' status as a country. The Kingdom of England joined with the Kingdom of Scotland to make the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707. The Kingdom of Great Britain joined with the Kingdom of Ireland in 1800 to make the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland split in 1922 to make two seperate Kingdoms- United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland(as it still remains today) and Irish Free State(later the Republic of Ireland).

So to recap - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland = Union of...Kingdom of England + Kingdom of Scotland. (Northern Ireland is a province of the Union of these two kingdoms.)

England = Constituent Country
Wales = Principality of England
Scotland = Constituent Country
N.Ireland = Province of Union of KoE and KoS

Wales is not a country, it is a principality.

Glad we finally got that sorted. --Alex-DJ-Black-22 (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Pity the citations don't support you. I love the "'Wales' was ruled by several tribes of Anglo-Saxons", where did you get that particular bit of nonsense from? --Snowded TALK 17:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Alex-DJ-Black-22 it depends on your definition of the term country. Her Majestys government has described Wales, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland as 4 countries of the United Kingdom. Thats a good enough source for me to agree that they are countries. This article along with all other articles on this subject is very clear that whilst being countries they are still part of the United Kingdom, so i do not see the problem. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

@ Snowded - Misread a page, so made a mistake. Now I've corrected it. My bad.

BTW what Wales was before union with KoE is irrelevant, it's still a principality, not even a constituent country. --Alex-DJ-Black-22 (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Alex etc. I am not going to bite a newcomer so I have posted a welcome message to your talk page which gives you links to various guidance on how to edit WIkipedia. I also formatted your posting so we can see what is what and the sequence of comments (trying to help here and give you an example). I suggest you also read History of Wales and the various discussions and citation tables at Countries of the United Kingdom. If you look back over the talk page histories you will also see a lot of debate over the term "Principality". Even when it has been used (which is not that often) it was never a principality of England. If you have a new argument after reading all of that please come back and make the case. --Snowded TALK 19:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

As well as reading the articles suggested by Snowded, i recommend you read this page http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page823 , which is one of the many sources for that article. The British governments website says very clearly that all four of them including Wales is a country. To me this is the clear justification for the way Wales and the other countries are described on wikipedia and until the British government removes that page or changes how it defines England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland i see no reason for a change here. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why they can't just ALL be refered to as Constituent countries. This tells me that the underlying factor of all this is; nationalistic wikipedia editors, who cant accept anything other then uncorrect terms. Encyclopedia Brittanica refers to Scotland as a state

You can give me all the pedantic dictionary definitions of the word "country", it doesnt change the fact that Japan, the United States, Russia, etc, etc are all refered to as countries.

So I ask, what do you propose to do, when or if Scotland for example, gained full indepedence from the United Kingdom? Would it still be refered to just as a "country"? This would surely be a contradiction. If it was refered to as anything else, then you would be proving everyone who was against calling it a country, right.Ben200 (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ben i removed the offensive language from ur post because it really is not needed. I understand how you feel because i felt the same way, prefering the use of "Constituent Country" rather than just country and i did think it was pushing the nationalist agenda originally. However describing Wales etc as a country has consensus and is based on many difference sources which do not support the nationalist agenda. There is no better source than Her Majesty's Government website which defines England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as the 4 countries of the United Kingdom. http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page823 . There really is no reason not to define them as countries, if we included constituent country it basically says its a country of a country, which is what we have now.

A country is not always a sovereign state. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a country and its a sovereign state, If Scotland or Wales became independent they would be sovereign states aswell, but at the moment ALL articles make very clear they are part of the United Kingdom, which is what matters the most. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes but; if you refered to an independent Scotland as a sovereign state then surely you would have to change every other article in Wikipedia, about every other nation. Or this website will become even more inconsistant, then it already is.Ben200 (talk) 23:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many problems and is inaccurate on many things because it needs consensus. In my opinion there should be a big warning sign above every article just reminding people that the content is user generated and shouldnt be taken as exact science. The Country article makes clear that most of the time "country" is a sovereign states but not always and includes the UK in an explanation and adding constituent before country solves nothing because if you read that article it simply says "a country of a larger entity", so its still calling it a country. If Scotland or Wales became independent we would simply remove "That is part of the United Kingdom". from the text, the term country would not have to be changed. However we are talking about an event that is very unlikely to happen so do not worry about it too much. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah well, im not trying to argue with you, im just angry with this website as a whole. Science, maths articles, are usually very accurate. but when it comes to geography and History, their is still lots of nationalistic bias. Ben200 (talk) 10:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree theres alot of problems with wikipedia and peoples POV does clearly come into things when dealing with countries, history or people and other current events. But in the case of describing Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England as countries this really is backed up by alot of sources, including offical ones. Use of the term country here doesnt entitle them to be included on international lists on wikipedia though, they shouldnt be placed in line with other countries which are sovereign states to avoid confusion. Anyway i hope you can understand why the term is used and that it isnt part of some nationalist agenda, there are far bigger problems than the "country" issuse. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Wales shares a jurisdiction with England; as colleagues above say, it has no international or diplomatic recognition; it uses England's currency. The London parliament is sovereign in it (as it is in Northern Ireland, which arguably isn't a country either). POVs and Welsh nationalism (which I support) shouldn't come into this. The key question is what national status does Wales have, and it has none. If it did, there'd be no need for nationalism. Scotland could be a country because of its separate jurisdiction, though that is eroded because Westminster legislates for it in many regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.57.113 (talk) 15:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It really does depend on your definition of country, i completly understand how you feel because in the past my view of a country was its a sovereign state and only a sovereign state. However plenty of sources say this is not the case, and the fact the British government itself describes the 4 parts of the UK as countries is enough justification for it to be included in my eyes. The British government certainly isnt trying to push a nationalist agenda - http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page823. Until major sources like the British government itself stop using the term, there is no reason why wikipedia shouldnt use it as well. All 4 Countries of the United Kingdom clearly say in their opening sentence they are part of the United Kingdom so there can be no misunderstanding. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Atlantic Ocean

Rather than make unilateral changes to the opening paragraph, I though it best to bring it here first. I would like to clarify the 'bordering' section. I understand that the Atlanic Ocean stops far short of Wales' coast. The water off Wales is known as the Irish Sea (to the west) and the Celtic Sea (to the south west). Any objections to replacing the words 'Atlantic Ocean' with 'Celtic Sea'? Daicaregos (talk) 08:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The Celtic Sea is part of the Atlantic Ocean, and isn't a really 'fixed' name - it's used sometimes certainly, but I don't think it's recognised in the same way that the 'Irish Sea', 'North Sea' etc is. Atlantic Ocean is the professional one to use, and people know where it is. I'd personally find 'Celtic Sea' combined with 'Celtic Nation' a little too much anyway, but that's just me. --Matt Lewis (talk) 09:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It's being perverse to ignore that large expanse of blue to the west of the UK. Call it the Irish sea and Celtic sea if you like, but they are constituent parts of the Atlantic ocean. To deny that is just plain silly ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 10:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone altered the text to merely state that it was the Celtic Sea as well as the Irish Sea. I've reverted it to read Atlantic Ocean but have added a footnote to explain that the particular area is sometimes known as the Celtic Sea. Perhaps that will help, though there may be some discussion about which gets mentioned only in the footnote. DDStretch (talk) 10:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

A sensible solution, methinks. ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 10:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The coat of arms

I was a little horrified by the quality (or lack of it) of the Royal Badge of Wales in the infobox. I've made a request to have this redrawn by an artist to bring it more inline with the UK, England, and Scotland articles (the request is viewable here). I hope that helps :) --Jza84 | Talk 19:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks that should help --Snowded TALK 20:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer to help, but I'm not sure it needs to be redrawn. Either of these images would be just as appropriate:

Alternatively, we could have the dragon in the infobox. Perhaps the FAW Crest could be redrawn to just show the dragon:

Image:Wales FA.png

The 'Royal Badge' has its place. But that place is not in the infobox. Daicaregos (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't possibly comment about the use of the arms, merely that as it is placed there currently, it is not of a befitting quality for the national infobox IMHO. I also noted some of those images you kindly listed above at the request, to aid the graphicists along (one has already offered to help!). --Jza84 | Talk 22:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep. That's where I got them from. So I guessed you thought they were appropriate Daicaregos (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Come on Dai, putting up an English Rose! We have to be neutral here, all arguments above stand and no harm in getting a better image. I will be the first to celebrate if we ever get independence and get rid of the royal family, but for the moment its part of life and the role of Wikipedia is to reflect the formal position. The only argument I think is if it is in the info box, or in the section on Government. --Snowded TALK 22:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

My 2p's worth? I think a footnote might be needed to clarify the role of the royal badge. AFAICT, it's not a national coat of arms used in the same sense as other sovereign states (I'm thinking the Great Seal of the United States and Coat of arms of Bangladesh etc). Probably the most neutral if there is some kind of dispute over this (I'm not entirely sure). Up to you guys, just a thought. --Jza84 | Talk 22:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Not so much a dispute, more a friendly disagreement! Dai - how about we take the image away from the intro, but it in the government section with a footnote as suggested? But no insertion of other images! Leave it as the dragon. That would be fair?--Snowded TALK 22:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Would that reflect real world practice? I've never seen that Dragon emblem before - is it used as a national crest in any way? Do we have any examples to look at? I'm coming into this blind, hense the questions. --Jza84 | Talk 22:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the dragon coch is the universal welsh emblem, on the flag and everywhere. The Prince of Wales feathers are used on sporting team jerseys and in other contexts. The new coat of arms is to be used on the front of official documents but that will be the limit. --Snowded TALK 22:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said in a previous post - the red dragon is shorthand for everthing Welsh. But that sounds like a good compromise to me, Snowded. I'd be happy with that. Would you like to add it to the government section (or the symbols section, either would work for me), then you could add it to the narrative as to why it is important and the precedent it set? Daicaregos (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Will do, but not tonight, meant to be on holiday its past midnight and I have Napolean drivers to survive tomorrow. If someone else wants to do it fine! If not I will pick up during the week. --Snowded TALK 22:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Good. Have a great holiday. And sorry about the English Rose, but fair play, it is on the 'royal badge'. Daicaregos (talk) 23:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jza84, it's good that you're interested and I value your opinion. We had a discussion on the subject only last month. See "The Coat of Arms Image used in the Infobox" on this Talk Page. Take a look, if you have time (it went on for a long while). You'll see the importance we attach to the dragon. This is a copy of one post I made on 1st August, setting out just some of the uses of the dragon symbol in Welsh life: "I'm not sure that showing a 'Royal Badge' would increase a reader's understanding of Wales. If a reader were trying to find information about Wales, this badge would barely help. Indeed, placing this badge in such a prominent position implies that it is in general use throughout the country. Clearly, it isn't, which makes it misleading. If you look at some other countries' articles you can see why their emblems, coats of arms and badges have been included. For example, the USA article shows their 'Great Seal' next to the flag. This is used on passports, and variations on the 'Great Seal' design are used in an official capacity by the judiciary, and other government agencies. In many cases, the equivalent in Wales are UK institutions, however, many indigenous public and private institutions use a dragon symbol (The Welsh Assembly Government, Visit Wales, numerous local Authorities, including Cardiff, Newport, Swansea and St David's, Rhondda, Cynnon Taf, Blaenau Gwent and Carmarthenshire, the Welsh soccer team, Newport Gwent Dragons, Red Dragon FM etc, etc, etc). Indeed, the dragon is seen as a shorthand for all things Welsh, which is why we should show the dragon emblem in a prominent position in the infobox. The badge could still be shown, but in the 'Welsh Symbols' section." Cheers. Daicaregos (talk) 07:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

RFC on Humorous and Satirical Essays

In his Wikipedia article, the 'essays' of AA Gill (the Sunday Times' restaurant reviewer and television critic) are described as being 'known for their humour and satirical content'. In one of the more well known of those humorous and satirical essays in the Sunday Times he described the Welsh as: "loquacious, dissemblers, immoral liars, stunted, bigoted, dark, ugly, pugnacious little trolls." See this No reference is made to this statement in the article and all attempts to include it have been reverted, referring editors to the talk page. You may have a view on this too. If so, please comment on AA Gill:Talk. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 11:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I had another go at editing the page to make the point - we shall see what happens next. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice one ! I think there's now enough of a consensus to stop any further reversions. ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 12:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

So long as it's demonstrated that he actually has caused offence, and has been referred to the PCC for racism, it should be OK... Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Which he has, and it has. By the way, have you seen the article on Prince Philip? Section 13, controvertial remarks, has a link to some of his extrordinary views. If public comments like those can stay on that article, they can surely stay anywhere. Perhaps the entire quote should be there, though. Plus links to the Channel Islands, Albanian and German quotes. What do you think? Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 13:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

My own view is that we should leave the Gill article for the moment to see whether there are reversions, but the idea of putting a selection of verbatim quotes from him at Wikiquote may be worth pursuing if necessary. Personally I don't want to give him more publicity - he is paid to be controversial. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Picture

Anyone got a photo of the Welsh team (ideally winning a Grand Slam) that we ca use to replace the current Rugby league one? I searched Flickr on Welsh Rugby but nothing under a commons license which was any good. --Snowded TALK 06:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is wales referred to as a 'country'

I'm somewhat confunsed by the introduction describing wales as a country - What bases is there to make this claim? Wales does not have a parliament, it does not sit on the UN, there's no Welsh embassies around the world. Wales is not a country, it is a Principality with Charles as its prince. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.80.31.254 (talk) 11:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

this has been discussed in detail a bit higher on this talk page. Please check ongoing discussion threads before replicating them. Arnoutf (talk) 11:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

..and 79.80.31.254 could also check out the clarification at Principality. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

See UKCOUNTRYREFS. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Wales is a nation - not a country. 89.241.5.32 (talk) 17:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

see above Arnoutf (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking thru the archives, there have been dozens upon dozens of incidents where this issue is raised! 89.241.5.32 (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

And time and time again the consensus has been, as it is in the outside world, that a country does not have to be politically independent to be a country. That many people think of independent states when they think of countries does not make that the definition. -Rrius (talk) 19:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a voting system. The fact that a bunch of you have been pro the view that Wales is a country doesn't make it so. Honestly I can't believe what I am reading. My faith in Wikipedia has been shattered. I now realize what little efficiency this system has produced. 89.241.5.32 (talk) 19:21, 22 September 2008(UTC)

Enough reliable sources were provided in all these dozens of discussions to label Wales as country. Learning something new and unexpected (e.g. that Wales is called a country) is one of the marvels of a good encyclopedia, if you already know all the answers there is no reasons to read it anyway. Arnoutf (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

But there are also reliable sources, as the discussions have shown, that argue against that too. 89.241.5.32 (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

My recollection is that the sources support that other terms are applicable, but that none says "country" isn't. There is a difference between find a source calling Scotland a nation and one saying that "nation", and not "country" is the proper word. The sources were of the former sort, not the latter. The debate on this page became which of the terms ("country" and "constituent country" were both included) should be used. That question is the sort properly answered by consensus. In the end, consensus gave us the current version. -Rrius (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion was mediated and extensive and a full table of citations produced which clearly established that country was the proper word. This is all available here. We seem to face frequent attempts by IP addresses to raise the question again based on general statements (such as those of 89.241.5.32 above). The questions do not reference the prior discussion or deal with the evidence presented in the table I have referenced. It was not a vote, it was based on citations. If 89.241.5.32 wants to be taken seriously s/he will address those issues. A significant number of these attempts to revert a position also seem to start of with a minor edit war, and then we discover sock puppets. So forgive me, but I expect someone who wants to open this subject to (i) engage with the evidence and (ii) read the previous debate and its resolution. --Snowded TALK 20:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a FAQ type page to be permanently templated on this talk page may help - it should list the link to the mediation (ie - The issue wheter Wales is a country has been discussed before and the result is that it is. The rationale of to be found here.) Arnoutf (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Good idea lets do it Also the IP was only set up it seems to edit this article and is showing too much knowledge of Wikipedia to be a new editor. --Snowded TALK 20:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree but there will be other IP's in the future so setting up a fixed argument may be worth the time. Something like the following on this page as a start?

The issue whether Wales is a country or not has been repeatedly raised.
The result of all these debates is that Wales is indeed a country. This has been confirmed in formal mediation.

The discussion is summarised here. Further information on the countries within the UK can be found here.

Arnoutf (talk) 20:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

agreed --Snowded TALK 21:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok I have set it up on the top of the talk page. We will have to set up the summary of the discussion, including argument about non-country of Wales; on a separate page perhaps talk:Wales/Wales is a country discussion. Arnoutf (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

UKCOUNTRYREFS - the shortcut of choice for those who accept UK countries

These Reliable Sources tables (and the Countries of the United Kingdom article they are home to) were designed to save valuable time repeating the facts within them, to those who raise again the question of whether the UK's constituent countries can in fact be called 'countries'. The UKCOUNTRYREFS shortcut was made for easy reference. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Owain Glyndŵr

My edit yesterday to: "... Owain Glyndŵr briefly restored independence to the whole of Wales in the early 15th century." wasn't just wishful thinking. Gwynfor Evans' 'Land of My Fathers', John Penry Press, Swansea, 1974, has Professor William Rees' 'Phases of the Glyndŵr Revolt, 1040-1409, the Climax and Decline' (from 'A Historical Atlas of Wales') showing the whole of Wales in Glyndŵr's hands in 1405 (illustrations between pp 240 & 241, Y Lolfa 1992 edition). Also, I quote from Gwynfor Evans' from 'The fight for Welsh Freedom', Y Lolfa, 2000,p 87:

"Now that his mastery of Wales was complete Owain Glyndŵr called, in 1404, four from every commote in Wales to a parliament in Machynlleth. There, with the blessing of the Pope of Avignon and in the presence of envoys from France, Castile and Scotland, Glyndŵr was crowned 'Prince of Wales by the grace of God'. That was the description of Glyndŵr in the treaty made with France, signed in Paris by Gruffudd Young and John Hanmer and ratified by the Welsh Parliament.

Wales now had her own state, with its civil servants and diplomats, its treasury and legal system, its armed forces, a Church whose independence of Canterbury was recognised by the Pope of Avignon, and a charismatic prince as head of state. Although the country was still full of hostile English military and civil people, Cymru had achieved a considerable measure of national freedom." (my emphasis)

You'll note that I haven't quoted selectively and if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But I think that, at the very least, it deserves more than 'Owain Glyndŵr briefly restored independence to a large part of Wales in the early 15th century.' yours, Daicaregos (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

All of that is true (the parliament, the alliance with France etc.) However it lasted for 2-3 years possibly five if you push it, at a time when the English crown was diverted elsewhere. Glyndŵr failed to support Hotspur as Llywelyn failed to support de Montfort a few hundred years earlier. The two best chances at Welsh independence prior to the modern day were at times of turmoil in England, and in both cases the Welsh Prince was correctly alligned but held back within Welsh borders for key battles. Evesham was critical for Llywelyn (as was Lewes earlier) and Shrewsbury was for Glyndŵr. Given the time period, I think the restoration is brief although the section should be expanded somewhat. --Snowded TALK 16:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

My edit yesterday of: "... Owain Glyndŵr briefly restored independence to the whole of Wales in the early 15th century." was reverted to "... Owain Glyndŵr briefly restored independence to a large part of Wales in the early 15th century." Do you agree that the whole of Wales was independent? Or do you think it was only a large part of Wales? Daicaregos (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Well it depends a bit on how you define Wales. In terms of the modern boundaries no, but he didn't really get back to the Treaty of Montgomery boundaries, so I think it has to be a larger part rather than the whole? --Snowded TALK 19:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Would it be Professor William Rees or Gwynfor Evans that is wrong, or both? Do you have sources you could refer me to? And do you have a preferred sentence? If not "... Owain Glyndŵr briefly restored independence to the whole of Wales in the early 15th century.", then perhaps "... Owain Glyndŵr briefly restored independence to the whole of Wales except <insert the village, town or area applicable> in the early 15th century." or "... Owain Glyndŵr briefly restored independence, to the whole of what we now call Wales, in the early 15th century." From Professor Rees' map it seemed as if more than 90% of Wales was in Glyndŵr's hands in 1405 (actually, it looked like all of Wales), and over 90% should not just be described as 'a large part'. 50% could be correctly described as 'a large part'. It's a rather woolly word. The zenith of the Last War of Independence deserves a more accurate description than that. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm commenting from memory as I am away from home at the moment - I have Davies more recent work there and and can check Tuesday evening. --Snowded TALK 04:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Any progress, Snowded? Daicaregos (talk) 10:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Mea Culpa, it was in my list of things to do but I did not complete before I had to leave home again - currently in Tasmania and not back until Wales V South Africa. How about "to the majority of modern wales" I am pretty sure that is correct. --Snowded TALK 13:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

No drama. Hope you're enjoying springtime in Tazzi. I propose to edit the fourth paragraph:

"Wales is sometimes referred to as a principality, although this has no current constitutional basis. Llywelyn the Great founded the Principality of Wales in 1216, and following the Edwardian Conquest, Owain Glyndŵr briefly restored independence to a large part of Wales in the early 15th century. Traditionally the British Royal Family have bestowed the courtesy title of 'Prince of Wales' upon the heir apparent of the reigning monarch."

to:

"Wales is sometimes referred to as a principality, although this has no current constitutional basis. Llywelyn the Great founded the Principality of Wales in 1216 and, just over a hundred years after the Edwardian Conquest, Owain Glyndŵr briefly restored independence, in the early 15th century, to what was to become modern Wales. Traditionally the British Royal Family have bestowed the courtesy title of 'Prince of Wales' upon the heir apparent of the reigning monarch.", referencing Gwynfor Evans' 'Land of My Fathers' and 'The fight for Welsh Freedom'. If it turns out that John Davies' view contradicts this we can change it then. Do you have any objection? Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 19:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Happy with that, and yes I am enjoying spring time in Tazzy, not to mention the local pinot .... --Snowded TALK 19:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Kingdom of England

When the United Kingdom came into being with the union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England, Wales was part of the Kingdom of England. My question is, is there a date when Wales became officially seperate from England after this point? Titch Tucker (talk) 00:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Wales maintains it name in the laws of Wales act so I don't think that is a valid question per se. --Snowded TALK 08:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

...or alternatively, read the article! "Distinctive Welsh politics developed in the 19th century, and in 1881 the Welsh Sunday Closing Act became the first legislation applied exclusively to Wales. In 1955 Cardiff was proclaimed as national capital and in 1999 the National Assembly for Wales was created, which holds responsibility for a range of devolved matters." To which could be added the fact that the Welsh Office was established in 1964. So, no single date applies, because the question is not specific enough. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want the strict legal definition you'd be better off looking here ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 09:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jongleur. Ghmyrtle, the reason I asked was because there was no single date, so although asking me to read the article might sound sensible, I had read it. Jongleur gave me a link to the England and Wales page which gave me a clearer picture of the relationship between both countries. Although in retrospect it may not be considered a valid question it is a question that was asked in good faith. Titch Tucker (talk) 10:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Apologies - no offence meant. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

None taken. Titch Tucker (talk) 10:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Language of Wales

In the info box, Welsh is listed before English as Wales' language. Surely English should be listed first? It's common practise in atlases/encyclopedias to have the language most commonly spoken listed first, and then any other language that happen to be spoken listed after. I will give it 24 hours to see if there are any objections before I log in and make the change.

Thanks.

Previously discussed as I remember it and there are objections. Both languages are used officially, Welsh is the older --Snowded TALK 21:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The length of time the language has been spoken has absolutely nothing to do with it. It's common practise by encyclopedias to list the most spoken language first. Seeing as though English is obviously the most spoken language, any decision to have Welsh listed first could only be taken by a blinkered Welsh nationalist. I'm sure Wikipedia has a policy on this, I'll have to look into it. For now, I think English should be placed before Welsh.

Thanks, Andy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.169.189 (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Bull in a china shop comes to mind here. Starting a discussion with the words "any decision to have Welsh listed first could only be taken by a blinkered Welsh nationalist" does not bode well for a calm and considered conversation. Titch Tucker (talk) 21:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

One of the topics covered on the Welsh Assembly Government's website (here) is the Welsh language. They say "The native language of Wales is Welsh. Almost all of the population speak English as well. Both languages have equal status in Wales." The national languages should be shown in that order. i.e. The native language of Wales first. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 08:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

What percentage of the Welsh speak each language? -Rrius (talk) 08:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The percentages are shown on several wikipedia pages including that on the welsh language. Thanks for you comments Titch Tucker. Andy it should be more than possible to discuss this without you throwing around insults. Dai has also given an citation just to help you along. Please assume goodfaith. The one thing WIkipedia has is a policy on not calling other editors "blinkered welsh nationalists" its the sort of thing that can get you a warning or a temporary ban. --Snowded TALK 09:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

<sarcasm>I suppose having the percentages mentioned in this conversation would be no help whatsoever.</sarcasm> As someone who was just trying to be helpful in pointing out a reasonable line of discussion, I am a little disappointed at the "go find it yourself" attitude. -Rrius (talk) 21:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The quote from WAG notes that "Almost all of the population speak English as well." It must be obvious that the percentage of Welsh speakers would be less than "Almost all ...". So, ... I agree with you that "having the percentages mentioned in this conversation would be no help whatsoever." Having said that, it is currently between a quarter and a third of the population. Does that help? What is your line of discussion? Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 21:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought that was obvious. If one language is more commonly spoken, it should be first. If the number of people who speak only English is two to three times as large as the number who speak Welsh (whether they speak English or not), then that is a persuasive reason for putting English first? I guess you missed the sarcasm (I thought surrounding the sentence with sarcasm faux tags made clear), as I think it is quite helpful to know how many people speak each. -Rrius (talk) 02:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You have demonstrated that you have no knowledge of the subject, have not read the article and that you have no desire to go to any trouble to find out. As it says at the head of the page - 'This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wales article.' and 'This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.' If you are unable to carry out research yourself the correct place to ask questions on the topic would have been here, although, even they say 'Many questions can be immediately answered by a simple google search.' The answer to your question would have been one of them. Nevertheless, had you posed your question to the Reference Desk I expect that you would have been directed to the various article pages too. Your sarcasm is unwelcome. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 12:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

That is egregious. I was not asking a question for my edification. I was trying to get someone to say what percentage of people speak each language as I felt it was, at the least, relevant to the discussion. That I did not take a position on whether it should definitely be outcome determinative does not make it any less a contribution to the discussion or an attempt to be helpful. While I can understand some confusion if you only read my original comment, that is not the one you were responding to. It boggles the mind that you managed to take my comment as somehow being a general request for the information for my own purposes with no relation to the topic of discussion after I explained my purpose in asking for the information. Try actually reading what you are responding to and not assuming that people participating are stupid or new. -Rrius (talk) 15:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have offended you (if I have). Your input is welcome, even if your sarcasm is not. On the plus side - I learned a new word, so thanks :) Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 16:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks (I think?). -Rrius (talk) 16:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It was meant as an apology. Honest. Daicaregos (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I've just done a quick scan of Wiki for some countries that have more than one official language. Belguim, Canada, France, and Spain all list their languages in order of usage. It would be a bit strange if Inuktitut or French came first in Canada's infobox. ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 10:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Its an argument and hopefully we can discuss it in a civilised fashion. Its a balance really, Dai's citation also reflects the fact that Wales is a legally official language in Wales, while English is defacto an official language. I must admit I can't see why people get worked up about this, especially recently created IPs (of whom we have had a lot on this article). --Snowded TALK 10:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I rather think that, although it is a point for discussion, there really are rather more pressing issues to do with the article than this. I suggest editors' efforts are directed more at improving, say, the Literature section, which at the moment is empty, as well as the other text sections rather than raising an issue that is minor in the greater scale of this and the other article's issues, and for which there does already appear to have been a contribution that could bring about dissent and division by using divisive and unwise unsupported assumptions (viz: the "blinkered Welsh nationalist phrase). DDStretch (talk) 10:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point and you have reminded me that I promised to do something about the literature section and have neglected it. Mind you I seem to spend an hour or so a day just clearing up vandalism over too many watched pages. We also seem to be hit every few weeks with yet another new IP or new named editor picking up issues like this and its very distracting. Happy to be called a Welsh Nationalist by the way! Its the blinkered I object to. --Snowded TALK 10:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

English a de facto language, Snowded? The Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542 made English the only language of the law courts and other aspects of public administration in Wales. Welsh was made an official language with the Welsh Language Act 1967. ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 10:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You learn something new every day, I hadn't picked up on that aspect of the 16th C. will have to check sources on that. This is still a petty issue all round though, and Dai's citation would therefore resolve it in favour of the status quo. --Snowded TALK 10:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

By that argument Catalan should be listed first in Spain, Inuktitut in Canada, Maori in New Zealand and probably Latin in Italy! ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 11:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Come come, None of those has a current government making the statement (Spain and France try and pretend the catalans don't exist). canada and New Zealand in some areas put the indiginous language first, bad argument --Snowded TALK 11:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Lighten up a bit, Snowded. I thought the exclamation mark at the end might have been a bit of a clue that I was joking. ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 11:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! I thought the "come come" gave a similar clue the other way. --Snowded TALK 14:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Without taking sides in any way on this point, I think it's only fair to point out that Daicaregos' quote comes from the WAG page specifically entitled "Welsh language", and elsewhere on the WAG site here it states: "There are 580,000 people in Wales who can speak Welsh. This represents approximately 21% of the population." Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that I was attempting to mislead? Daicaregos (talk) 13:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Guys, lets not go here. We have a newby IP address whose only edit is to raise a really petty issue. Personally I think Welsh should come first, but it really does not matter. Its a pattern, it happens every few months, same thing. We should ignore it, unless one of you really cases about English going first. Otherwise we are just feeding trolls and moving away from real editing. --Snowded TALK 13:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Humour aside, I think all that is demonstrated by these states of affairs is that wikipedia cannot be made to be consistent in these kinds of ways amongst different articles about different countries unless and until there are good reasons for being consistent, perhaps also forming part of policy or guidelines. One must consider each on a case by case basis until that time, and whilst what has been done in different articles can certainly inform the debate, what they cannot be used for is to impose consistency. However, as I said above, do we really need to spend time on this small matter, given the other issues in this article that need clearing up, and the ease with which it is generating a dispute, which may or may not have been what the anon IP editor intended? Do we really want to run the risk of being manipulated by an editor in this way and to this extent? DDStretch (talk) 14:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Right, chaps. I can see absolutely no reason for Welsh to be listed before English in the info box. English is the most spoken, so therefore I have no doubt that it should be listen first. As for the argument - 'Welsh is older', well, that's a bit silly, isn't it? It would be like listing a pagan language before English in the England info box, becuase it is older. I'm sure you'll all agree that it makes much more sense to have English listed first. We must remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - if we want to keep its integrity, we must make sure English is listed in the info box before any other.

Andy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.207.191 (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Right "Andy" You appear to be engaged in a low-level edit war against a few editors who disagree with you. You cannot merely change the order if they disagree with you, but must discuss the issue rather than making assertions and then editing in the changes. A discussion implies more than one participant in which opinions are exchanged and concerssions considered. So far, I see no evidence of any willingness to make concessions on your part. So, given that you are changing IP addresses, if you persist I will semi-protect the article to prevent you from carrying on with the disruption. Your time would be far better spent working to improve oter areas of the article, but I suspect that you are interested only in this very small issue, and not the general improvement of the article at all. Be warned. DDStretch (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

"Andy" is also editing under multiple IPs (a pattern we also had on Celtic Nations. Three difference ones so far. --Snowded TALK 20:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Now edit warring, I assume that given the use of multiple IPs and the presence of this talk page its not a 3RR breach to revert? --Snowded TALK 21:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, fellas. I don't see what your problem is. A correct article on a country (if you want to assume Wales is a country) would list the most spoken language first. It's not all that difficult to your heads around, surely? I assume that you know perfectly well English should be listed before Welsh, but you are choosing to ignore logic becuase of your support for the Welsh Language. It's people like yourselves who hold Wikipedia back.

Andy

Arguments above on what is a minor issue. Also use of serial IPs, edit wars, not responding on your multiple talk pages all mark you out as a disruptive editor/troll. Oh and you are now on 4RR --Snowded TALK 21:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It may be a minor issue to you, but to me, it is not. I am as much in an edit war as you are. Infact, your edits are probably more 'distruptive', as you're editing out of your obvious support for the Welsh language, whilst I am editing out of logival thinking. You have yet to give a good reason for Welsh to be listed first.

Andy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.207.191 (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You are editing the main article while the matter is being discussed. Troll --Snowded TALK 22:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

User now banned from edit warring on Alex Salmond similar issue to here. Also now challenging Wales as a country in comments above. Sounds like Wikipiere again or something very similar, name pattern. --Snowded TALK 22:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I feel passionately about this issue. How would I go about having English put before Welsh, exactly? With whom does the decision lie with? I have stated why I feel English should be put before Welsh, rather simply. What more can I do? I have yet to read one logical explanation as to why Welsh should be listed first. Why are my views being ignored?

I put this to you, Snowded - who gave you the right to decide?

Thanks, Andy.

Firstly please learn to edit. You have notices on your talk page about signing comments, indenting etc. Secondly decisions are made in wikipedia by consensus, if that cannot be reached then generally the status quo continues. I have no right to decide, nor have I asserted one. I have stated my opinion here. You do not achieve consensus by edit warring and making changes while a discussion is going on. If you can't learn to discuss things then you will end up with a permanent ban. Oh and while I remember editing with multiple IPs is not on. Please settle on one (legitimate) or logon as Andy or similar. If you use multiple IPs is called sock puppetry. I also find it difficult to believe that anyone could feel passionately about such a trivial issue and my personal opinion is that you are being provocative (given your disruptive behaviour elsewhere). --Snowded TALK 15:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I agree that English should come first, then Welsh due to there being a lot more English speakers (plus practically everyone who speaks Welsh speaks English); however, it is not that important that you'll see me returning to this talk page to discuss it further, although I do continue to view the comments. I have learned from previous experience on any of the United Kingdom articles, such as England, Scotland, and Wales, that it is very difficult to get a change in unless there is a clear consensus. I have seen where there is a majority on certain things, but if there are even just one or two editors who do not agree, it turns into a long, drawn-out and unnecessary debate (in my opinion). I recommend that you allow others to make comments here without any further edits on the matter and to try to keep the passion out of the talk page. Unless there is a clear consensus, I would just let it be. Kman543210 (talk) 15:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I did notice the ip making a change to the Alex Salmond article infobox reffering to him as English. Does that sound like someone looking to improve articles? Titch Tucker (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point, Titch, and well made. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 20:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we step back for a moment? Andy, the fact that you state that you "feel passionately" about this issue effectively debars you from contributing usefully to this discussion - you clearly are unable or unwilling to take a neutral point of view, which is what Wikipedia requires. Snowded (and Ddstretch) - the fact that you consider it a trivial issue is, in my view, a little presumptuous and irrelevant, as others clearly do not consider it trivial and you must be aware of the passions such language and "ethnicity" issues can arouse. My personal sympathies are with Kman543210, and I'd rather not be accused of stirring further. However, I understood that Wikipedia was supposed to reflect the world as it is, not as how we would like it to be. We must also consider an international readership, not necessarily well-informed, seeking clear information and understanding, as well as a Welsh or British audience who may come to this article with "strong views" either way. In my mind the main arguments are as follows. Firstly, the two languages have equal legal status. Secondly, one is spoken by 100% (or almost) of the inhabitants and the other by 28%. Thirdly, the article itself states, quite correctly: "English is spoken by almost all people in Wales and is therefore the de facto main language". For consistency, it seems to me that the logic of following Wikipedia guidelines would be for the infobox to read "English, Welsh". Happy to discuss further on the basis of logic and WP policy, but not with people who "feel passionately" one way or the other. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact that 'Andy' is a troll effectively debars him from contributing usefully to this discussion, rather than if he were to "feel passionately" about this issue. Interesting that an editor is only willing to discuss a subject only with those who have no feelings for it. What, I wonder, if he doesn't care one way or another, is the purpose of all this? Interesting too that he suggests that by following WP guidelines apparently leads to exactly the result he seeks, when he doesn't know what those guidelines are, if any. Perhaps if editors spent as much effort improving the article as they have by continuing the disruption begun by a troll, the article would be something to be really proud of. And as he has decided to 'stir things' further, despite the troll warnings, I would still like to know if Ghmyrtle was suggesting that I was attempting to mislead. By saying "I think it's only fair to point out that Daicaregos' quote ..." implies that my quote was not fair. As I've received no denial to date, it rather looks as if that was exactly what was intended. Please have the courtesy to reply this time. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 20:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

On the specific point, the reference you made to the WAG site, viz: "The native language of Wales is Welsh. Almost all of the population speak English as well." was from a page which was specifically titled "The Welsh language" - not one called, for example, "Languages of Wales". Given that the page was about "the Welsh language", it is not surprising that Welsh was mentioned in the text before English. It seems to me that it was, at best, disingenuous not to mention that, though I have no idea whether or not you were trying to mislead others. I also have no idea how that page is relevant to this discussion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

As I feel it is inappropriate to have this discussion here, I will continue it on Ghmyrtle (talk). Yours Daicaregos (talk) 12:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Now only available to view on User talk:Ghmyrtle 'History', 12:06, 30 October 2008.Daicaregos (talk) 09:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I will step out of this discussion. I think the ip has got his wish, causing arguments and distruption. Titch Tucker (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, is there a policy within wiki that the most spoken language must come first? Secondly, does having one before the other imply it is of more importance? Finally, would having English first give the reader the impression it is the native language, and not Welsh? Titch Tucker (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

(1) Don't know, but it would be logical (btw, the same order would apply if they were ordered alphabetically); (2) Many readers (not necessarily well-informed - that's why they come here) would assume that to be the case; (3) No - native American languages are not placed first in USA, for example. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

My eardrums almost burst there. ;) I understand your first and third points, my only worry would be the second point concerning the importance of both languages. As you said, both languages have equal legal status which I don't believe the native american language has. Titch Tucker (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

sorry... I just feel that we should prioritise the interests of our casual readers more than we sometimes do, and they are likely to assume that the language listed first is more frequently used (or equally used, but certainly not less used) than the language listed second. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is an idea thrown from left field. Looking through other country articles I have never seen this, but here goes. Why not have English first, your arguments for it are probably right, then, here it comes, we could point out in the infobox that Welsh is the native language ie: Welsh (Native language). I'm ready to be shot down now. Titch Tucker (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine, so long as the word "native" is not seen as pejorative in this case (it sometimes is). "Indigenous"? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Indigenous is far better and very accurate. Titch Tucker (talk) 17:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

So, we have a consensus of 2 editors! Better wait for the others though..... Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) Personally I couldn't care less in which order they are placed, (apart from having a bit of consistency throughout Wikipedia), I really don't think it's that important. But as 'Cymraeg' appears first in 'Wicipedia' perhaps it's only right that 'English' should appear first in the English language version of the page. The argument for having Welsh first seems to me to be rather weak. ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 17:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of the idea suggested above of highlighting the fact that Welsh is the indigenous language? Titch Tucker (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems fairly sensible. ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 18:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't like to think about the amount of my time that is spent clearing up vandalism on this and related pages. That ranges from the normal sheep obscenities to the all too frequent emergence of a provocative troll (sometimes named, sometimes an IP, often a sock puppet) who wishes to remove any reference to Wales, Scotland, Brittany, Ireland etc having any distinctive history of culture. Sometimes it is a petty issue like which language comes first, sometimes its the assertion that Wales is not a country. Something that this same disruptive editor has also asserted, see here. He was also banned for an edit war in which he wanted to make the leader of the Scottish National Party British rather than Scottish. I am fully aware of the intense feelings on this Ghmyrtle as I have them myself. Anyone whose family can remember being beaten in school for speaking Welsh in a Victorian effort to "civilise" us, acts mirrored with indigenous people elsewhere in the world, is bound to. Because of that and many other things I am appalled at the way those strong feelings are trivialised by provocation on an all too regular basis. OK its not as bad here as on the Irish articles or British Isles but its hardly good. At times the only thing which keeps me engaged is the thought that leaving the Wikipedia to the sort of petty minded vandals we meet every week would be an abrogation of responsibility. The article clearly states that English is the majority language, the sequence in the information box cannot possibly mislead. If, and I say if advisedly, other editors who I respect want to take this issue seriously then indigenous or native language may be a sensible route forward, but to be honest I think allowing trolls any type of encouragement is a mistake. --Snowded TALK 22:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, Snowded, but we need to comment on the content, not the contributor. The infobox should present summary or overview information about the subject. The text of the article is clear on this point, but only when you get to about line 330 or so. Many readers (and, again, I emphasise the importance of putting readers first in all this, not editors) will not look that far, and will be guided by the summary in the infobox. The infobox should, in my view, best reflect the actual situation and, again in my view, the statement that "the sequence in the information box cannot possibly mislead" is not correct, and is capable of being improved. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

And the same IP editor has just reopened the Is Scotland a country debate. Wikipedia is not best assisted by taking Trolls seriously and I am pretty sure there is a policy on that somewhere. Ghmyrtle, I am very sorry but I don't think the sequence of the two languages in the info box could possibly mislead a reader and while you say you understand my concerns I don't think you address them. Please also note my comment that if editors who I respect want to take this seriously then indigenous may be acceptable. After waking up to this exchange and half a dozen other messy positions on British/Irish articles I am going to take myself to the hotel swimming pool to get away from it --Snowded TALK 22:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to take this any further either. But I do think the current order of the two words has the potential to be more misleading to casual readers than if that order were to be reversed, and I think that is a quite (but not very) important point. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I am little bit confused. Which is Wales first language? In the article Welsh is listed first, but I've been taught that English is spoken as first language?? Confused. --92.1.149.71 (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Confused. Here is part of a post from this thread:

"One of the topics covered on the Welsh Assembly Government's website (here) is the Welsh language. They say "The native language of Wales is Welsh. Almost all of the population speak English as well. Both languages have equal status in Wales." "

You will note the mention of the WAG website topic page being on the Welsh language. Others seem to have missed it. Perhaps by divine intervention, perhaps by choice. Hope this helps. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 22:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

A possible compromise?

Following a period of reflection and penance, can I now suggest that the reference in the infobox be changed to read as follows: Welsh (indigenous), English (most widely ~~spoken~~ used). Comments? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I can live with that if it stops the issue coming up time and time again--Snowded TALK 13:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

If it's going to be changed, it should be done correctly. In disputes such as this, we should go with the precedent, and that clearly is to list the most spoken language first. Take a look at the articles of other countries/regions, all have the most spoken listed first. The longer this goes without change, the more my faith in Wikipedia and its contributers dwindles. I have yet to hear a compelling argument as to why Welsh is listed first. English first, Welsh second - does anybody disagree with me here?

--92.1.225.95 (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd listen to Ghmyrtle, a sensible compromise. Your faith dwindling in the Wikipedia is not a compelling argument for change. --Snowded TALK 06:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Snowded, can you tell me why you refuse to let English be put before Welsh? You know that every other article of a country or region lists the most spoken first, so why should this one be any different?

--92.1.225.95 (talk) 15:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

reasons stated above. Also you are obviously not a first time editor (although your user page indicates this is your second edit). Using multiple IDs is not acceptable. --Snowded TALK 15:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine, I have now created an account so that you can no longer use my 'multiple ID's' as an excuse to ignore my input. Now, I am a reasonable man, so I have a compromise. We go with what Ghmyrtle suggested, but swap the order around so that it reads - English (most widely used), Welsh (indigenous). . Would you be happy with this compromise? If not, would you please be kind enough to state why.

--Ando UK (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Creating an account much appreciated, now you need to learn to indent text. However on what is a really minor matter I have not changed my mind and the arguments made prior to this stand, there is no reason why the indigenous language should not come first. Ghmyrtle has suggested something that at least two of us support. I am really puzzled as to why you are putting so much energy into this. --Snowded TALK 16:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ghmyrtle's compromise. It is clear and concise and gives the reader the information needed. Titch Tucker (talk) 17:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I too like Ghmyrtle's suggestion. And far from being just a compromise, I think it is actually quite informative. Hogyn Lleol (talk) 18:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

On the basis of the support for this so far, and the absence of substantive opposition, I'll make the change proposed and see what happens. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't English listed first? This seems ridiculous. It even states that English is most widely spoken! Is there a reason why Welsh is listed first?

--92.17.35.194 (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for English to be listed before Welsh. Seriously guys, this is ridiculous. Listing Welsh before English is only done to serve nationalist ideals. English is the most spoken, and therefore should be listed first. Is there any higher authority that I can make a complaint to?

--92.1.48.228 (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle's proposal had support last time. I see no reason to change it. --Snowded TALK 20:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

What will your complaint be? That editors on the Wales article came to a consensus? Titch Tucker (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

As a monoglot English Englishman who has lived in almost every county of Wales over the last 40 years, I would nevertheless support the compromise of Ghmyrtle as supported by Snowded. Velela (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The addition of the explanatory parentheses makes this of little import beyond internal consistency, but I would like to express my disapproval of the matter in which this has been handled, Arguments against IP editors on the basis that they are new, or that they are IP editors are without merit, in bad taste/violation of don't bit the newbies, and often inaccurate, I would be extremely annoyed to be characterised as using multiple IDs to edit war merely because I have a dynamic IP.

The second point is that the conclusion the 'debate' came to was clearly wrong, the consensus on wikipedia is that in these situations the most used language should come first, and I believe in situations where there is no clear leader in usage alphabetical order is the norm. Although a very minor point it is clear that English should be listed above Welsh, and absolutely no argument has been put forward as to why this article should do things differently, but due to your personal feelings you have used a might is right personal attack combo to preserve the reverse.

One of the poorer (IMO) decisions wikipedia has made was not to insist on internal consistency, and especially with the current semi-protection, it seems not worth my time to press this issue, but I am certainly not impressed with the situation. 92.2.17.208 (talk) 06:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

And just to be absolutely clear, I am not the same person or people as Alan and/or the previous IPs on this page. 92.2.17.208 (talk) 06:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)