Talk:Wales/Archive 15

Changes to Demography section
I've reverted these changes for several reasons. Firstly, they are poorly written: "According to the 2011 census the population of Wales is...." - no, it was, almost three years ago. "Populace"....."reside"....."Historiclly", etc. Verbosity and poor spelling should be discouraged in articles. More importantly, in Matt's version there was an over-emphasis on, and over-detailed interpretation of, the census statistics on national identity, which seem to be written up in a WP:POINTy manner. Some referenced information seems to have been removed. The previous text was better balanced, and better written, so I have reverted to it - and subsequently tweaked it a little for better flow. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * NO REFERENCES WERE REMOVED BY ME. I removed the POINTY-ness! That's what my edit was about. You could have changed spelling error and the odd word. But you just full-revert. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If you didn't remove references, I apologise. Sometimes the "compare" function makes it very difficult to see what changes have actually been made. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Dealing with Original Research in the demographics section (the section was also very jumbled)
I don't have much time right now... but made an edit this morning which took me a lot of time last night and this morning too. It improves the oft-jumbled text of the Demographics section, and CLEARS UP ONE VITALLY IMPORTANT AREA OF ORIGINAL RESEARCH AND MISINFORMATION.

The text gave someone's own personal reading of a Census data sheet: I've simply shown the data as percentages: not interpreted and judged on it. The incorrect and 'OR' reading is/was said "34.1 per cent had no Welsh identity. 16.9 per cent considered themselves wholly British and another 9.4 per cent considered themselves as partly British. 73.7 per cent had no British identity ." (my underline)

80 percent of people in Wales ticked only one box - mostly ticked Welsh, as they asked to after 2001. That does not mean they are not British. There nationality (the census question) is chosen here as Welsh. That's how it works in the UK. People can choose to say one or the other in the UK (that was the whole point of people wanting it in - I did myself after 2001, not becaise I'm not British!), it doesn not mean they are not the other - ie British nor Welsh! Many (I think most) people in England and Wales think that Welsh, Engilsh etc just IS British by default: that's the legal idea too. The qestion asked "How would you describe your nationality". Everyone knows most people just say their 'sub-nat', not their 'super-nat'. It's just the way it is. Britishness can even be seen as beyond-national anyway. It can also be seen as a simple legal default people accept. The do not have to be mutually exclusive.

We just cannot make these sweeping interpretations. As a side, we actually know that the whole census was actually regarded as confusing by over 50% of people. We also cannot say that 34.1 percent are NOT Welsh. It's pure Original Research. The Welsh gov summaries allude to what people put, not what they ARE. I added information the following 'ethnic group?' question on the census as it expanded (and shed light on) on the very same theme.

All we need offer people is the information. We don't have to tell them what to think. YES !

I put this alternative in instead (which adds relevant missing information, like the first line, and various data.)

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wales&diff=next&oldid=596754513#Demographics)


 * The census of 2001 was criticised by many in Wales for not offering 'Welsh' as an option to describe their national identity. Partly to address this concern the 2011 census offered a list of choices. It asked the question "How would you describe your national identity?" and underneath was a direction to "tick all that apply". 80% of the participants in Wales ticked one box, with 57.5 percent ticking 'Welsh' (65.9 percent in some combination), 11.2 percent ticking 'English' (13.8 percent in some combination), 0.5 percent ticking  'Scottish' (0.6 percent in some combination), 0.13 percent ticking  'Northern Irish' (0.15 percent in some combination), and 16.9 percent ticking 'British' (26 percent in some combination). 3.4 percent filled out 'Other', which included 0.4 instances that are the same as those above. The largest 'Other' was 'Irish', with 0.3 ticking 'Irish' (0.4 percent in some combination).


 * Identity was also the theme of the following question, which asked "What is your ethnic group?" The most-chosen option was 'White: Welsh/English/Scottish/Northern Irish/British' at 93.2 percent, a fall from 96 percent for the equivalent option of 'British' in 2001. The next most-chosen option was 'Asian or Asian British' at 2.3 percent, followed by 'Mixed race' at 1 percent, 'Black or Black British' at 0.6 percent, and 'Irish' and 'Other' 0.5 percent each. The figure given for 'Total Black and minority ethnic' people was 4.4 percent, a significant rise from 2.1 percent in 2001.

I Have to quickly go out quickly now, I do apologise. But Please read my work (it's always considered). Thanks. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * We really shouldn't be interpreting the raw census results ourselves at all - we should be relying on secondary sources. This is one such source - maybe not the best, but it covers the point. And we certainly should not be overstating the case made on one side or the other.  I'd support removing the entire existing paragraph on national identity, and replacing it, thus:
 * Existing paragraph:"The 2011 census showed that 57.5% of Wales' population considered their national identity as wholly Welsh and another 8.3% considered themselves to be partly Welsh (Welsh and British were the most common combination). 34.1% had no Welsh identity. 16.9% considered themselves wholly British and another 9.4% considered themselves as partly British. 73.7% had no British identity. 11.2% considered themselves wholly English and another 2.6% considered themselves partly English."


 * My suggestion: The 2011 census showed that 65.9% of Wales' population described their national identity as Welsh; 26.3% described it as British; 13.8% described it as English; and 4.3 described it as "other". The percentages total more than 100% because some residents declared more than one national identity.


 * Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you agree we shouldn't be interpreting the data at all, but for me it's got to be worth giving the actual question, and why not each statistic too? I actually fully-expected to find the section done that way. It's all useful stuff isn't it? We also absolutely need the ethnicity question, as it expands on the identity question. It's the best raw data (and reference, frankly) that there is: a census.


 * I'd love to give my interpretation underneath it all(!), but I did only give a lot of facts. I know you find what I wrote somehow 'pointy' (was it the order of things?), but I really do try and be aware of that kind of thing. What do you think is actually pointy about it? Maybe we could address that in turn.


 * Off the record, I think you can actually take something positive from my text whichever 'side' of the emotional dispute you are on: ie whether you'd rather see I'm-nothing-but-Welsh, or I'm-just-British or I'm British-too! If only you knew the hours I've spent here over the years - in my numerous article edits at least - to try and compromise with the emotional positions of others: and specifically not to make anything I write 'pointy'! I always want things to be balanced, objective and well-made. If there is anything 'directional' about it, it's just to convey meaning, and perhaps help other people from making the kind of interpretive mistakes that the writer of the dodgy text I highlighted above made. ie - give full-informative text that can stand the test of time.


 * Re the sources, I'd agree the one you've found is not ideal. I must have spent an hour at least on that side last night. I think it just happens to be difficult in this particular area. A surprise perhaps, but that seems to be true. Good sources must be out there, but I think that sometimes people here do expect them to be close at hand - ie we take the internet for granted sometimes. In the absence of them - and we'd need a few interpretations to write 'balance' that/this sentences - I think it's even more useful just to give all the raw data, as I have done. And in a way that hopefully no one sees as 'pointy' obviously.


 * By the way, I've thought the Wales article has been imperfectly-written in parts for more like 10 years, let alone 3! A lot of Wikipedia is still like that. If the offending parts here have indeed existed unchanged for 3 years, then for 3 years the article has been promulgating some highly-contentious and decidedly non-policy 'Original Research', albeit rather hidden-away in the demographics section. Perhaps it's no wonder that one or two non-Welsh (or non-Welsh residing) Wikipedians appear a bit confused about these issues. Matt Lewis (talk) 18:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't favour providing percentage figures that don't add up to 100% (excluding rounding), when they could and should. It leads to confusion. Anyway, we don't have to interpret the raw data. ONS have done that for us in this table: see KS202EW Percentages, Row 441 (Wales). That 34.1% of people living in Wales have no Welsh identity (column M), and 73.7% have no British identity (column X) is notable, accurate and informative, and can be cited. Daicaregos (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I admit that source is very pungent (far too much so from my point of view) but if you read the exact wording Dai, you'll see that they are referring to what people put, not what they are. I'm planning to ring them about it tomorrow (I want to see it made clearer), and I'll forecast right now that the reason I've just given is exactly what they'll say to cover themselves. From their point of view, the Welsh Government always had problems with the initial 1998 democratic mandate only being 25% of the total electorate (ie it was passed by 50% or a 50% turnout). In the mini referendum of 2011 even less people voted, so they immediately used this census to effectively bolster what democratic mandate they had - basically by stressing how Welsh everyone felt. In a way, one can hardly blame them. It's just politics essentially, but you have to really look at the wording. Like a lawyer might perhaps. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It is not the case that the figures "should" add up to 100% - in statistical terms it is perfectly reputable to note that, in cases where one more than option can be chosen, the figures will total more than 100%. My objection to spelling out all the permutations in detail is simply that it is unnecessary, and potentially confusing to itemise them all.  We should keep it simple.  It may at first glance seem noteworthy, for example, that 73.7% have no British identity - but is it, really, when the figure for the North East of England is 74.3%, for Merseyside 75.6%, and for England as a whole 70.7%?  If the Wales figures are included, they should be compared with the figures for England, at least.  But, if secondary sources which comment on the figures can't be found, it raises the question of how noteworthy they actually are.  Rather than expanding the paragraph, I think a case can be made for removing it entirely - but, I would prefer simply to shorten it as I've suggested.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that listing all the stats as I've done - with the combined votes in brackets, actually shows what you alluded to above regarding England, and the all other evidence regarding UK Britishness: ie that an impossibly-to-know number of people clearly found it sufficient to just tick one box. You look at the 'Northern Irish' stat especially (were most people would expect at least half to say 'British'), as you think: hmm, all these people are following the same pattern: maybe I shouldn't draw too many obvious conclusions? Basically, if we list all the stats, the reader can make up their own mind. I hope that doesn't sound too pointy: I just think by giving it all, people can then read what in it whatever they choose too. Beginning that 80% of people ticked one box is really useful in this regard. We are here to help people attain a balanced understanding of things after all. As there clearly exists a very large figure for people saying they are "Welsh": the 'national pride element' is self-explanatory and automatically covered I think. Most people in Wales clearly identify as being Welsh!


 * This discussion may be about the tension between 'pointiness' and the kind of elucidation that is necessary for balance and meaning. I've certainly found no way of shortening it all though: condensing this data seems to just retain the various problems over representation to me, so I favour the list. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "73.7 per cent had no British identity" sounds a very bold statement. Maybe the census figures just prove that some people like to tick more boxes than others. But then I'm always very cynical. Martinevans123 (talk)


 * Why? It only cost half a billion pounds, and only a little over 50% of people found it confusing in some way. Bargain.


 * (I think we all in Wales owe a lot to the 'Welsh not' by the way. Teachers of the time found that bilingual classroom were impossible to effectively teach and learn in, just as any teacher would today. It's often said to be a wicked 'English act', but essentially these British/Welsh people of the day (most of them Welsh, being in Wales) did it for our future. The teachers were largely Welsh, but naturally recognised the need for English language learning. It's just a shame that the Welsh language died-back so much out of school, at least in the more-populated south of the country. But that's life, and all reports show they just can't turn that around however much they now try - and they are spending a small fortune pursuing it in my view. I'm just-about old enough to remember the remnants of corporal punishment myself - that side of it pretty unpleasant I admit, but that was how they achieved those kind of disciplinary things in those days alas). English has given us the world, and we can't boast about most of our 'heroes' without it, that's for sure. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This is an example of where we need to be very careful with words, to avoid the possibility of misleading readers. The census doesn't show that 73.7% "had no British identity".  It shows the proportion of the total who did not tick the "British" box under the question on "National identity".  That is, it shows the percentage who did not indicate a British identity, rather than the proportion who had no British identity.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "It's worse that that, he's dead, Jim." Martinevans123 (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * That is exactly my point. It's the same with the line that says "34.1% had no Welsh identity". Can we really say that about people who just put 'British'? As I remember writing in a pretty well-received UK-naming guideline about 7 years ago, UK identity has always been far too complicated to draw simple conclusions about anyone. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Matt, I remember your UK-naming guideline with unremitting fondness. But I refuse to fill in that damned census until they print it in Jedi. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I doubt only 29.3% of English people support Murry. The question asked 'How would you describe your national identity?'. I would think many Brits would identify as 'British' likewise to 'European', or 'Welsh' likewise to 'Cardiffian', but not see that as there national identity. Sources use the phrase 'national identity' interchangeably with 'identity' which is misleading. I think stating '73.7% did not describe there national identity as British' or similar is clear. Rob (talk &#124; contribs) 23:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * But technically saying you are Welsh is actually saying you are British isn't it? Most of the time I certainly don't see them as any different. I live in the modern world, not the iron age. I don't think you can extract any 'British only' identity out of this data at all. It's just a flaw within the question. I think that the people filling it in were just trying to be useful as much as anything. What use is it just providing British? Or even doing both? It's the mindset of someone filling a census (already slightly befuddled as people do hate forms don't they - apart from Wikipidians of course!). Welsh, English etc - these are enough to place and satisfy people, and it's what we are. It's like the thing was unintentionally playing with people's heads. Looking around for good sources I've seen some really unpleasant right wing websites making hay with these statistics ("we are English and X people aren't!!"): but it's just flawed data. As I've already said, I actually complained to the guy who picked it up (he had to come back twice for me and was just a touch nervous the second time as legally I had to do it), and over another couple of questions regarding mental illness too: it wasn't a great census it really wasn't.


 * I think we are actually making the same mistakes the question-compilers made: trying to oversimplify something that can't be this oversimplified. With a little more attention to detail: ie not treating people as idiots, it can be done. Oversimplification to the point of atrophy is a classic form maker's fault. Sorry I'm full of anecdotes, but I was asked to fill in something called a 'carer's assessment form' not that long ago, and the very first question on it was (almost exactly something like) "do you consider yourself to be Welsh?". I found it so impossible to imagine what they could do with any actual answer I could supply that I genuinely refused to fill in the whole form (and they accepted that too, hopefully out of embarrassment). I didn't think of saying this to them at the time, but couldn't they get that from the census? I just don't get it: as I said to them too - a lot of this 'identity building' stuff does creep me out. You're lucky it's not the place for more stories I tell you.


 * The 2011 census was so obviously flawed in this area I think it's crazy trying to re-phrase any of it at all. We don't need to. Just give the data in percentages and in the most readable way possible. Some of it is fairly useful data: but only as raw data, not in an attempted summary. I hope this doesn't become a giant debate because I don't really understand what the problem is. It's always seems to be a colossal effort to improve anything on the main Welsh articles. I really don't feel comfortable with the current misinformation still up: I know it's been there a long time, but I don't think it's healthy and it's pure 'OR'. Keeping the version that is clearly incorrect makes no sense to me at all: my effort wasn't that bad was it? I basically just noticed a fault in the article, and did the 'work load' to correct what needed to be done. It's not my entry into an art competition. It just needs tinkering at best, a couple more refs maybe. Anyway I'll try and adjust and revise it per suggestions tomorrow. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The danger is that you will be wasting your time. There is no consensus here yet as to the direction any changes to the text should take.  Some want that paragraph expanded (for clarification), others want it minimised (to avoid mystification and undue weight).  Frankly, if the statistics are to be expanded, it should be at an article like Britishness - where there is already a section on Scottish identity, and which this article could then link to - rather than this one.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * These results are precisely the kind of statistics an encylopaedia should show in a country's demographics section. I take your point, however, that census respondents did not say they did not have any Welsh or British identity. I suggest: “34.1% stated no Welsh identity. 16.9% considered themselves wholly British and another 9.4% considered themselves as partly British. 73.7% stated no British identity.” Daicaregos (talk) 10:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Replace 'identity' with 'national identity' and that wording is okay. I would only describe my national identity as British, but I still identify as English fairly often. I simply don't think the English are a nation. Rob (talk &#124; contribs) 12:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I still prefer my wording (up above at 15:44, 23 February 2014). Dai's suggestion still contains some interpretation of the statistics - using words like "considered themselves" rather than "stated that", which could be misleading, and also in inferring a negative from the residual figures - like "34.1% stated no Welsh identity" when what the figures show is that 65.9% stated a Welsh national identity .  I also still think, as I stated before, that some of the figures may be interpreted by readers as having more significance than they actually do, given the figures for other parts of the UK.  I can see merit in putting a table in the Britishness article, linked from this article - which would provide some clarity.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Rob: A lot of people do though. Most people just don't think about it on this level: that's a central reason this data came out like it did I think.


 * Dai: regarding "34.1% stated no Welsh identity", why not just say 'ticked Welsh' like I did, after I helpfully said what the question was, and gave supplied the raw data as percentages? I don't think we should attempt to summarise at all, simply because it's an impossible thing to do accurately here. The word 'stated' sounds like those people actually meant to convey they had no Welsh identity at all, but we know that can not be the case the tune of over a third of Wales. As I've said, if I myself just ticked 'British' it would naturally include 'Welsh', just as putting 'Welsh' would naturally include 'British'. Unfortunately I can't actually remember which route I took now (I can think of four possible ones, including writing something in 'other'), other than to point the question out to the returning collector, as I said. It was only a couple of years ago, and I think the fact that I can't remember actually say quite a lot. I think I'll ask around out of interest - see who else isn't sure now what they specifically put.


 * Gh: Regarding "wasting time", that is 90% of Wikipedia in controversial areas, isn't it? And surely the Wales article is indented to cover all the sub-article information at least to some degree. If this misleading 'OR' is repeated in those articles too, it needs to be addressed and corrected. I can't accept the current content to just remain the same that's for sure. Wikipedia's 'consensus' rule just doesn't work in the specific topic discussion pages of these particular areas. People have been saying it for years: Too many socks, too may same old faces, too many jaded ignorers, and too many people saying they just won't go near: four reasons that effectively kill the consensus rule. But it doesn't mean that those present can't still come to an agreement. Anyway: to summarise this particular data will always be Original Research (ie WP:NOR in my opinion. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * That's not the point. The wording of the question was: 'How would you describe your national identity?'. Someone may identify as Cardiffian, Welsh, British and European, but only describe there national identity as 'British', 'Welsh' or both. From that question, you can't conclude that '34.1% stated no Welsh identity'.


 * To be clear on my position, I don't really think it's too important what terms we use ('ticked', 'described' or 'stated'), but my preference is 'described' as that's what the question states.
 * Rob (talk &#124; contribs) 13:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Did they answer the question though? They ticked a box, they didn't "describe" anything. It's too far removed. It's just not logical to transfer the wording to this degree. We need one of those 'logicians' here. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I stick to what I said earlier. Rather than placing any interpretation on the census results ourselves, we should rely on what secondary sources say.  This, I repeat, is a secondary source that summarises the information and appears to be as reliable as is necessary.  We should use the text in that article (and any others that we can find) to present a summary here.  Incidentally, I tried to prepare a summary table for the Britishness article, but have given up as the ONS tables are simply too complex to summarise effectively.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * If we must use the raw sources, I suggest this:"'In the 2011 census, 57.5% of Wales' population stated their sole national identity to be Welsh, and a further 7.1% stated it as both Welsh and British. The proportion giving their sole national identity as British was 16.9%, with 11.2% giving their sole national identity as English.'"Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Either you haven't read a single word I've written or you are just winding me up. That is ALL interpretation to nth degree! You are being very close to the line with me right now. I'd strike that 7,000 from your watchlist at this minute and give this your full undivided attention if I were you. You can agree to this easily if you want, you just wont. You never, ever have with me. I think I just upset you at some point and that was it. Your premiss has always been that I'm biased, and it's always been the opposite. Can you imagine how it makes me feel? The belligerent on Wikpipedia hold 99% of its bleeding power. You should be wanting the article to enlighten and inform people: that should be a natural instinct for you, not appending your user page every 2 hours with your latest whatevers. Just give this some proper mental thought. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This has nothing to do with you personally. I'm simply trying to come up with an improvement to the current wording, that summarises the census results without putting any slant whatsoever on them.  So far I've made two specific proposals, either of which would in my view be an improvement on the current wording.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * But the changes you have made in your suggestions are negligible. This is exactly what I've been predicting lately about bringing suggestions to these particular articles' discussion pages. Your suggests are so similar to what we have they are both still totally slanted and entirely Original Research. Like the current text, they develop the context of sourced language where they shouldn't, and interpret when they have no right. Can't you see the inherent OR in interpreting this data? We actually have data we can simply present, and a complete mug (ie me) who has done all the donkey work in presenting it in a perfectly readable way. You immediately shat all over it completely, even (wrongly) suggesting I'd removed needed references. It was an utterly needless knee-jerk attack to a load of hard work, and you've followed it by completely digging your heels in. I did all that work for the one element of this encyclopedia that hardly anyone cares about: the reader. Whatever Wikipedia's confused policy might say about accuracy, the reader simply desires it, and as a direct consequence of that the reader becomes devalued by default. Think about it - it's true. Perfect or not, for writing what I did I should have been congratulated, not pissed on. Just try and imagine reading it if an editor you really respected had written it. I think you'd be sending him a cake. Matt Lewis (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I didn't "piss on" your suggestion - I reverted it because in my view it was worse than the previous wording, and then another editor agreed with me. It was verbose, gave the whole issue undue weight (you surely cannot deny that it has become your pet hobbyhorse - and that of no-one else here), and parts of it were utterly incomprehensible to me and, I'm pretty sure, most readers.  My intention is to remove any interpretation of the figures, not to add one.  If it helps (I don't hold out much hope, but anyway...) I'd be happy to add to the front of my suggestion a slightly reworded version of your explanation, as follows:"'The 2001 UK census was criticised in Wales for not offering 'Welsh' as an option to describe respondents' national identity. Partly to address this concern, the 2011 census asked the question 'How would you describe your national identity?', with a list of options that included Welsh; respondents could check more than one option. The outcome was that 57.5% of Wales' population stated their sole national identity to be Welsh, and a further 7.1% stated it as both Welsh and British. The proportion giving their sole national identity as British was 16.9%, with 11.2% giving their sole national identity as English.'"Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You didn't piss on my 'suggestion' (as you put it)?!! At the top of this section is where you pissed on my article edit, and it was a steamer. It was full of falsehoods and 100% designed to make everything I wrote look like total shit. And you outrageously claimed that what already existed was much better, but I don't think you've even bothered to look properly even now. What was there was a bloody mess, and it's only slightly better since some of the usual post attempted-edit tinkering (made as much as anything to save some embarrassment). It was/still-is full of 2001 data and was not coherent: my reorganisation and additions simply made it make sense for readers. And you initially accepted that there was WP:OR, though all you've suggested since is almost identical OR!


 * You just cynically removed a whole bunch of improvements. You wouldn't get away with that anywhere other than these second-tier UK/NATIONAL articles. The ridiculous rope around them has protected you for years. If you and a few other nationlists were area-banned for a year (gold heart, HK, RA - that would do it), UK articles would blossom into amongst the best on Wikipedia, if not the best. The whole miserable pallor around them would lift, and people would come in and do all kinds of good work. Britain is small enough and dedicated enough to make them superb. But this wholly-unrepresentational dislike of the UK itself has made them amongst the worst.


 * There was nothing positive about what you wrote about my edit at all: it was totally knee-jerk and deliberately-unpleasant horseshit, and you've repeated the same provocative bollocks about it above even now. I find it arrogant and offensive. I have never ever shat on other people's copy.  Not once. I've always been proud of my own copy edits, and I've been complimented on them a number of times in the past. I don't spend the hours making them totally word-by-word perfect, as this is meant to be a joint effort (if some people would only allow it to be): I spend the time making them readable, fair and accurate: and most of all trying to consider the local positional brick-wallers like you. Whatever I compose with you in the neighbourhood is a painstaking attempt to work around your entrenched nationalist politics and unbending edit-protectional stance.


 * But hey, at least your edit-note this time was a different approach to your usual provocative "removing POV"! It was lovely to see you actually take up my suggestion of saying "take it to talk" instead (hmmm). And now you suggest I am biased yet again, and all-alone alas too. Who was this 'other person' who you say agreed with your assessment? Rob?! Your 'revised' suggestion above, as you fully know, is simply patronising: you've simply included the question this time, and carried on with almost exactly the same entirely unhelpful, utterly needless, fully illogical and 'OR' interpretation. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I was just trying to help. But I don't see much point in continuing with this.  If you find anyone to agree with your position, I'll rejoin the discussion.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * No, because there's nowhere else to go right now is there? As predicted, you've offered 4 barely-differing versions of the existing non-policy text. It's such a waste of my time, but I'll see what I can do. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've started a new thread down below. Hopefully it will encourage other editors to express a view.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ghmyrtle not out to get you... he's just vigilant. Rob (talk &#124; contribs) 16:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * No because there's nowhere else to go right now is there. It's entrenched, and over nothing but an obvious improvement. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I find the style passive aggressive and always have. I think think with the right will we can all sort this out easily. Matt Lewis (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd rather think of myself as calm and considered - or perhaps as the lukewarm water of WP. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Small's the word. You've got your "sole" but you've got no soul. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I haven't 'interpreted' anything: I avoided OR other than to point out he "80%" ticked one box. That's acceptable in my opinion, as it aids understanding. You've basically found a single source (from a website that promotes 'stateless nations') which happens to agree with Wikipedia's current 'OR'. Basically you are saying that using the source stops it being 'OR'! (I know you are stuck for sources, so was I ). But all my arguments remain, and there are simply too few sources available. This is 'source searching' area in which Wikipedia itself can get very dodgy in my opinion - I do hope we can avoid the "not about truth" territory. There is not better solution than to just provide the census data, framing it fairly in a balanced way. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I prefer Ghmyrtle suggestion. I don't think we should present raw data for readers to try to interpret, and I don't agree with your 'ticked box' not 'described' logic. If you tick a box that indicates you describe your national identity as X, then you are describing your national identity as that. By your logic, we shouldn't provide interpretations of any of the census data, which is absurd. Rob (talk &#124; contribs) 14:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The question wasn't as simple as ticking a single box was it! Ghmyrtle uses words like "sole": nobody on the census has used it, and it doesn't logically stack up either. It's 'developing' something too. Thinking of that the ridiculous 'warning' you gave me on my talk page, I'm wondering now you just don't want a suggestion of mine making it to the article frankly. You've just simply ignored all my arguments. I vowed to myself once that I wouldn't be part of something like this again. Put it this way: what is worse about my suggestion? What we currently have clearly HAS to be changed. I have never ever in my all Wikipedia days argued against something like this, even if I did prefer the original. What is the point? Part of consensus is being able to listen and adapt, even if you do really think it's little of an improvement. But this is just pure entrenchment if you ask me. Don't you have anything else to do but dig your heals on a clearly useful change to Wikipedia? I've added to the encyclopedia. I've made it better. It's as clear as a ringing bell that's what I did (before you needlessly reverted and warned me). If you genuinely can't see that then you are just a hindrance here imo. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Matt, I doubt anybody's going to support wording that is confusing, and repeats to the reader how a multiple choice census question is answered. It's illogical.

And also, it's unionist like yourself make us all look like dickheads. Regards, Rob (talk &#124; contribs) 22:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Unionist? Don't be such a damn fool. I am what I am - someone who exists. How many nationally-contented people outside of Wikipedia get referred to as "unionists" for God's sake? The UK is simply here - nobody has to apologise for it. If you see some wording that you find confusing, just change it . That's what you are here for isn't it? Don't throw the enitre baby out with the bathwater. It was a depressingly pointless warn/revert that you made of my edit it really was.


 * And that's a complete misuse of the word "logic": I added illumination: people forget what this encyclopedia is supposed to be about. Readers. And readers are not gaping fools. The question is important here, as are the results. What ithere is actually illogical as things currently stand (on a number of levels) - what I did was bring in logic. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

National identity section
Matt's national identity paragraph intro, relating to the 2001 census problems, is interesting and notable, and should be included if a RS citation can be found. Having considered editor comments above (in particular, using described and stated in place of considered, and adding national before identity), I suggest this:


 * The 2011 census showed that 57.5% of Wales' population described their national identity as wholly Welsh and another 8.3% as partly Welsh (Welsh and British were the most common combination). 34.1% stated no Welsh national identity. 16.9% described it as wholly British and another 9.4% as partly British. 73.7% stated no British national identity. 11.2% described their national identity as wholly English and another 2.6% as partly English.

Any further suggestions? Daicaregos (talk) 09:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * My latest suggestion is down below, where I'd hoped we could concentrate discussion. My comment on your suggestion is simply that it goes into unnecessary detail and is over-complicated. I also think the terminology could be more precise.  They didn't "describe" their national identity as "wholly Welsh", for example - they simply ticked the Welsh box and no other, which in my view could be better described as "stated their sole national identity to be Welsh".  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So it is. Sorry. I'd read some of that section and it didn't seem to have anything to do with this topic. These threads seem to become rather messy. May I ask editors not to alter their posts (other than for minor corrections, to spelling etc.) and to post them chronologically. At the very least, it requires them to be re-read. Daicaregos (talk) 09:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2014
Wales is not a state! 88.145.35.122 (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * That is true. The article does not claim that it is.  But it is a country.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not a Principality either, just for the record . Martinevans123 (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Demographics section, third paragraph (revisited)
Trying to resolve the discussion above - views are welcome... Current wording:"The 2011 census showed that 57.5% of Wales' population considered their national identity as wholly Welsh and another 8.3% considered themselves to be partly Welsh (Welsh and British were the most common combination). 34.1% had no Welsh identity. 16.9% considered themselves wholly British and another 9.4% considered themselves as partly British. 73.7% had no British identity. 11.2% considered themselves wholly English and another 2.6% considered themselves partly English." Matt Lewis proposal:"The census of 2001 was criticised by many in Wales for not offering 'Welsh' as an option to describe their national identity. Partly to address this concern the 2011 census offered a list of choices. It asked the question 'How would you describe your national identity?' and underneath was a direction to 'tick all that apply'. 80% of the participants in Wales ticked one box, with 57.5% ticking 'Welsh' (65.9% in some combination), 11.2% ticking 'English' (13.8% in some combination), 0.5% ticking 'Scottish' (0.6% in some combination), 0.13% ticking  'Northern Irish' (0.15% in some combination), and 16.9% ticking 'British' (26% in some combination). 3.4% filled out 'Other', which included 0.4 instances that are the same as those above. The largest 'Other' was 'Irish', with 0.3 ticking 'Irish' (0.4% in some combination)."


 * Identity was also the theme of the following question, which asked "What is your ethnic group?" The most-chosen option was 'White: Welsh / English / Scottish / Northern Irish / British' at 93.2%, a fall from 96% for the equivalent option of 'British' in 2001. The next most-chosen option was 'Asian or Asian British' at 2.3%, followed by 'Mixed race' at 1%, 'Black or Black British' at 0.6%, and 'Irish' and 'Other' 0.5% each. The figure given for 'Total Black and minority ethnic' people was 4.4%, a significant rise from 2.1% in 2001.


 * (information on racial groups, currently all over the place in the section, continued underneath: my complete edit (here) unifies the section.)

Ghmyrtle third proposal:"The 2001 UK census was criticised in Wales for not offering 'Welsh' as an option to describe respondents' national identity. Partly to address this concern, the 2011 census asked the question 'How would you describe your national identity?', with a list of options that included Welsh; respondents could check more than one option. The outcome was that 57.5% of Wales' population stated their sole national identity to be Welsh, and a further 7.1% stated it as both Welsh and British. The proportion giving their sole national identity as British was 16.9%, with 11.2% giving their sole national identity as English."Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Matt's proposal is laudably detailed, but I'd say Ghm's version was the more encyclopedic. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd say you are a troll of course. But only because that's what you are. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your enlightening reply. Glad we've cleared that one up then. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Cleared what up? It becomes tedious son. It only goes so far. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems that you have decided that, since I don't agree with you, my views are worthless. But I'm not sure why you decide to call me "son". Martinevans123 (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Then let me enlighten you. It's a demeaning term for someone who litters the page with gnomic comments linking to cryptic images, then suddenly expects to be taken seriously. Or I assume that you did and do - who knows? Too much of it eventually becomes distracting and tedious anyway. That you might learn perhaps. (I'll leave out the 'son'). Matt Lewis (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if you think my comments are gnomic and the images cryptic. But I'd rather not trade insults and demeaning terms, thanks. You seem to have very strong views on this subject and an admirable enthusiasm. Unfortunately, I don't think your proposed edits improve the article. Apart from the bit about the 2001 census nationality categories, which I personally thought was truely offensive. But then I don't expect you to take me seriously. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

You are making me repeat all my arguments regarding the impossibility of interpreting this particular data, the non-policy use of Original Research (NOR), the dearth of any really-suitable reliable sources to give a balanced this/that appraisal from, the 'developed' use of words from the census (too far removed in meaning), the logical fallacy that British and Welsh are somehow not mutually exclusive (ie for many - and legally too - they mean the same thing), the 'OR' use of "sole" etc (nobody 'stated' any such thing!). The fact that we KNOW that many of the results don't stand up to reality (you've simply ignored the worst offenders!), and that it's down to the way people respond to these kind of questions. I've given some great anecdotal examples above that a fitting for discussion pages in these circumstances per the rules of Wikipedia. Also, the flawed nature of the census (over 50% actually found it confusing), basic Wikipedia issues regarding chasing sources and enforcing interpretation rather than sticking with first-hand data that should speak for itself. We've found a classic example where the data has to stand up for itself. I did all the donkey work in presenting that in a way the aids the reader. This is ultimately about aiding the reader isn't it? Not considering them to be fools, and interpreting things for them.

It's also only part of the total changes I made in the edit. Completely ignored is the connect paragraph on 'ethnicity'. (in fact, I'll add that too it, as they it's all connected). Now added.

Constantly saying "no" to the arguments is so easy - having to repeat a group of sensible arguments endlessly is hard, hard work. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

NOTE- I've added the 'ethnicity' paragraph. It was connected, as was the whole of my edit. If people see parts that they don't like they can always change them! Matt Lewis (talk) 23:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

NOTE- I've adapted all my percents per ghmyrtle's '%' format. I originally just copied the full-written existing "percent" format, and assumed that was the done thing here these days. Thanks for telling me people. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * @Matt: Please don't interpose your comments here in the middle of my comments. It may confuse other readers.  If you want to start a thread about your proposed paragraph on ethnicity, please start a new thread below, and remove your comments from the middle of my comments above.  I haven't commented on your proposed ethnicity paragraph yet, because I felt it was necessary to resolve the "identity" paragraph first.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I wrote it, and for me they are fully connected. I actually improved the whole section taking a few hours, and you removed it all in 1 second flat. One of the reasons for all the staccato prose and oddly-placed information in this section (and ones like it I'm sure) is surely because broader unifying work like mine never even gets properly considered these days, just automatically reverted. People are supposed to adapt improvements, not just remove them. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Daicaregos proposal:"The 2001 UK census was criticised in Wales for not offering 'Welsh' as an option to describe respondents' national identity. Partly to address this concern, the 2011 census asked the question 'How would you describe your national identity?'. Respondents were instructed to 'tick all that apply' from a list of options that included Welsh. The outcome was that 57.5% of Wales' population stated their sole national identity to be Welsh; a further 7.1% stated it as both Welsh and British. No Welsh national identity was stated by 34.1%. The proportion giving their sole national identity as British was 16.9%, and another 9.4% included British with another national identity. No British national identity was stated by 73.7%. 11.2% stated their sole national identity as English and another 2.6% included English with another national identity."

Can we reach agreement on this paragraph first please, before moving on to the one on ethnicity. Daicaregos (talk) 10:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to support that - it's a big improvement on the current version. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The word "sole" is non-policy 'Original Reasearch." We all know that. We also know that around 90% of Wales actually see themselves as British, even much of the full Welsh-speaking community. We all know that well-over 2/3 of people in Wales do see themselves as Welsh! These figures say 34% of them don't, simply because some people just put 'British'! We can't remove some awkward interpretation (like that one) but keep the others! That's not right at all. There just isn't he schism in Wales all this interpretation suggests. That was down to the census question, and we all know it. So we only put what people ticked, and we let people make their own minds up. We cannot say people 'stated' "sole" anything, because they just didn't do or exactly put that.


 * The census-makers were stuck between a rock and a hard place actually. They were obliged to add 'Welsh', but they didn't want to make it mini referendum. So it ended up being the kind of over-simplistic multiple answer question that everyone hates. They had issues too with sexuality (which they avoided in the end), other points of identity, and they messed up mental illness completely. The 2011 census was actually heavily criticised on a number of levels. The terms Welsh and British are both legally and culturally mutually inclusive: so we can only supply the data that people put on a form, but cannot not state what they categorically are. I do KNOW that Wikipedia isn't about "truth", but we are also here to illuminate, and give the most-accurate and informative information possible. In this case it's got to be the raw date. I spent a lot of time thinking about this, and I believe that I've found the best way of presenting the data. I found what I did really useful.


 * So the figures are also very useful imo, and the census spreadsheets doesn't present them anywhere nearly as well as I did in converting them to percentages (which is fully-acceptable on Wikipedia to aid understanding, and not Original Research at all). I found the results interesting. Why can't others be allowed to too? It's only a small paragraph. It does no harm at all, it only adds to the encyclopedia, and effectively enlightens. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The word "sole" is not original research. It is a succinct and neutral expression of the fact that a certain proportion of respondents only (solely) ticked one box on the form.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not how you or Dai express it though is it. You (and he) put "stated their sole national identity to be Welsh". We know that is not the case. What they ticked is one thing. And Welsh and British are mutually inclusive anyway. We cannot conclusively say that people 'stated' anything to be such. We can read from the very data that people took different routes. So we just put what they did, and we do not conclude that people stated they were only one thing or the other. It's an adaptation of meaning, and it's WP:Original Research.


 * It's actually a really good thing anyway just to give the raw percentages. Nobody is missing out on anything other than this dubious interpretation. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to change "stated" to "indicated", if it helps:"The 2001 UK census was criticised in Wales for not offering 'Welsh' as an option to describe respondents' national identity. Partly to address this concern, the 2011 census asked the question 'How would you describe your national identity?'. Respondents were instructed to 'tick all that apply' from a list of options that included Welsh. The outcome was that 57.5% of Wales' population indicated their sole national identity to be Welsh; a further 7.1% indicated it to be both Welsh and British. No Welsh national identity was indicated by 34.1%. The proportion giving their sole national identity as British was 16.9%, and another 9.4% included British with another national identity. No British national identity was indicated by 73.7%. 11.2% indicated their sole national identity as English and another 2.6% included English with another national identity." Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * British and Welsh may be "mutually inclusive" in a legal sense, or in the way that they are defined by Wikipedia. But is that necessarily true in terms of an individual's self-perception? If it is, then why didn't all respondents who ticked one of those boxes also always tick the other? Just laziness? We can't go ticking boxes, in retrospect, without their permission, can we? Even if we pretend to know better about what these terms really mean. I wonder what proportion of Scottish people still think that British and Scottish are "mutually inclusive"? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Addressing the slight revision by Ghmyrtle above: one of the many problems is that it still leaves the 'WP:OR' word "sole", and the new "indicate" starts to sound 'weasel-wordy'. It's simply because it's 'complex' data - or flawed data if you decide to interpret it in certain unintended ways. Summarising in this way just isn't possible with this data, not unless you are willing to write a whole critique of the process, including all the variations and criticisms, and then it just isn't a summary anymore. And somehow I don't think that would be found suitable here! This data can always be interpreted by politicians of course, but not by encyclopedia writers.


 * Saying "No British national identity was indicated by 73.7%." is still 'WP:OR', and the line reads a bit like those people are not British citizens too. It is a simple fact that the words 'Welsh' and 'British' are mutually inclusive: they are both legally and culturally the same thing to all/most/many of us. This literally-singular question was not intended to be an analysis of Britishness, and we can't act like it was. It was just a clumsily-realised answer to a complaint about the census before it. We know that more people than 73.7% in Wales see themselves as being Welsh and British. Whatever you feel about the "truth" motto, that really does need to be taken into account.


 *  Why did they compose the question like this? 


 * The census compilers actually went from one extreme to the other.


 * In 2001 the census for England and Wales had us both as 'British', but a separate census in Scotland allowed for the option of 'Scottish'. People saw it as both silly and unfair and they complained.


 * In 2011, while addressing the complaints, the census-makers gave us a 'simple' list, allowing people to tick as much as they want. They began by suggesting that you can only have one nationality in the UK (How would you describe your nationality?), but then allowed for more than one box to be ticked. The problems are to do with interpretation: they effectively presented a question where putting 'British' could (by certain people) be interpreted as not being 'Welsh' or 'English' at all. And where putting 'Welsh' or 'English' could be interpreted (by some people) as not being British by default. Did they actually mean to give an option of 'British' that didn't include Welsh or English? No. Did they mean to say that to be Welsh or English and still be British you have to put them both? No, absolutely not. Where they saying the Britain is not really a nation, but the others are. Of course not!


 * It really is simple: They simply had to give what people are most likely to put. That meant putting British, Welsh, English etc and allowing them to say if they have two or more, as people often do in Britain: but not to the exclusion of everything else! And not with the focus exclusively on 'British' either. But that created an immediate analysis issues for those who wished to interpret the data more deeply than was intended. I think it could well explain why the compilers of 2001 decided not to go this way in 2001. In 2011 there ended up being a token dumbed-down question to appease all the many people who complained about the the issues with the census before. The biggest fault was in the actual question: how can you ask for "your nationality" then give the option of ticking more? After that they gave options that can mean the same thing both legally and culturally. It makes summarising the data in terms of what people "are" in any exclusive sense simply impossible to do.


 * Ultimately, it could be argued that both of the censuses has issues in this area to some degree, and the much-maligned 2010 census cost Britain half a billion pounds all told. But they did say they were trying to make the whole census as simple as possible for all types of people to get through, and that isn't an easy thing to do for a census this inclusive and large. As it turned out, over 50% of us still found it confusing and hard to fill.


 * A way of doing a genuine To what degree are you British? question is to offer a set of direct choices with single answers (along the lines of "I feel Welsh but not British." etc - there are a few ways of doing it). But that just wasn't their intention at all. The question just wasn't about studying 'Britishness', as the way they dealt with the following 'ethnicity' question clearly shows. It was just about being able to say 'Welsh' and 'English' etc, that was all the census question was about. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Nationality does not mean the same thing as identity. I'm English, but I would not describe my nationality as English at all. British is my only nationality. There's no extent to nationality. You either think Wales is a nation or you don't. You either think the United Kingdom's a nation or you don't. Identity however is completely different . A Welsh person may not think the UK is a nation (hence no British nationality), but still identify as British. On the other end, a Welsh person may not identify as British at all, and feel no more related with England then with other European countries. Or they may be somewhere in-between. But nationality is completely black and white. And evidently from the census, you can have two nationalities, and go by the 'nations within a nation' idea. Rob (talk &#124; contribs) 22:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I personally think that many if not most people in the UK are happy to see English and British etc as 'inner' and 'outer' nationalities: they can easily have two and yet still see them as the same as well. In the same way that England and the UK are both 'countries'. People can say "England is my country" and they can say "the UK is my country". So they can pick two, or one, or whatever they feel like when expressing it. But as they are mutually inclusive too, they only have to pick one to also pick the other. This explains why the data came out like it did. We can show what happened, but we can't make judgements (ie talk about "sole" nationality).


 * But whatever you see the permutations as, surely it's clear that we can't make an interpretive summary from this data? There are too many alternative readings. I spend a long time presenting it in a way that readers can simply peruse it for themselves. What Ghmyrtle has done below (within 30 mins of me writing the above), has to be most outrageous act of gamesmanship I've ever seen on Wikipedia. It's his choice - or nothing!! Matt Lewis (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly happy for you to add your option as a third option, and see if it gets support. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Me creating a new poll wouldn't be your decision even in part. You should have talked first about pitching your version against mine, not losing your patience and creating a poll on yours alone the moment I wrote the above. I may as well do it, but I won't be advertising it in Wikiproject Wales - I'll put it through an unbiased option-asking place. I keep forgetting where they are: I'll have to look at all of that side of things tonight. It's been a few years since I've worked here to that degree. I need to find the buried areas of foundational policy that support me too. It's stronger policy than the likes of 'truth', 'AGF' and 'consensus', it's just less disseminated and consequently harder to find. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If the Gmh version gets enough support it will be added. There is nothing to stop you then presenting what you think is a further improvement and asking for a straw poll on that. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Well you've found your level now haven't you. You forgot to put the will in bold Martin, and where's the exclamation mark at the end?


 * These kind of straw polls for are fo straw men I say. Back in the days when Wikipedia still made a little sense they used to frowned upon for this very kind of reason. They are supposed to gauge where people are in complex situations, not game the system and stymie debate. It's bullshit all the way. A normal editor would have just put his adjustments into the article - no one would have deleted it would they. Deletion only happens to balanced content in this place. I was the only person who wasn't capable of making a tiny-improvement edit like that, as I'd clearly stated that nothing but the plain stats can avoid 'OR'. What myrtle did in choosing to make his ridiculous one-sided poll instead was try and end the debate for good (he even said as much) and win that hallowed 'protectable consensus'. Just like I predicted he would. I've seen it done in these various pages what must be a hundred times. Like pretty-much everything else in here right now it's supposed to be against the rules. Whatever you think about me, I always know the sodding rules. And not least the two I far too often break: civility and AGF. These places just suck them right out of you. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * What exactly is "my level"? I'd suggest that your incessant and wholly unnecessary incivility is becoming disruptive. I think Ghmyrtle has gone out of his way to be fair and open in this debate, but you seem to want to constantly bring discussion onto a personal level. And what do you mean by "these places"? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Straw poll
Interesting essay, but I don't think that further discussion is going to prove helpful. We must summarise the census results, not try to interpret them. I believe that the words "sole" and "indicate" are entirely neutral. A simple question: is the version below (B) an improvement on the current version (A), or not? If most editors think it is an improvement, it should go in. Current wording (A):"The 2011 census showed that 57.5% of Wales' population considered their national identity as wholly Welsh and another 8.3% considered themselves to be partly Welsh (Welsh and British were the most common combination). 34.1% had no Welsh identity. 16.9% considered themselves wholly British and another 9.4% considered themselves as partly British. 73.7% had no British identity. 11.2% considered themselves wholly English and another 2.6% considered themselves partly English." Latest proposal (B):"The 2001 UK census was criticised in Wales for not offering 'Welsh' as an option to describe respondents' national identity. Partly to address this concern, the 2011 census asked the question 'How would you describe your national identity?'. Respondents were instructed to 'tick all that apply' from a list of options that included Welsh. The outcome was that 57.5% of Wales' population indicated their sole national identity to be Welsh; a further 7.1% indicated it to be both Welsh and British. No Welsh national identity was indicated by 34.1%. The proportion giving their sole national identity as British was 16.9%, and another 9.4% included British with another national identity. No British national identity was indicated by 73.7%. 11.2% indicated their sole national identity as English and another 2.6% included English with another national identity." Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support B  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support B Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support B Rob (talk &#124; contribs) 22:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support B (PS Would a formula along the lines of "The outcome was that 57.5% of Wales' population indicated their national identity to be Welsh, and gave no other indication of national identity." resolve the concern over "sole national identity"?) DeCausa (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * At very least you have to remove the word "sole"! Matt Lewis (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support B welsh (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support B Daicaregos (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * NO to predicted nationalist gaming. How can people "Support B" when there's only one fucking option! Everyone agrees the current wording ('option A') has to be changed! I predicted this would happen. Run to Wikiproject Wales and get an immediate phoney consensus. I've had no say in it at all - ghmyrtle just took it all away. "but I don't think that further discussion is going to prove helpful" Who do you think you are, Jimbo Wales? Does this guy always get his own way on Wikipedia?? I made an edit, ghmytle removed it, and has now grown tired of discussing it. 'Enough is enough' he says. He gave people less than 30 flaming minutes to read and respond to my long comment above. I took longer to write it. There is no deadline here for God's sake. This is total gaming - he just does not want too many people involved. YOU DO NOT OWN WIKIPEDIA GHMYRTLE. DON'T YOU EVER GET THAT? People he respects (outside of Welsh nationalism) desperately need to tell him that. This "it's going to be this or nothing" quick 'straw poll' is just a clear abuse of the project. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You say: "Everyone agrees the current wording ('option A') has to be changed!". Do you think that option B is an improvement, or not?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * That's a very cynical way of looking at it don't you think? The 'policy' approach is to remove the offending part, then work on something that works. You approach is to keep the offending part in at all costs, and just water it down a little. If you poll the watered-down version against the original, then of course it's an improvement of sorts. It's just such a controlling and cynical way of accepting the smallest amount of change possible. The result is still non-policy text. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "...of course it's an improvement of sorts...". So, that's 8-0 for making the change, which I'll now do.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support B — Let's keep a lid on this: for you to post profanities and  to *SHOUT* here does nothing but reduce your credit. credence. — &#124; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard&#124; — 10:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Credibility? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Being small again myrtle? The guy actually put "credit" for a pretty good reason. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This place shouldn't be anything about 'personal credit' at all, only policy and argument. That lazy focus and sometimes-reliance on phoney persona is party why Wikipedia can be as bad as it is. People become 'trusted favourites' on WP don't they, often through playing it like a game of diplomacy. The internet is just too vulnerable to look at it that way. Wikipedia channelled through personality is the foundation of cabals, and it's why so many poor-quality admin get voted in. I can leave Wikipedia for a year and guarantee the exact same spoilt person will revert an edit of mine almost as soon as I've put it up. I'd like to avoid these areas completely, but I tend to return after I bump into them in Reader's Life (ie a search engine) and I seen how bad they've got.


 * I've had to constantly fight to even get this smallest of "enough is enough" improvements polled above. Can't you see how it's been a war of attrition? It's starts when a committed edit-protector like ghmyrtle attacks the initial new edit the way he did. Doing that is completely against policy, it's just not the part of policy people care about in here. People here care about consensus, AGF and 'truth' and that is it, because it's all they'll ever need to get what they want. It took about about 7 'revisions' from between them to come to the above, and it's still non-policy and original research because we obviously should not be summarising this data at all, just presenting it in the best way.


 * Where is the duty of care? That sense of duty in dealing with sources is the least understood and most important part of Wikipedia. But it is there in policy, and it's mainly why we have discussion pages. There is nothing like that in these little smoke rooms, just a total commitment to entrenched identity politics.


 * Wikipedia is by its nature actually quite a hard thing to compile a lot of the time, and possibly the biggest problem it faces is the Wikipedia Policy itself, and in particular they way it is actually summerised, and disseminated in broken-down chunks. It makes it all look too simple, and it's far too easy to wikilawyer and cherrypick with those 'chunks' as well. People conclude that they just have to create a 'consensus', so they build up credit with people and draw them all in when discussion isn't going their way. They realise that with the '3RR' rule the 'protected-edit' is king, so they can actually revert whatever they don't want to see. And bingo - that's all they need to do. Revert-protect-revert-protect-revert-drawconsensus-protect. There's no point AGF'ing with human nature in that area: if you they don't regulate this place properly that is what enough people will always do. When the powers-that-be cynically 'Ring-fence' an area they see is problematic, the cynically-biased 'revert-protect' cycle becomes so bad that most other people simply keep away. It's even 1RR in some of these areas too. It just leaves an over-confident group of people who have been given total control over years and years and years. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * tldr. Daicaregos (talk) 15:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah right. How is your squirty little 'Matt Lewis diff collection' coming along, anyway? From what you've shown me already it's 'getting there' as they say. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, thanks for reminding me of that one - 'tldr'. It took me 3 minutes to steadily read out what I wrote above. In 'real life' human interaction that is no time at all. On Wikipedia it's considered a mortal sin. You see pages and pages of the same repeated little comments posted over days and archived over years. Millions of hours of wasted time - and that's all fine! 3 mins of text? "tldr".

Demographics section - ethnicity
Matt Lewis has proposed the inclusion of the following paragraph:"Identity was also the theme of the following question, which asked 'What is your ethnic group?' The most-chosen option was 'White: Welsh / English / Scottish / Northern Irish / British' at 93.2%, a fall from 96% for the equivalent option of 'British' in 2001. The next most-chosen option was 'Asian or Asian British' at 2.3%, followed by 'Mixed race' at 1%, 'Black or Black British' at 0.6%, and 'Irish' and 'Other' 0.5% each. The figure given for 'Total Black and minority ethnic' people was 4.4%, a significant rise from 2.1% in 2001." I support the inclusion of a paragraph on ethnicity, but would remove any link with "identity" and would greatly prefer the substance to be derived from secondary not primary sources. Any suggestions on wording? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Look myrtle, I followed the above paragraph with all the other information relating to ethnicity, which was all over the original section, and was mostly relating to the 2001 census too. It related to the preceding census question (17 and 18 I think) on national identity because of the way they were both presented and written. You are just trying to disconnect them.


 * One of the reasons I found a demographics section that was incredibly disjointed is because some people just won't allow proper copy edit. It's like being forced to paint by numbers. You can't demand everything you see of individual importance to be dealt/protected bit by bit. You were supposed to improve upon my type of copy edit, not just remove it wholesale and control everything thereafter like this. You are only doing to protect the idea that "74 % of Welsh do not feel British". You know it's not right (though you are not Welsh and you don't not live here), but you just want it to be the case because you happen to want to break up the whole UK. Can you imagine an American doing what you do over some southern state in the US of A? Freedom of speech OK, but he'd have a bloody FBI file on him too.


 * As I said I would, I've been asking around about the census, and guess what? A) No one can remember exactly what they put (whether ticking one or two boxes, or even which 'one' in some cases), and B) people are BLOODY SHOCKED with what Wikipedia has been saying about them the past couple of years (5 months): that "74 percent have no British identity". Of course they are unhappy. Forgot what you want them to feel - what do you expect them to feel? It's totally developed WP:Original Research and a complete devolution of responsibility in terms of the finer as aspects of policy. In terms of encyclopedia writing you have been crude to the extreme. You should personally hang your head in shame. It's been a total scandal, and it's been on your diligent watch myrtle. You've got no right to be the boss of anything here.


 * And something else - people out there still don't realise that anyone can edit this place (ie regardless whether they could do it or would want to it, they just don't realise they can). That gives editors here both enormous power and huge responsibility. Fortunately (though regrettably) Wikipedia still has a bad name in the UK for providing false information. Your edits regarding Wales in this area do nothing to change that widely-held public opinion at all. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * RE: my striked-out text. Who told me that this text had been up for years? Daiacaregos snuck it in last September! It's been up almost exactly 5 months. That's 5 months too long - but at least it's not 2 years. I feel some genuine relief about that at least. A number of people started this debate arguing in support of the WP:Original Research of one of the most tendentious editors on Wikipedia. Well done all. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Your edits regarding Wales in this area do nothing to change that widely-held public opinion at all." - to whom are you addressing this accusation? And you say you've been "asking around about the census" that sounds a bit like WP:OR, doesn't it? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, that's a complete misunderstanding of policy. It's only 'OR' if it's in the article. Debate is what often-complex discusion pages are about. Consensus is supposed to come via debate, not dubious straw polls. That is policy. You just can't stick that BS on a human being using discussion. You think you are a rebel but you showing yourself to be like a robot. It's frightening what can happen to human soul here. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no wish to be told, by you or any other editor, that I'm "a rebel" or "a robot", thanks. If I want any advice about the whereabouts of my soul, I think I'd be well advised to go elsewhere. But that's all utterly irrelevant to the subject under discussion here. A straw poll can be a very simple and quick way of illustrating consensus. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's hard to understand why anyone thought the text had been up "for years", when the census results were only published a few months ago. But anyway... can we move on yet?  Please??  Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, because it's still OR all the way through. The article can't say things like "No Welsh national identity was indicated by 34.1%". It is saying there is no Welsh in British! It's all cobblers and there is no reference for it. It's pure Wikipedia Original Research, snuck in by Dai last September, and kept by you above. I think I might have found a style compromise though. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The words "No Welsh identity", attached to the figure of 34.1%, are taken directly, verbatim, unaltered, from the relevant ONS table. We must not seek to put a gloss on that.  But, anyway, this thread was supposed to be about ethnicity, not identity.  I'll restart it below.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes and it's a column heading that's a reading of the census data. You then develop that into new sentences that create problems of their own. It's a total development of meaning. You can't do it. The columns cannot make the inferences that you and Dai have done. And you know your conclusions are not representative too, that's what gets me. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not a "reading" or a "development" of the census data - it is a neutral expression of the summary census data, using identical words to those published by ONS. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Adding the census results to the article is hardly it being 'snuck in'. They are from the ONS (see KS202EW Percentages, Row 441 (Wales).) and are not in the least contentious. The ONS were responsible for the census and provide its definitive results. Any editor may challenge that they are a reliable source in this context, by querying the citation at the RS notice board. If you choose not to do so, Matt, then you must accept their figures. Now, please stop this. Stop attacking other editors. Stop writing reams of off-topic and/or original research. And stop changing your posts after the event. Daicaregos (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Changing what posts? You can cut accusations like that out. Do you mean correcting typos etc! You edit in one single area on Wikipedia: Welsh nationalism. You have used developed column headings into new meanings using Original Research. You not may be bright enough to see it perhaps, but it's what you have done. It's a needless and fully-misleading (we all know that) interpretation too, but that doesn't bother you because it's what you want to see. A Wales that looks like few people are British in it. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Changing posts like this, where you have provided an edit summary implying amendments to spelling errors, but you also added further sentences. The 2011 census results I added in September were cited. The cited reference (ONS) used the words “No Welsh identity” and “No British identity” for the statistics I quoted. I realise I “not may be bright enough [sic]”, but I fail to see how that could be original research. I repeat, you are welcome to request guidance at the RS/N if you doubt a citation is suitable for a given context. If you choose not to do so, you must accept their figures.  Daicaregos (talk) 00:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Edit summary what? Per what that admin told you the other day (when you started actually replacing/reverting that kind of thing done by me), you really ought to read up on what you can or can't allow other editors to do. You'll never have that level of control anywhere on Wikipedia Dai, even here in Wales talk. Sometimes you are completely at odds with some very basic rules, you really are. A specific issue with something that I wrote is a different thing of course. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Page protection
The article is protected for three days to encourage talk page discussion of disputed content. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)