Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-29 Wales

Request details
We would like you to settle an ongoing dispute which is becoming increasingly less constructive, with the refusal of a couple of members to listen to several official references.
 * More info in the "What's going on section".

Who are the involved parties?

 * Gozitancrabz ( now identified as a sockpuppet) (supports giving mention to all points of view in the article, to give a neutral point of view, with references for both views; that Wales is considered of different status by different sources)
 * Wikipéire (supports giving mention to all points of view in the article, to give a neutral point of view, with references for both views; that Wales is considered of different status by different sources)
 * Snowded (supports both points of views being mentioned, as long as the point of view of it being a "country" is not replaced, but just contrasted by the other point of view)
 * Matt Lewis (only thinks that one view should be shown - the current one - that Wales is a country, and that no other view is void)
 * Jack forbes (only thinks that one view should be shown - the current one on the article, that Wales is a country, and that no other view is void)
 * Breadandcheese (supports the use of country)
 * Bencherlite (helped organize sources. originally supported the use of country before the latest quotes were added, but has since not given any comment, so her/his current view is unclear)
 * Derek Ross (supports only the view that Wales is a country, and claims the other view is invalid, and that the ISO list is not correct in his/her view)

What's going on?
Currently, the Wales article lists Wales as a country. There are however, some sources from the United Nations, the European Union, the Internation Standard Organisation, and the BBC which show clearly that Wales is not counted as a "country". On the other hand, there are also many quotes that do list it as a country. Due to the fact that there were mixed view sources on whether Wales was a country or not, User:Wikipéire and myself decided that it would be a good idea to rewrite a section of the article to include both points of view, with reference from both sources. User:Snowded has also agreed to the compromise proposal after long discussion.

However, User:Matt Lewis and User:Jack forbes have shown increasing stubbornness, telling us they are going to disguard these references; be it without good reason, and continuing in doing so to push the POV that they view any opposition to Wales being a country as unuseable in some way or another.

Then, User:Matt Lewis decided to modify my comments, changing the meaning of what I wrote, and in doing so, trying to make it appear as though my own arguement was not arguing for the case, which I warned him about afterwards on his talk page with a level 2 warning (since I was assuming some sort of good faith).

The debate partially spilled over to the Talk:Constituent country page, in which User:Snowded in the end decided that asking personal questions, such as my ethnicity would help. In reply to this, I then told him I did not think this was a relevant question, but s/he continued to be quite persistent, and in the end, managed to reduce our dialogue into a meaningless conversation.

User:Matt Lewis has now taken to making personal attacks, simply insulting User:Wikipéire and myself by calling us "trolls" over and over again (on several pages, several times), since he does not agree with our viewpoint, and now telling us that he will never compromise due to the pride in his country or whatever:. The user is continuing to be uncivil towards me, calling me a troll very frequently, arguing back at me, and keeping an uncivil tone on the article discussion, my talk page, and his. I have linked him to the WP:CIV page several times, but it does not seem to be helping; and the only answer I get is "troll".

User:Wikipéire and myself hope to try and sort this out, and get them to stop asserting a POV and preference, and instead listen to all the sources, so we can achieve a neutral point of view.

Here is a list of sources for Wales being not a country, or implies it by its exclusion in a list of every country:
 * The United Nations official database states which parts of the UK are countries, and which aren't: "The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy consisting of four consituent parts: •• 2 countries: England + Scotland • 1 principality: Wales • 1 province: Northern Ireland"
 * The ISO's official database of all countries, excludes Wales as being a country
 * [www.guavastudios.com/country-list.htm]
 * BBC site "Nevertheless we have in recent years taken to describing Wales as a country" "But Wales is not a country or a nation in another sense of the words because it doesn't have its own government"
 * BBC site "An insurance company has told a customer of 10 years in south east Wales that it could not renew his policy because Wales was not a country"
 * "England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland are not countries but the United Kingdom is"
 * BBC site "Wales is a Principality" (not a country)
 * BBC history page "The emergence of the principality of Wales - Wales at the beginning of the 13th century" (describes Wales as a principality, not country)
 * "principality of the United Kingdom located in the western part of the island of Great Britain"
 * "The society of the Holy Cross - Province of Wales"
 * "England... Kingdom". "Scotland... Kingdom". "Wales... Principality". "Northern Ireland... Province"
 * A speech by HRH The Prince of Wales talking about the Principality

I am not going to list the sources for Wales being a country, as we already know that there are several supporting it; that is not what is disputed. What is disputed is that it is also considered by some as not a country, and these sources show evidence for that. Some of these sources are of more worth than others, with some being more reliable, but the majority of the ones discussed have been listed here.

I have suggested mediation a couple of times now, but hoped that we would be able to sort the issue out ourselves. However, it seems apprently not so, and we would appreciate it if you could come and intervene in the situation, ensuring that a neutral point of view, reflecting all the sources, is displayed.

What's going on? (the other side)
The above is ‘one-sided’ to say the least. To defend myself I’ve copied most of the above below, and have responded to certain points - I don't want my name used like this unchallenged, and it is best not to edit their text above. Then in a new (and far more interesting) section, I’ve explained why Wales is still a country (today the same as last week), and then debunked the histerically motley list of examples given above to suggest that it isn't. Hopefully it will make amusing reading at least - their last 6 links especially! --Matt Lewis (talk) 07:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Gozitancrabz has written above:

(my comments are in points)

"Currently, the Wales article lists Wales as a country. There are however, some sources from the United Nations, the European Union, the Internation Standard Organisation, and the BBC which show clearly that Wales is not counted as a "country". On the other hand, there are also many quotes that do list it as a country. Due to the fact that there were mixed view sources on whether Wales was a country or not, User:Wikipéire and myself decided that it would be a good idea to rewrite a section of the article to include both points of view, with reference from both sources. User:Snowded has also agreed to the compromise proposal after long discussion ."


 * Neither ISO nor the BBC says “Wales is not a country”.

"However, User:Matt Lewis and User:Jack forbes have shown increasing stubbornness, telling us they are going to disguard these references; be it without good reason, and continuing in doing so to push the POV that they view any opposition to Wales being a country as unuseable in some way or another."


 * This is simply not true – I have personally argued the case four hours and have never had a response to questions I have posed many many times.

"Then, User:Matt Lewis decided to modify my comments, changing the meaning of what I wrote, and in doing so, trying to make it appear as though my own arguement was not arguing for the case, which I warned him about afterwards on his talk page with a level 2 warning (since I was assuming some sort of good faith)."


 * There is no evidence of this – User:Gozitancrabz moved around and even deleted a number of my comments after accusing me of this, but after initially thinking myself that I must have accidentally corrupted the page, I have neither found nor been shown ANY evidence that I “re-wrote” his text at all! I did strike out a misleading comment of his with a note - he was entitled to change this and he did - then went about re-editing the Talk page).

"The debate partially spilled over to the Talk:Constituent country page, in which User:Snowded in the end decided that asking personal questions, such as my ethnicity would help. In reply to this, I then told him I did not think this was a relevant question, but s/he continued to be quite persistent, and in the end, managed to reduce our dialogue into a meaningless conversation."


 * Highly exaggerated.

"User:Matt Lewis has now taken to making personal attacks, simply insulting User:Wikipéire and myself by calling us "trolls" over and over again (on several pages, several times), since he does not agree with our viewpoint, and now telling us that he will never compromise due to the pride in his country or whatever: . The user is continuing to be uncivil towards me, calling me a troll very frequently, arguing back at me, and keeping an uncivil tone on the article discussion, my talk page, and his. I have linked him to the WP:CIV page several times, but it does not seem to be helping; and the only answer I get is "troll"."


 * Highly exaggerated. Certainly after repeatedly arguing without receiving a response to my arguments I eventually come to the conclusion that trolling is the only word to describe their behaviour – and I wasn’t the first to do so. I have been roundly ignored beyond anyone’s endurance, imo. Consensus means fist acknowledging the existence of each other’s arguments, and I have simply not been given the dignity of this acknowledgement. I called them “trolls” and then immediately took a shortened wikibreak – it was not a ‘sustained’ attack by me at all - only the conclusion I came to when my patience and AGF was lost.

Why Wales is a country:
The idea that Wales isn't a country (which you only ever really find on Wikipedia from a tiny vocal minority) does not have anything like the evidence needed to be seen as “another side of an Wales is a country argument.” It is claiming an “argument” exisits when there isn’t one. A couple of people on Wikipedia arguing a point without any support does not constitute 'notability'!

Examples of "country" use:

As a Welshman, I am not going to give examples to back my case (I find it demeaning as they are so universally available), other than to say:


 * The British Government clearly defines and calls Wales a country (in Census statistics and on websites etc).


 * All Welsh people will say Wales is a country, that they live in country.


 * All the UK Media (including very much the BBC) calls Wales a country (on a daily basis).


 * All historians describe Wales as a country.


 * The UK in particular, and everyone else properly aware of Wales calls it a country.

Why their Against arguments don't work:
Their Against points:


 * Country lists use 'United Kingdom': Most “world country lists” like the ISO list use the United Kingdom rather than England and Wales etc (as the UK is a collective of ‘constituent countries - and in limited "international law" usage is the offical "country"). Lists like the ISO one are NOT proof that Wales isn’t a real country. The United Nations accepts that the UK comprises of constituent countries (see their contradictory UN argument below). The EU refers to Wales as a country, but refers to the UK in its country lists.


 * United Nations: The UN document (the only real evidence they have) lists England and Scotland as "countries" and Wales as a "Principality" - but nowhere does it say Wales is not a country. The UN example cannot logically be used alongside the 'Country lists example'. If the UN recognises that the UK has constituent countries, then lists using the "United Kingdom" (the collective of constituent countries) instead of England, Wales etc, cannot then be used to prove that the UK is the only country, and that is has no countries within it.


 * Various uses of 'Principality': Sometimes Wales is referred to as a ‘Principality’ – this is NOT proof that Wales isn’t a real country. A country can be a Principality too (Wales is indeed clear proof of this, and has been a Principality since the 13C, when the Princes of Wales were Welsh). Nobody says that a Principality cannot be a country. It is also a formal and infrequently used word, not colloquially used for Wales at all.

Their Against Examples:

Below is their motley collection of examples. Surely together actually prove that Wales IS a country? After an almost serious start the list comprises of: a Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy wiki (where someone has merely used the term "Principality"), a humourous article on mistakes that says... absolutely nothing, a formal speech mentioning "Principality" (by the Prince of Wales!) alongside "country" (woops), two examples of exactly the same ISO country-code lists that list the "United Kingdom" as GB, one droll old radio presenter's purpley "ho ho" opinion on historical/geographical/legal differences, and a link to "The society of the Holy Cross" - which frustratingly doesn't work for me!


 * The United Nations official database states which parts of the UK are countries, and which aren't: "The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy consisting of four consituent parts: •• 2 countries: England + Scotland • 1 principality: Wales • 1 province: Northern Ireland"


 * This does not say “Wales in not a country". See above point on "United Nations". --Matt Lewis (talk) 07:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The ISO's official database of all countries, excludes Wales as being a country


 * This does not say “Wales in not a country", nor "exclude" it: To them, Wales is "part of the UK" (the term "part" can be found on the ISO FAQ page in relation to Scotland, though not England or Wales). Where does it say Wales is not a country? The ISO codes in the 'ISO 3166' list are 'country codes': GB (for the UK), US, IE, FR - those type of codes. It lists the United Kingdom as you would expect. See above point on "Country lists use 'United Kingdom'". --Matt Lewis (talk) 07:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * www.guavastudios.com/country-list.htm


 * This lists the same ISO list as above - it even says it's the "3166 ISO list"! A bit careless (or desperate) to list it twice.


 * BBC site "Nevertheless we have in recent years taken to describing Wales as a country" "But Wales is not a country or a nation in another sense of the words because it doesn't have its own government"


 * The full quote is: "Nevertheless we have in recent years taken to describing Wales as a country (abandoning expressions like region or principality) and in a geographical, cultural and historical sense that's true." Why leave out the last line? It is one man's elaborate view, not the BBC line - he is saying "geographically, culturally and historically" Wales is a country but the UK is the more 'legal' term. But who defines this? Historians would disagree with him about the "recent years" line - the English and Welsh fought for centuries as two countries.


 * BBC site "An insurance company has told a customer of 10 years in south east Wales that it could not renew his policy because Wales was not a country"


 * This example is pathetic and very telling! On Sentinel Insurance - they may have been Welsh but who knows who sent the letter out? This cannot be proof that a Welsh company will not sell to a Welshman who calls his country Welsh! Regarding the Wales-less EU document, this reads: "A spokesperson said that the omission was a "design fault" and the European Commission later sent a "grovelling letter of apology" to First Minister, Rhodri Morgan.". If you look at the badly drawn map (the other in the "second time in two-months" example), someone has simply missed out the jutting definition that is Wales! Is using this example some kind of sneer at Wales? I consider the inclusion of this example an insult, basically - it says nothing about Wales not being a country: it's just a semi-humourous article about some connected mistakes.


 * "England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland are not countries but the United Kingdom is"


 * This is a great advert for placing Wikipedia above about.com! Rosenberg in about.com follows his own rigid definition - as the UK holds sovereignty, according to him the nations within it cannot be countries - he sees the UK and Wales (etc) as separate entities. It is only his opinion though, however forthright he likes to sound. To most people, the UK and it's constituent countries are one and the same: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the representational name and body of the countries within it. If, one by one, you take away all the supposedly "seperate nations", what do you have left? A separate UK? I don't think so! It's why we have "United" in the title: it's a unity of countries.


 * BBC site "Wales is a Principality" (not a country)


 * This is the h2g2 "Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy" Wiki site (which the BBC merely hosts!). I doesn't say "Wales in not a country", it just calls it a "Principality".


 * BBC history page "The emergence of the principality of Wales - Wales at the beginning of the 13th century" (describes Wales as a principality, not country)


 * This is the "Principality page" - page six of around twenty pages of BBC Welsh History where the word "country" is mentioned many times - just not on this particular page!


 * "principality of the United Kingdom located in the western part of the island of Great Britain"


 * This translation software website 'pulls' from open sources as an advertising gimick - an old version of WIkipedia's Wales article (mentioning "constituent countries") is on the same linked page - doh! And a Principality simply can be a country too.


 * "The society of the Holy Cross - Province of Wales"


 * Apparently, every country is a "province" to "The society of the Holy Cross"!! Unfortunately it's a dead link for me: I'd love to see it!


 * "England... Kingdom". "Scotland... Kingdom". "Wales... Principality". "Northern Ireland... Province"


 * This colourful map of the British Isles goes for Kingdom/principality/province. It doesn't mention the word "country" at all. But where does it say England, Wales (etc) are not countries? These terms are not mutually exclusive!


 * A speech by HRH The Prince of Wales talking about the Principality


 * Funny that the Prince of Wales uses the formal "Principality" term isn't it? By the way, he also says a bit further down "Speaking for myself, as a result of my two-month stay in this country, I have come to see far more in the title I hold than hitherto." Another ridiculous example!

Close mediation request
Given that the main protagonist here has been identified as a sock puppet and there is only one editor in dispute with all the others (although he seems to have given up) I suggest that we close this? --Snowded (talk) 04:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Additional Information:
Wikipedia Constituent countries article: User:Gozitancrabz and User:Wikipéire have talked to each other in terms of dealing with the Welsh issue first, and then moving on to change the Wikipedia article “Constituent Countries” to “Constituents  Parts”. Neither editor appears to have a previous interest in Wales – it all seems a political matter, to do (at least in part) with changing the “Constituent Countries” article. I believe they have been ‘laying tracks’ for admins to follow (and take their side) in an eventual “mediation call” on Wales - that will help their eventual aim of changing the “Constituent Countries” article.

I’ve seen ever time-pressed admins be ill-advisedly lead before now, and my worry is that Wales is unfortunately not that well known internationally (compared to Scotland etc), and that they may have some initial success – hence my shortened wikibreak and comments here. Also I believe this particular “mediation call” is evidence of exploitation of the unfortunate fact that so many admins these days do not properly concentrate on the detail, and can sometimes be manipulated - otherwise why would they be so foolish as to make this call? This is something I am determined to debate and reference on a wider level at some point.

Sock puppetry:  User:Gozitancrabz and User:Wikipéire have both been accused of being a sock puppets. User:Wikipéire has been blocked for a sock that just recently edited the Welsh page (though he deleted the evidence from his Talk page – and I had no knowledge of it until someone eventually pointed me towards it).

The above "What's going on? (the other side)" section is to give a balanced account. --Matt Lewis (talk) 07:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Might I just add that the term country is not going to removed from Wales. You keep on mentioning that we are on some political agenda. We're not (we'll I'm not anyway - I can't speak for User:Gozitancrabz. Just a balanced introduction that describes Wales clearly and effectively to the outsider whose never heard of Wales is all I was looking for. All these accusations of bad faith had nothing to do with the article content. You have been arguing character of editor over the facts at hand. The compromise doesn't doesn't say anywhere that Wales isn't a country. You don't seem to understand that.


 * Finally engaging in WP:Crystal Ball on my behalf isn't something that has to do with the Welsh article. My thoughts on constituent country are competely different to User:Gozitancrabz's. I do not propose changing the title of that article and really has nothing to do with Wales. It's another of the false presumptions that you have made. You Matt Lewis and User:Gozitancrabz are probably both guilty of getting heated up and not responding to other editors points at different stages. User:Snowded and myself were constantly arguing over facts, but on the three issues came to a compromise. Even User:Gozitancrabz who was really against the term country agreed to the compromise. You just merely shouted 'troll' at us and described it all as an insult.


 * Please what exactly have you got against this:


 * Wales (Cymru; pronounced ) is a principality and one of the four constituent countries that together make up the sovereign state of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. WikipÉIRE'' [[Image:Flag of Ireland.svg|15px]]\(caint)  11:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If you looked back on the Talk page to before you recently joined it (originally to argue that Welsh is not an "Official language" - though it is by Wikipedia clear terms) you will realise that where to put Principality was under question. I placed it in its own paragraph at the end of the Intro. Why? Because it places it in it's historical context, and mentions the related Prince of Wales too. It is a formal term not colloquially used (that is even offensive to some in certain contexts) - if it goes in the Intro it is best as a last parag matter, not a first parag one. It needs the room to be qualified and developed - you don't get that in the first line. People were happy with this - ie it had consensus. You are now a team of one, by the way - and you simply cannot just expect a "compromise".


 * I never ignored User:Gozitancrabz's arguments - I wish I gave him less time now he's been uncovered as a banned user and re-banned! There is evidence that you have talked to User:Gozitancrabz about "dealing" with Wales before attempting the "Constituent Country" issue.


 * I never "just shouted 'troll'" to anyone - I lost my patience and my ability to repeat myself without the courtesy of reply, then took a wikibreak (I was informed of your sock puppetry on my Talk page just after saying I was doing it - so I didn't make it a long one). You are as guilty as User:Gozitancrabz of ignoring me - you've just toned things down a little since that's all. You have also been arguing and editing my lines on the Welsh Assembly when you had no prior interest or real knowledge (there is proof of your lack of knowledge too), and you had used a sock on the same paragraph. Why? Your own weakening edit on the paragraph is still up as this "Not a country" nonsense has distracted work on it. It is clear to me your intention has always been to try an de-value Wales for some ulterior reason - I have posed this to you and you replied: "On the contrary, I love the UK". You have also had a "This user supports the peaceful reunification of Ireland with a majority unionist support." banner on your Talk page until just recently. Why did you remove it? You have since put up a "This user supports the independence of Wales" banner! I personally don't believe that anyone can so radically change views like this: but you are a sock user, so AFG is a litle harder with you. Your first ever edit (just a few weeks ago) was this in Scottish Talk "Read this everyone: http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/scotlandnot.htm It explains why Scotland is not a country to those who don't understand why." It's pretty obvious to me you have another older account.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What would you like to change about that?
We would be grateful if you could intervene in the discussion, as mentioned above, and help to ensure a neutral point of view is kept, which includes all the reliable sources, and not a "selection".

Thank you for your time. Gozitancrabz (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Mediator notes
Perhaps this case could be merged with the other MedCab case on this article? Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 02:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
The entire text above is the work of two users (of whom only one has English as their first language) who clearly have a strong belief in two propositions: (a) Wales is not a 'country' and (b) that it is POV to suggest that it is. Thus its one-sidedness, and its inaccurate description of the viewpoints of those opposed to the two. We have recently seen from them such editing as the unilateral move of the 'Constituent Countries' page to 'Constituent Areas', although the former has c. 113,000 Google results against c. 1380 for the latter: see here and here respectively.

This section is the work of another user with neither of these beliefs.

Underlying the approach of these two users is a belief that the word 'country' has a single and rigid meaning, as an independent state in the eyes of international law; thus at this talk page the phrase 'a country in the legal sense of the word'. There seems also to be a belief, see above, that words in this field are necessarily mutually inconsistent; that no unit (to use the vaguest term possible) can properly be described both as a 'country' and as a 'principality'.

When we visit standard dictionaries, as is (I hope) not uncommon when one wishes to establish the meaning and proper use of a word in the English language, we see such definitions as these:

1. SOED:"the territory of a nation; a region constituting an independent State, or a province .... which was formerly independent and is still distinct in institutions, language..."

2. Chambers: "1 an area of land distinguished from other areas by its culture, climate, inhabitants, political boundery, etc. 2 the population of such an area of land. 3 a nation or state. 4 one's native land. 5 (often the country) open land, away from the towns and cities, usually characterized by moors, woods, hills, fields, etc. 6 land having a certain character or connection..."

Standing the suggestion that the word has a 'legal sense', may I point to the list of examples, with a legalistic slant, at this page.

If there is anything to 'mediate' here, it is the dictionaries, not Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariwara (talk • contribs)


 * Might I add that under the compromise that we're looking for the word country wasn't suggested to be removed. Just both sides of the argument being shown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipéire (talk • contribs)


 * Excuse me? At which point did I say English is not my first language? (And I am presuming you are talking about me, since on Wikipeire's page, he has a userbox saying English is his/her native language).
 * And no, we have not been pushing that Wales is not a country. We have simply quoted several official sources which claim it not to be, and say these should be included in the viewpoint along with the other views - that is what is called a neutral point of view. We did not say that saying Wales is a country was pushing POV - what we are saying however, is that choosing only to put in one half of the side, is pushing a POV. It seems Ariwara, that you have not read into this case properly, as you have misinterpreted pretty much all of what has happened. However, if you somehow would like to contradict us to back yourself up in your claims that we are "pushing Wales as not a country", and "calling anyone that says it is a country a POV pusher", then I am sure I would love to here the diffs for these edits in which I must have somehow forgotten saying them ey? Gozitancrabz (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The above presentation of the data is very biased and does not represent both sides of the argument. One of the major issues is that Gozitancrabz in particular has refused to deal with refutation of his sources and challenges to her interpretations.  For example the dual use of Principality and Country in UK Government Web sites.   I would recommend that anyone looking at this issue look at the talk page on Constituent Countries and look at the table summary of sources and their status prepared by Bencherlite.  I am prepared to support the compromise suggested by Wikipiere, although not for the reasons he states which are misleading but it can be lived with.  Gozitancrabz is opposed to that.  --Snowded (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In what way is it bias? "One of the major issues is that Gozitancrabz in particular has refused to deal with refutation of his sources and challenges to his interpretations. For example the dual use of Principality and Country in UK Government Web sites." Oh really? Why is it that the UN lists England and Scotland as countries, but then lists Wales as a principality; if it considered it a country, it would have displayed it as so. And what exactly do you mean by this "compromise"? Do you mean listing both points of view? Because that is all that myself and Wikipeire have been trying to get across the whole time - we are not saying the article should say Wales is not a country; we are saying it should state both sides of view. So what exactly am I "opposed to", Snowded? And in reply to the mediator, the two sets of mediation deal with different things, I don't think merging the two will do much good. Gozitancrabz (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It represents your perspective and your evidence, so it is not an even handed statement it is your perspective. I am afraid that until you have the common decency to address the refutation of your sources in terms of authority and interpretation its a waste of time attempting to explain things.   Wikipiere proposed a compromise, which you rejected - how can you say you were not opposed?  Sorry this is a nonsense you are showing no respect for the discussion process or for source authenticity.  --Snowded (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it represents both sides. We are not saying to include one set of sources and not the other - we are saying to include both. Please read the discussion thoroughly next time before you comment. Cheers. Gozitancrabz (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I refer to my above comments, and the multiple comments to you from other editors. --Snowded (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstand. I do not want to remove the word country. I simply want to add in the alternative viewpoint alongside it - not replace it Gozitancrabz (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Your comment on 15:51, 29 April 2008 rejected Wikipiere's compromise as it included the word country. If you are now changing your position great.  --Snowded (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstand. What I rejected was the idea of leaving the Constituent country page as it is - as it fully implies that England, Scotland, Wales, and N.Ireland are all countries, even though there is mixed view on Wales and N.Ireland being countries, and to a lot lesser extent, England and Scotland. A more neutral word should be used - which is why I suggested "constituent area", as it does not invoke the idea that they ARE countries, or that they are NOT, but unlike the previously proposed "consituent part", makes it evident that what is being talked about is a land mass. Gozitancrabz (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Then accept the compromise on the Wales page and let the debate continue on constituent countries (where I am sorry but I will continue to oppose you on this), assuming that is the page is not merged which makes sense to me. --Snowded (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not as simple as that - there are other editors who are refusing to listen to this set of sources, claiming that the UN, EU, and ISO are incorrect. And with regards to the merging the page - I cannot see how all the content can be merged into the UK page, as there is other content on there that is not just UK based. Why do you disagree with the renaming of the term? Gozitancrabz (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The other editors are not refusing to listen to you, they interpret your sources in a different way and have argued that case. Pointing out that those lists are for example inconsistent or designed to serve another purpose.  Most people are really trying to stay rational about this and put forward arguments in the hope that you will address them.  --Snowded (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Whatever the user's oppinion, it does not come into it. If a reliable source states it, it is allowed to be used. Gozitancrabz (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You have an opinion, other people have opinions - engage in discussion. Your "opinion" about those sources is not accepted by other editors.  --Snowded (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Since when has the UN had the authority to tell the UK government what to call Wales or any of the other countries within the UK? You have one source calling Wales a principality, no mention that its not a country, and numerous sources confirming that it is a country including government websites. What kind of encyclopedia states Wales is a country then goes on to say well, umm, maybe its not? I'm sure the Welsh people not to mention the rest of the UK will be surprised that they have been deluding themselves for so long. --Jack forbes (talk) 12:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say Wales is not a country in the proposed compromise introduction? WikipÉIRE'' \(caint) 12:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no need for pricipality to be mentioned in the first paragraph never mind before country as you mentioned on your talk page. I also notice you using phrases like, once we deal with Wales and once we sort the Wales page out we will go on to the constituent country article. Perhaps you presume too much. I think I'm done with this discussion. --Jack forbes (talk) 13:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Again you're not arguing what's at hand really. You are making it personal which is why I've replied to you on your talk page. WikipÉIRE'' [[Image:Flag of Ireland.svg|15px]]\(caint) 13:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Gozitancrabz, who began this supposed request for mediation, is now identified as a sockpuppet and has been indefinitely blocked. Is there any continuing appetite for this squabble on the part of any of his puppeteer's supporters? ariwara (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC

Closure
Following agreement on the Wales Talk page this request is now withdrawn) --Snowded (talk) 23:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)