Jump to content

Talk:Wales/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

break

Sources and Evidence

(Pleas take the time to read the sources)

For Welsh being an Official Language

  • Wikipedia has its own label for Welsh - an official language (see link). It appears on the sub-article List of official languages, by Wales, next to English. Wikipedias definition is all that matters. Wikipedia has to be reasonably broad here as it covers every country (each with its own varied laws on the matter). The UK has notoriously flexible laws on nationality labelling: United Kingdom, Britain, Wales, NI, the Crown dependencies etc. Laws can vary even in the same country - Wikipedia simply HAS TO BE FLEXIBLE HERE! So it is - and nothing else matters.
  • Real-life evidence: All the public information printed by the councils/governments in Wales was bilingual. Often you get two large booklets sent in the post and you simply discard the ones you don’t want. The Yellow Pages and the telephone book are bilingual. The health information you pick up in surgeries is bilingual - everything like that is bilingual. It costs us a fortune but we do it. Certain jobs in Cardiff can demand bilingual workers. All traffic signs are bilingual. Croeso i Gymru - welcome to Wales: we use two languages. Everyone knows that Welsh is getting more popular as the economy improves - for a number of reasons. Welsh speaking schools are on the increase. Assembly members use it as a selling factor. Whether English is "defacto" (as Labour calls it) or "official", or Welsh is "official" or "should-be-official" (you can find them all on the web) - they are all rhetorical party lines - they (and we) all want to see more of it.
  • The Welsh Language Act gives people a right to use the Welsh Language in all aspects of Government and in the courts. It places obligations to use both languages on all government agencies. Welsh is the medium of instruction in many schools and also for several courses in Welsh Universities. --Snowded (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Against Welsh being an Official Language

Full protection removed

I have reverted to the previous level of protection. Please carry on the discussion above as much as is necessary to avoid further edit-warring. If further edit-warring occurs, participants may find that sanctions are directed against them next time, rather than have the page protected. Regards, BencherliteTalk 23:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've just put my own feeling down on the subject. I'm sure we can sort it out and make other edits too, in the usual manner of Wikipedia! --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

History of Wales re England in the Introduction

I had this up for a while:

"In 1532, under the Welsh-descended English royal Tudor dynasty England and Wales was created, 'annexing' Wales to England. This initially unequal union, which saw the Welsh language banned (although national borders were mutually defined for the first time), paved the way to an eventual Great Britain and subsequent forms of United Kingdom."

It wasn't perfect at all I know, but can we work on something like it? --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have added England and Wales: Wales was eventually annexed to the English legal system with the formation of the Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542, creating the legal entity known today as England and Wales.
The key to the various unifications that make up today’s Britain, or United Kingdom, in my eyes, are the royal families involved. The Welsh-descended Tudor Henry VII acceded the English throne and paved the way for Wales to stop resisting, and become 'annexed' to England. When the Scottish Stuart family succeeded the English thrown after Elizabeth I died childless (due to Tudor blood, if I remember, in James), Scotland eventually unified - and Great Britain was formed. It didn't all happen overnight, but it's a broad pattern. My history is sketchy I admit but that's broadly how I've seen it. The Welsh blood has always been stressed as important, for various resulting historical reasons, and I remember reading that even Elizabeth I, the last English monarch in the Tudor line, favoured Welsh diplomats. I feel the Tudor line should be mentioned in the Lead. --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I think its a lot more complex than that Matt. The Tudors did not make much of their Welsh heritage and the assimulation of Wales could be seen as a tidying up process. I don;t think you can blame Tudor blood for Elizabeth not having a child - there were enough bastards in the family and in any event she never married. The Scottish act of union was after and not linked to family issues.--Snowded (talk) 08:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Obviously it's more complex - but the Lead needs a broad picture, which we have to make accurate. Considering it was not an immediate bloodline, I've always gathered that the Tudor Welsh connection was important to historians and the Tudors. Certainly the royal line was unquestionably English on acceding the English thrown - but I've always gathered that the heritage was important, esp with certain historical events - as I picked up somewhere recently. Not sure what you mean about "blaming Tudor blood" for Elizabeth not having a child?! I'm sure the Tudor lineage was why they went to Scottish James: I know the union with Scotland was about 100 years after that, but I always thought the unified Scottish/English royalty meant it was always a possibility over a 'troubled' period. Certainly religion was involved and a lot of Scotland wasn't happy when it did happen. In terms of appeasing the rebellious Welsh, I would have thought it would have been made a big issue for those who would listen - same with the Scottish. Is it a coincidence these forms of "unity" happened when the Tudor and Stuart families were in power? --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wales Country or Nation

I have researched this question and find that The ISO 3166 standard does not list Wales as a country. ref www.guavastudios.com/country-list.htm. However they do list it as a Nation on its Nationality list ref www.guavastudios.com/country-list.htm I have therefore added Country and Nation where appropriate. The 10 Downing street website lists Wales as a Country but what do they know? Canol (talk) 09:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a big discussion going on below where we will try and achieve consensus. Your arguments & sources are pretty laughable and I would even be in your way of thinking. Look below and see what is being discussed. Please do not revert edits made against you for the time being.Wikipéire (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Constituent country vs. constituent area

Editors of this article may be interested at the discussion taking place at Talk:Constituent country to rename that article "Constituent area". As recent edits to the first sentence of the Wales article have shown, this could well have implications here. BencherliteTalk 22:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Support for using "constituent area" over "constituent country". Constituent country is very controversial, as many debate whether wales and northern ireland are countries. "Area" however, is able to be correct whichever way, and therefore, does not make an assumption either way on the debated status of Wales as a province, area, or country. Gozitancrabz (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh? Is your position really that using "area" to describe Wales is neutral on "the debated status of Wales as a province, area, or country"? (Emphasis added to point out inherent contradiction in your statement.) Clearly it does. BencherliteTalk 22:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

sorry, i did not explain myself correctly. Everyone views Wales as an "area". However, others dispute whether it is a country, province, state, etc... Area would be more neutral, would you agree? Gozitancrabz (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

No. I view Wales as a country that just happens to form part of another country, the UK. I don't see it as an "area" of the UK; I've never heard it referred to as a "province" or a "state". Using "area" is not a neutral term at all. BencherliteTalk 23:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

please look into it. I don't have time to get a reference now, i'm just off to bed. If you haven't found any by the morning, i will get some for you, but please have a look, and i think you will be suprised. Gozitancrabz (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

No, you're the one who wants to make a controversial change, when the article has said that Wales is a country since 2002. You provide the reliable sources showing that Wales is not a country and is only an "area". BencherliteTalk 23:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is a list:
This is the BBC-hosted 'h2g2' site! ( The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy 'wiki'!!). It includes the line "So, by the time that the term Great Britain was first used in the reign of James I, Wales was no longer treated as a separate country in any way" which is the closest line to what you are tryinbg to prove. Unfortunately for you it is merely a Wiki-editors POV! (not quite your "reliable" BBC then!). --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The actual BBC profile of Wales states: "Wales re-emerges: The country remained a relative backwater in Britain until the 19th century". Whatever else Wales is, it is a British country, like Scotland and England - full stop. --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The quote is: "The use of the word Principality as a substitute for Wales is not wrong but it can sound out of touch to Welsh audiences. The exception is when talking about the Prince of Wales and Wales as a principality in that respect.". The article doesn't use the word "country" or "officially a principality". It's just a guideline on using the word! --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Have you thought of actually look for the BBC calling Wales a country too? - as they do every day ("across the country") on the regional BBC news!! --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
So what? None of this stuff says "Wales is not a country"!--Matt Lewis (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
So what?! --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
So what?! --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
So what?! --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
So what?! --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Why list it in then "anyway"? And so what? Have you tried "Wales is a country" on Google? --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
So what? You are clutching at straws even finding Principality quotes! --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that should be enough for now... especially with the BBC and Data Wales links. 78.146.208.33 (talk) 09:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's another one: http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqzuk.htm Geography website saying Wales is an autonomous region of the UK and not a country.78.16.121.198 (talk) 10:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

About.com calls it "three somewhat autonomous regions: England, Wales and Scotland." Where does it say it's "not a country"? You seem to be genuinely convincing yourself that this kind of quote is "proof"! --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The National Statistics at statistics.gov.uk calls Wales and England countries. It's not an only one or the other scenario regarding the quaint "principality"! Did you now the Queen can dissolve parliament? Britain is full of archaic laws and traditions and is a flexible "pragmatic" bureaucratic union (wherever it is going): you won't pigeon-hole the UK like you want to. And why would you want to Wales anyway? Have you had a bad experience or something? --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh please. For a start dispense with any quote using the word Principality. A principality can be a country (not just in the UK but elsewhere in the world). Also I can happily say that Wales is an area of the United Kingdom without that statement implying it is not a country. Ditto Region. The clear and established usage is country and you are clearly taking a strong political position here, not being neurtral. I love the idea of quoting a Kentish Junior Schools web site entry on St George's Day as an authority. I haven't laughed so much in ages. I should also say that I am dubious about people who need to hide behind IP addresses when editing Wikipedia. Is this your only identity in this place? --Snowded (talk) 10:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I have nothing to do with that other IP address, despite the fact we both seem to start with "78". And are you disagreeing with the BBC snowded? My account is Gozitancrabz, but for some reason, i accidentally got logged out. And anyway, no, a principality does not mean country. To remain neutral, i suggest we correct the terming. 78.146.208.33 (talk) 11:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Pleased you are not hiding behind an IP address, it might be an idea if you get logged out in future to put in a minor edit to correct. A principality can mean a country - it does now with Lichtenstein and did at the treaty of Montgomery in respect of Wales To change to "area" or something like it is not to take an independent position, it is to take a Unionist position. Wales has a legislative assembly, it is a country, albeit a part of the UK. The BBC talks about areas and regions of Wales which should show you how those terms are used in normal practice. The UK is a area or regions of Europe. --Snowded (talk) 12:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The OED definition of a Principality is: a state ruled by a prince. I think country is better, but I would compromise on State if necessary :-) --Snowded (talk) 12:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Area would be a No point of view, as "area" is correct by any definition. Country however, assumes that Northern Ireland, and Wales, are countries, which is long disputed. Especially when the majority of sources site them as a 'province' and 'principality' respectively. In some cases, a principality is a country because it has no higher legal governing, but in this case, Wales is not considered a country, because it has a higher legal governing country - the UK. Do you see now? Wales is not technically a state, so that would not be helpful either. An "area" can cover any meaning though. ^^ Gozitancrabz (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No, to call it an areas would be (i) incorrect use of language and (ii) would be to take a political position which is not supported by the evidence. The UK has subjected itself to EU law - does that make it no country? Wales has an Assembly, it is a country as is Scotland. --Snowded (talk) 13:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No, Wales is a principality governed by the UK. -.- I am getting tired of repeating myself. Gozitancrabz (talk) 13:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I am also getting tired of you repeating the assertion which has no relevance to the question of whether it is country. You are not answering the multiple citations to the effect that Wales is a country, depending on weak sources and using words out of context. I think if you want to maintain this position you need a more vigourous approach As a matter of interest, do you think Scotland is a country? --Snowded (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Gozitancrabz, thank you for providing a list of sources. The weakness of your argument is, however, reflected in the weakness of your sources - a junior school website? Even you admit that some aren't authoritative, so why put them down? Even the first BBC source is hardly a reliable source: it's from the h2g2 section of the BBC website, which is akin to a Wiki. As Snowded says, "Principality" and "country" are not mutually exclusive, e.g. Principality of Monaco and Principality of Liechtenstein. Where's your reliable sources to support your POV that Wales is not a country? As to reliable sources calling Wales a country, let's try these, shall we?

  1. 10 Downing Street website "The United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland."
  2. 10 Downing Street website "Gordon Brown will travel to Wales today in his first visit to the country as Prime Minister."
  3. The Wales Office (Government Department for Wales) "Wales is a small but clever country. ...The remainder of the country is predominantly rural in character."
  4. Welsh Assembly Government Their strategic agenda is called "Wales: A Better Country".
  5. Visit Wales (the Welsh Tourist Board) "For a small country we have a varied and dramatic landscape"
  6. The Queen's Speech on the opening of the Welsh Assembly building "It is now up to you, by giving meaning to the ideals and aspirations of those you serve, by expressing the spirit of your rich and ancient culture, by shaping the very future of this country, to make this National Assembly a true symbol of Wales."
  7. And that's six before we get to offline sources e.g. Professor John Davies (expert on Welsh history) frequently refers to Wales as a country in his one-volume work A History of Wales (ISBN 0140284753), e.g. chapter 11 page 653 "In the 1970s, Wales was still a country with significant heavy industry."BencherliteTalk 13:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I thought that since I had found them, i might as well list them. And there are three links from the BBC website. If you are going to discard them all, then THAT is POV. Gozitancrabz (talk) 13:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Indiscriminate citation of low-value sources doesn't help your cause. For example, the Society of the Holy Cross calls everything a Province e.g. Province of the Americas. The two other BBC links were covered by my point that principalities can still be countries. If you set particular store by the BBC, then try these five pages):

  1. An article by Professor Rees Davies, another distinguished Welsh historian: [2] "Against all the odds and the massed battalions of English power, Wales remained a country because its people believed it to be a country. It was in support of that conviction, and vision, that most Welsh people gave their support to Owain Glyn Dwr when he proclaimed himself Prince of Wales in September 1400. Wales had long since been conquered, but it was still very much alive as a country."
  2. An article on religion in Wales [3] "With Wales a predominantly chapel going country, confrontation was inevitable and took place all across the country", and "the country experienced both a Great Revival and the Great War."
  3. Another BBC Welsh history page: [4] "Yet when it came to recognizing the country's distinctive national character they [the Conservative Party] were, it must be said, somewhat ahead of Labour." and "A new country was about to emerge. But would it be better or worse than what had gone before?"
  4. A BBC page on Wales society and culture: [5] "Wales is a country with two languages: Welsh and English."
  5. And another one [6] "[Griff Rhys Jones] explored the present and future state of architecture and planning in Wales, looking at urban, rural and market-town issues across the country."

I thought I'd stop at five. Oh, and that's before looking for usage of "country" in relation to Wales in connection with international sport. Or perhaps Wales don't play international rugby and international football? Regards, BencherliteTalk 13:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Then it seems that with some sources suggesting it is a country, and some suggesting it is not, the article should reflect both in order to maintain a NOPV Gozitancrabz (talk) 13:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Gozitancrabz. The fact whether Wales is a country depends on which definition of country you use. From my experience Wales is not viewed as a country internationally, for example: [7], but within the UK it is generally seen as a country. The article needs to relect this.Wikipéire (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

So what should we call it? I think "Constituent country" should be renamed to "constituent area", otherwise, we are supporting that wales is a "country", which is only one point of view. Gozitancrabz (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipéire (moving on from a lost debate about Welsh being an official language, do I detect a pattern here?) quotes about.com which as far as I know has no international authority. In the main it is a commercial site designed to sell automotives amongst other things. Another dubious authority to go along with a Junior School Web site and the Society of the Holy Cross In contrast with that a broad range of authorities from the UK Government which has been given. This includes the Queen's Speech on the opening of the Welsh Assembly where she uses the term "country". NONE of these have been answered or even referenced by Gozitancrabz or Wikipéire. Not dealing with the the facts as presented could be considered perusing an ideological position. Of course Gozitancrabz and Wikipéire may consider that their authority on constitution matters and that of casual web references is a higher authority than UK Government Web Sites and the constitutional monarch .... --Snowded (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Lost debate? It is currently being mediated by an independent party and I would be very surprised by if the mediator doesn't agree with our arguments. I am not really debating this one. It is a touch and go subject. I merely stating the fact that there is two points of view with both arguebably being valid; unlike the previous debate on language. I do not appreciate these personal attacks. There are many references which conclude that Wales is not a country which are higher the uk website, namely the United Nations!!!!Wikipéire (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The United NAtions "concludes" Wales is not a country? What rubbish! The United Kingdom comprises of 4 'constituencey countries'. And it is only your opinion that the UN is "higher" than a UK governent site, anyway - it is simply NOT Wikipedias! The UK site sould be of "higher" relevance in this case. Where does the UN "conclude" Wales is not a country? - it simply lists the collective "United Kingdom" title! --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I have already repeated myself several times now, and I would appreciate it if you would listen. The BBC states it as not being a country. The BBC is reliable enough in the eyes of wikipedia. Stop POV pushing, and read through the discussions properly, so that I won't have to repeat everything i say more than once for you. Gozitancrabz (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The BBC calls Wales a country often on the BBC Wales news ("news stories across the country"). It also does on numerous web pages - NOWHERE does it state Wales is not a country! (so I've struck-out your line stating that it does). Why would it? This is classic selective quoting and exaggeration on your behalf. The Guardian on ITV News says "The challenge for politicians and broadcasters in Wales is constructing a future that keeps television central to informed democracy in Wales but also lets the country talk to the wider UK - not just itself." This is generally how it's done. The term Principality is a formal and a separate matter. --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Your BBC quote has been countered by other quotes from the BBC which contradict yours. Your authorities in general have been challenged. You have in turn been presented with UK government authorities and a speech by the Constitutional Monarch. You have not answered any of those points. Please do not play games with accusations of POV when you cannot be bothered (or maybe realise that you cannot) deal with the evidence presented. Feel free to repeat yourself again, until you deal with the evidence or present new material its probably sensible to leave your comments without response. --Snowded (talk) 15:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The quotes contradict eachother. Exactly! That is why all the points of view have to be reflected. That is what is called non-point of view. Gozitancrabz (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No quote contradicts the fact that Wales is a country!! --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the only place where I've seen someone pose the idea that Wales is not a country! The United Kingdom in reality is a union of 'constituent countries': Wikipedia has to represent reality. There is no universal World Dictionary of Law that declares things like "a country is THIS, therefore Wales etc cannot be a country". Flexibility is the norm - and definitions work within closed structures: there is no all encompassing social structure to this world. How could there be? It's a hugely varied world. I read somewhere that Jimmy Wales disliked infoboxes - I expect he could see how people would try and enforce rigid 'universal' definitions for them, offending people where it traditionally universally hurts! If a country has always been seen as a country, and internationally/governmentally referred to as country, then it is a country (whether a 'constituent' of a larger nation-state/country or not). The UK has always needed flexible nationality terminology ('British citizen' not UK citizen, more recently dual passports in Northern Ireland etc). We have got by in the UK in the past, and we don't need people enforcing their own 'universal' terminology via Wikipedia (ie 'constituent area' - we are a 'constituent country')!--Matt Lewis (talk) 10:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the only place where I've seen someone pose the idea that Wales is not a country! Have you been outside of the UK much? No one sees Wales as a country, people barely know Wales exists! Its al about the UK; the UN defines it as a principality. So the thing is international definitions and opinions differ greatly from British people's views. So which is right? The world view or the natives?Wikipéire (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If your non-UK people barely know Wales exists, then why would they continue to insist it's not a country?? I'm not talking about ignorance or mistakes - I'm taking about a continual insistence that Wales is not a country! I've only seen it periodically on Wikipedia (usually trolls)!

Nowhere in your non-searchable UN facsimile link above can I find the word "country" or find the word "Principality"!! Can you point them out? It certainly nowhere says Wales isn't a real country. The UN normally cites The United Kingdom - which is a group of constituent countries.

Have you really tried thinking of the UK as a classical country? - it's hard to do in an emotional sense for anyone within it! 'Britain' is the emotional link, but many prefer their immediate countries, such as England, Socotland etc. Internationally, entities like the United Kingdom obviously must be recognised as the single legal unit (or 'country') - but in reality it is a working union of countries (that used to include Ireland for a period), which has had a fluctuating history. Was Ireland not also its own country when it was part of the UK? Of course it was - tell an Irishman it wasn't. The Principality issue is separate thing. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

There really is no point to Wikipeire's assertion that people barely know Wales exists, unless it's to demean Wales. I happen to have lived abroad and travelled quite a bit and I can assure you that most people would know that Wales exists. The problem is they think it is part of England, but that is the whole point of this encyclopedia, to inform people that it is a separate entity from England. If you have a look at the Scotland talk page you will see that the main argument was whether to call it Constituent country or country. there was a small number of editors who did not want the term country used at all, but as I said they were in the minority. --Jack forbes (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Wales is an entirely different matter to Scotland. Scotland is a kingdom; Wales is a principality. The fact that that UN AND the BBC back up the fact, yet a couple of users still try to hold up a barrier against all evidence, that there is an uncertainty to the definition, must obviously have some sort of political agenda on their minds. We, having provided evidence to show there is mixed support for it being both a country and not a country, are therefore the ones who are in non-point of view. Ignoring this, and continuing to trudge on saying "other parts of the BBC contradict this" does not mean anything, as we have already acknowledged this, and told you specifically that this only proves mixed oppinions - not that the other BBC quotes are "incorrect", otherwise I could just as easily justify that the BBC quotes you chose are "incorrect", but simply applying logic tells us not to do this. Some parts of the BBC state Wales is not a country (in one place, with those exact words), other parts of it state that it is; some other official sites claim Wales is a country; the UN site claims it isn't. Since there are references supporting both sides, the correct thing to do to achieve a neutral point of view would be to keep the article reflective of both sides, referencing both. Ignoring either side, since there is so much evidence for both, would be insisting a point of view one way or the other. Therefore, a short section describing these mixed views needs to be included; unless there are any further protests against both sets of evidences?
Also, just to let people know, User:Matt Lewis completely reworded many of the things I said, and started editing my comments, leading them to read as though I was not supporting my quotes, and appearing like I was arguing against my own arguement. I have now put things back pretty much to the way they were, but left Matt Lewis' other comments which do not "modify" mine. Matt, you can not do this again. You have been given a level 2 warning, but a repeated offence may lead to a higher warning, or getting blocked, especially when looking at your talk page, it seems like you have had instances like this before. It is seen as point of view pushing when you start editing my own comments to make an arguement against myself. Also, I would like to refer you to the Manual of Style. I would suggest you take a look at it, as the way in which you leave comments half way through mine, and up and down the page, is incorrect. For future reference, place your comments chronologically please. Thank you. And please use this time wisely to read through the manual, as your offence of modifying my words is partially to do with this too.
Another thing, quoted from higher up the page: The ISO 3166 standard does not list Wales as a country: [www.guavastudios.com/country-list.htm].
However they do list it as a Nation on its Nationality list ref: [www.guavastudios.com/country-list.htm].
Gozitancrabz (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll ignore most of the above: you simply don't know how to use Wikipedia. [www.guavastudios.com/country-list.htm] does not have England or Scotland either: The United Kindom is the collective 'country' in most country lists. Why is this continually ignored? --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

For whoever couldn't find this bit from the UN source. It's on page 5 under definitions:

The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy consisting of four consituent parts:

2 countries: England + Scotland
1 principality: Wales
1 province: Northern Ireland

I reckon the United Nations is a fairly prudent and neutral source. Also the International Organisation for Standardisation does not have Wales under the list of countries. It doesn't say anything about independence just countries.

However WP:NPOV is important to Wikipedia and Wales is sometimes reffered to as a country in the UK so I think the article needs to reflect both sides rather than just going for one over the other.Wikipéire (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You say "International Organisation for Standardisation does not have Wales under the list of countries". It wouldn't have it under the list of countries: the United Kingdom is the collective 'country'. It doesn't have England or Scotland either. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Wikipeire, wikipedia providing a neutral point of view is exactly what I have been trying to point out we should do; and do so by reflecting both points of view in the arguement. Gozitancrabz (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems Matt Lewis may have ulterior motives behind his support for the arguement here, gathering from this left on my talkpage: "You also have to understand too that your assertion that Wales is a Principality and not a real country is offensive to me, and millions of others of my Welsh countrymen!". It would be apparent he has a strong preference for it to be a country, due to strong national pride and "offense". Anyway, it seems pretty settled now as far as I am concerned; there are sufficient quotes from both sides, and the article has to reflect this. Gozitancrabz (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Just because someone has pride in their country does not mean they are incapable of reasoned argument. Tell me, are you proud of the country you belong to? If so you should be careful what you edit, you don't want to be accused of making certain edits due to national pride. It seems to me Matt has given you plenty of cites confirming that Wales is indeed a country and allied to that the fact that most everyone, including me(I'm a Scot, not Welsh) consider Wales to be a country, that's good enough for me. --Jack forbes (talk) 21:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Ulterior motives? The madness is that Gozitancrabz either knows nothing about the country hs/she is suddently arguing about - or is someone who won't let the people, the media and governments have the say over (and there is a word for that in my book). It's one or the other, because I see just the one example which looks like Wales is not seen as a country: the rest I simply have lived all my life. We need to address this UN quote.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
'Address this UN quote?' As in debunk it? It's the most reliable source thats been given so far. It shows internationally it is not seen as a country. However internally it is, so does everyone not agree that istead of fighting for one side over the other, that both descriptions of Wales should be shown in the article so that the reader can make up their own mind?Wikipéire (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Whatever the UN says I don't think they are permitted to tell the UK government what they can or cannot call Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or England. --Jack forbes (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
(sigh) I'm disappointed to hear you say that. Makes you seem to be a bit of a chauvinist to be honest.WikipÉIRE\(caint) 22:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
You will have to explain that to me. Which part of the statement is chauvinistic? --Jack forbes (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If they dismiss both the UN quote and the ISO code quote, then I strongly suggest we request for a cable mediation on the matter. We are not saying to write "Wales is not a country", we are saying that the text should be rewritten to include both points of view, for which there are plenty of sources both sides. So without further ado, if point of view is to be continued to be pushed, and you are going to ignore with the UN quote, shall we get mediation? Gozitancrabz (talk) 22:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The ISO code (As I have said above) has no England, Scotland or Wales - the United Kingdom is the collective "country" (of contituent countries) in all these lists. I think you read about 20% of what I write. The UN (the only one with a shred in your favour) can be dealt with - yes. Before I do - Can you replace the comments you removed of mine - before I report you? You claimed I messed with yours (I didn't) and in re-writing a whole load of stuff you removed at least one paragraph of mine (on your BBC quote that turned out to be a h2g2 Wiki) --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I actually find it quite funny that you consistantly accuse people of POV whilst everything you say has no point of view. Personaly I don't see the need for mediation as it seems there are only two editors pushing your point of view! Of course others may think differently,--Jack forbes (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason I am suggesting mediation is due to the fact that you are now ignoring quotes from the official UN database, and several other official sources. Do you deny ignoring the UN site? Gozitancrabz (talk) 22:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Several other sources - rubbish. They have all been debunked as not saying what you claim apart from the perhaps UN one. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
There are several other sources. Thousands of country lists don't include Wales and they don't mention sovereignty or anything like that at all. For example Wikipedia's List of countries does not include Wales.
Rubbish - as I have pointed out to you - Wikipedia's List of countries reads: "Constituent countries of the United Kingdom, i.e. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland."
honestly - WTF? What the hell is your problem?
Over the past few days I've said OVER TEN TIMES now why this is (in my Talk, here and on the other Constituent country Talk) - I've had NOT ONE response. Are you reading or just writing? These lists use the United Kingdom - they don't mention England, Wales etc (as teh UK covers the 'constituent countries': I demand to have your and Gozitancrabz opinion on this as both of your have ignored this point, and have allowed me to repeat it too many times. There are no sources beyond those lists and the UN document. "Constituent countries" is enough: the legal bureaucracy of international law does not matter one jot - and in anycase they DO NOT AND CANNOT say Wales is not country.--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
It says this list does not use the word "country" as synonymous with "sovereign state," as one may often find in colloquial usage. The word country being identified as a sovereign state is another issue to why it should perhaps not be used.
According to the International Organisation of Standardisation Wales is a subdivision of the UK. That makes it an administrative area such as a US state.
Where? Not in your link it doesn't. I've not read this in iso.org. Doesn it say Wales is not a country? --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
According to the EU: Use ‘United Kingdom’ for the Member State, not ‘Great Britain’, which comprises England, Scotland and Wales; these three together with Northern Ireland are the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. It says parts not countries!!
So what?
Your whole argument is based on the fact that the British government and other internal British sources call Wales a country. Just because they call it a country doesn't make it one! There is no theory to back it up. My feeling is myself is that UK government are just trying to pull the wool over your eyes and if you hear Wales being called a country then calls for indenpendece and other things will be avoided. If my governement were to suddenly start calling my province a country would it make it one? No. The same applies to Wales. Internationally it is not seen as a country.WikipÉIRE\(caint) 10:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Internationally the United Kingdom is recognised as a collective of "constituent countries": You better address this or I'll seriously lose my temper with you (and Gozitancrabz). I'm not some kind of puppet who can be made to repeat the same line indefinitely for a joke. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
There is a constant confusion of terms here to support a nonsense position. Wales is an area of the United Kingdom as it is an area of Europe. Wales is a part of the United Kingdom. That does not stop it being a country. Equally the definition of a country does not require it to be a sovereign state. You comments on the UK Government's motivations seem somewhat disingenuous to say the least. The authority on the UK constitution is the UK Government and those sources prevail. Lists relating to sovereign states have a different function and you cannot really quote them as authority. To not call Wales a country is to take a strong political position - a POV - it is not neutral. To call it a sovereign state would also be a POV. Country is the term in common use (BBC and other examples) as well as UK Government web sites. --Snowded (talk) 11:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
But country is not the term used in international terms such as the EU, ISO and UN shown above.
Meaning? A compromise showing both sides needs to be shown.WikipÉIRE\(caint) 11:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Tell me again, why do you agree that Scotland can be a country and not Wales? --Jack forbes (talk) 11:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Not to mention England - which these 'country lists' never include either: obviously they all just use the 'UK'. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
It was the UN source that did it for me. I still don't see Scotland as a country but the UN source said 2 countries 1 principality and 1 province etc. So by some definitions Scotland could be seen as a country. However they do not apply to Wales as it has a local government not a national one, UN calls it a principailty, ISO calls Wales an administrative region while the EU calls Wales a constituent part. Nothing anywhere about a country.WikipÉIRE\(caint) 11:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The UN list is the only thing that appears to suggest Wales is not a country (by listing it as a Principality): it doesn't say it "Wales is not a country" though. Wales is proof that countries can be Principalities too. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
If you still don't believe that Scotland is a country even though the UN source tells you why are you using the website to prove your point? Shall we dimiss the UN website as it seems you don't have a great deal of confidence in it. --Jack forbes (talk) 11:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh no I have the utmost faith in the UN and this particular source which is why on the Scotland page I accepted it saying country.But not here however.WikipÉIRE\(caint) 11:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The UN site uses the phrase principality for good historical reasons. Scotland was a Kingdom that united with England, Wales was a Principality conquered by England. Both were independent countries acknowledged as such by various treaties. The concept of Kingship was alien to Welsh history who used the phrase Prince instead. Both now have governments with legislative power. The UK Government uses the words country and principality interchangeably, i.e. it sees no difference between them in this context and I doubt the UN would either if asked. A principality is a TYPE of country not an alternative to being a country. As I said before that to say that Wales is not a country is to take a strong political position - it is not neutral. To say that Scotland is a country and Wales is not starts to sound like vindictiveness. You have no authoritative statement to the effect that Wales is not a country. You have statements that use different words (area etc. but then those same words are used about Scotland, England and elsewhere. In contrast you have authoritative statements from the legal power (the UK Government) that Wales is a country. You really need to understand that "country" is a compromise within the context of the UK and you are attempting to impose a political position rather than go with the phrase agreed within the UK and endorsed by its government. This seems to be a campaign by two people with no local knowledge of the UK and its history (comparing the issue with Canadian Provinces illustrates this) and a much large group of people with that knowledge who have also contributed substantially to the development of the articles. If you look through the history of those editors and of this debate on various UK country sites there is obvious some political agenda in play here and a potentially divisive one. --Snowded (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
You keep on refering to the UK and the way it refers to Wales. I am fine with that. I am talking about an International viewpoint and international sources of which none of which call Wales a country. I am not saying don't call Wales a country, I am saying that it is not viewed as such outside of the UK and that needs to be evident in the article. Showing both sides is all I'm after - its not some 'political agenda'.WikipÉIRE\(caint) 13:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
They refer to the UK. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Most of the people I know around the world - and I travel a lot regard Scotland and Wales as countries and increasingly so (the recent visit of the First Minister, of Wales to the USA giving a good example). Your international sources do not say that Wales is not a country, they sometimes use the word Principality which is interchangeable. The idea that there are two sides on this when the constitutional authority is clear on the subject is a nonsense. You are, wittingly or unwittingly taking a strong political position and if you had any knowledge of the UK you would know that to remove the label country is not a neutral act, it is a highly charged political statement which would contradict UK Government policy. You also have no support (bar one Latin) for this position. --Snowded (talk) 13:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
It's true - there are just two non-UK editors who are pushing this, and neither have been on the Wales page before the basically semantic issues of "Official language" and "'country' status" came up. I'm not saying editors have to be from the UK at all - I'm just pointing out a striking fact. Both of these editors have had a dig at Wales not being a 'real country' before the UN document came up too. I think it's possible that Wales being a country is comparative to a situation that is important to them - and they are trying to make the situations 'similar': I cannot believe that Wales, or the Wales article really matters to them - there is no evidence for that (quite the opposite in fact). --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible compromise on Country issue

(I have inserted this title into the flow to make it easier to navigate and altered the indenting to match) --Snowded (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Since when did I ever say remove the label country? My main three sources of the UN,EU and ISO describe Wales as a principality a constituent part and an adminstrative region. Country is not mentioned. I am saying the other international point of view needs to be shown. You are trying to make this political, I am just trying to make sure the article is WP:NPOV and an internatioanl viewpoint of Wales is necessary for this.WikipÉIRE\(caint) 14:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

So lets be very clear - you are happy for Wales to be listed as a constituent country of the UK in the introduction? My clear sense of your contributions so far is that you want the label "country" removed and replaced with some other word. Perhaps you would clarify your intent. --Snowded (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I am happy for constituent country of the UK to remain as long as the fact that Wales is viwed as a principality/administrative part of the UK internationally. I recognize British people view it as a country but outside the UK it is seen more as a historic nation and now is part of the UK and not a country. Do you understand what I'm getting at?WikipÉIRE\(caint) 14:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Well then I suggest you propose some wording (you did this well on the Welsh Language issue) and we can see what it looks like. I don't agree with your view that internationally it is not recognised Yes we have the constant confusion of England with Britain, but most people I know in Washington (in Government), Singapore, Australia, Canada and Europe are fully aware of the differences. Either way a factual statement in draft might resolve it - I wait to see what you come up with. You could state the constitutional position of the Welsh Assembly in respect of the UK government and the sovereign nation status being the UK. That would fine. Remember that the original proposal here was to delete country. --Snowded (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I know. But I sensed we were going nowhere and a compromised position had to fought for.

What about something along the lines of: Wales (Welsh: Cymru;[1] pronounced /ˈkəmrɨ/ (help·info)) is a principality and one of the four constituent countries that together make up the sovereign state of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
A new section will the be created to describe what Wales is. There's no way you can explain why its a country + a principality while being a part of a sovereign state and Welsh Assembly stuff at the start of the article.WikipÉIRE\(caint) 14:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I think I can live with that I agree the detail should be in a separate section, or amendments of existing sections - lets see what others say. --Snowded (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Given the general refusal to engage in this debate by the two protagonists, attempts to manipulate evidence on the mediation page, the editing out of a block for sockpuppeting by Wikipiere on his talk page, and the sockpuppet accusation made against Gozitancrabz I am withdrawing my agreement to this compromise. I was not happy about it, but thought it could be lived with. However subsequent behaviour convinces me that we are dealing with POV games here. --Snowded (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear that. Its a sad state of affairs when people make judgements based on a percieved editors character rather than the improvement of an article. Since this debate was opened I'm not sure what 'bad behaviour' I've done. I was the one who suggested the compromise. I didn't shout troll at people nor did I ever refuse to listen to aguements. Oh well, lets see what the mediation process comes up with.WikipÉIRE\(caint) 20:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
However, the fact that there are sources claiming both Wales is and isn't a country means that we cannot leave the term "constituent country", as that implies a point of view that they are countries. We need to choose a word which does not suggest either "country" or "non-country"; which is why I suggested "constituent part". Anyway, I am glad that the other side is at least acknowledging the UN quote now. Gozitancrabz (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
There are no authoritative sources saying that Wales is not a country, there are authoritative sources that say that Wales is a Principality (including the UN). However there are sources which use the words Principality and country so the two are not seen as mutually exclusive. You are not arguing for a compromise here, you are continuing to assert a position. Wikipiere (as he did on the language issue for which I give due credit) has come with a form of words that might resolve the issue. Removing the word "country" is a clear political change, it is not neutral. --Snowded (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Read my reply in the section below this if you think there are no authoritive sources stating it. And now that we have identified that there are reliable sources for and against it being a country, using a word which clearly shows favoritism to "country" is insisting POV. Gozitancrabz (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Firstly please learn to use colons to indent your text (this has already been mentioned by others on your talk page). I have made the change for you here. If you cannot be bothered to read the extensive evidence presented after you initiated changes in Constituent country, including the table of sources with commentary created by Bencherlite then I am not going to repeat them here. I realise that you are new to Wikipedia or you created Gozitancrabz just for this discussion. Assuming you are new then I would pay attention to Wikipiere's suggestion, its time for a compromise not continued assertions. --Snowded (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Just because I am new does not mean you can assert any more authority than I can. I have edited with my IP address before, so it's not as though I'm completely unaccustomed to everything. And are you not listening? The UN does not include it in its list of official countries - i would say that is a clear enough statment; let alone the fact that neither does the ISO or EU. Gozitancrabz (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I make no assertion of authority, I have just given advise. Your reference to the UN list continues your bad faith practice. Your make a point, other editors reply having done more research than you (see the reference to South Georgia) and you fail or refuse to respond to them. --Snowded (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

More issues with the intro

  • What's this sentence about independent ties with the European Union? Wales isn't a separate member state and, judging by discussions re: Scotland, if Wales became independent it might have to apply for membership! [8]
The line was: "Today, Wales continues to share political and legal structures to varying degrees with the United Kingdom, while now maintaining more independent ties with international bodies such as the European Union.[citation needed]" - it didn't say Wales was part of the EU!! It was an attempt to reflect what is going on. We have AM's (Welsh Assembly members) who deal with Europe and international trade directly through the Welsh Assembly, and independent of the rest of the UK, physically and financially (although is 'budgeted' overall).
  • In what sense has Wales undergone a cultural revival? Is this taken to mean that more people speak Welsh, that more people are using Welsh (yes, but there is a counter-argument, that there has been a continued fall in the number of communities where Welsh is the everyday language [9]) or that there are more cultural events of a certain sort in Wales? Without more clarity of meaning, and/or a good external source, this bit looks like bias.
I had citations of both the language and the arts - it does need more though, I agree. You don't need to wikilink 'bias' thank you very much. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Where are the historical GDP per head stats to back up the claim that Cardiff has been the most prosperous area in Wales since Victorian times? It's not an implausible claim, but you need to be able to prove it.Pondle (talk) 11:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
In other words - citation is needed. I don't think GDP and stats are really needed for this! - a quote from a history should do here. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I added the citation needed to the European Union bit. I will remove the sentence if someone doesn't come up with something to back it up within a couple of days.Wikipéire (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually you did it with your sockpuppet (User:Melvo), you idiot. Now you are trolling me by taking out the whole paragraph after our British Isles conversation on my Talk page. You have already removed my citations given (which I only didn't return to the article because you were warring at the time). You are simply belittling Wales to help your own 'Country' dispute. Your first ever edit as Wikipeire was "Scotland is not a country", and we all know the time you and the banned user:Gozitancrabz have wasted here trying to say Wales is not a country. Are you trying to go out with a bang? Personally, I've had enough of you.--Matt Lewis (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Whatever. Blabber on. There are three editors against you on this.All say you're wrong with references and you do nothing. Thats why it was removed. Feel free to move the sentence (once improved) to the politics section of the article. Thats the consensus on the issue. You cannot deny that.WikipÉIRE\(caint) 09:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Why will you remove it, though? Have you had a look for a citation? Wikipedia states clearly that nothing should be removed without first attempting to verify it (ie we move towards to keeping in the work done, if we can). It has a 'Citation needed' now (there is no imediate date on these), it just needs someone's time as, it can't be hard to find. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Pondle (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm nearly certain its not true. I have looked for something and there wasn't the slightest hint that it was true. So therefore I'm eager to remove it as soon as possible. But I will give it a few days in the event that someone does find something. If it were true someone could easily find something to back it up. No?Wikipéire (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
That is so far from reality I consider it an insult. I've just put a couple of citations in that took me to 2 seconds to find (I hadn't the time when I wrote it and the page got locked no thanks to you). I watch the buildings go up pal - just be careful. Seriously - you appear to have a particular condescending attitude about my country - why? Where are you coming from? What's your issue?--Matt Lewis (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I have absolutely nothing against the UK.Wikipéire (talk) 12:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
You have finally said everything in one sentence. At least we know where you stand now. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm going to have to remove your sources. I'm not sure what Amazon.com or some guy coming to Wales from the middle East have to do with direct political ties with the European Union. Your first source says Wales works closely with the UK Permanent Representation. ::::::Also the European and External Affairs Division is no the EU. So its your sentence? Don't take my criticism of it personally, I just want to make sure its all truth and facts on the page.Wikipéire (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The article says: "Today, Wales continues to share political and legal structures to varying degrees with the United Kingdom, while now maintaining more independent ties with international bodies such as the European Union."
I quickly came across 3 obvious citations: the official Welsh Assembly facts/figs page on Europe, proof of forging "international" ties with the Middle East, and the 10-football pitch Amazon warehouse brokered by the Welsh Assembly - all 100% relevant. How the hell can you justify removing them? How can you belittle these?[1][2][3] Will you edit war when I put them back? - bacause I simply have to put them back. The sentence asks for citations and I've provided them. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
now maintaining more independent ties with international bodies such as the European Union Because they cite things about trade not political ties with the European Union.
As I said your first source says Wales works closely with the UK Permanent Representation. ::::::Also the European and External Affairs Division is not the EU.
The fist quote was this (although I swapped it for the Amazon one): "As part of the division, the Welsh Assembly Government has its own European Union Office in Brussels to further Welsh interests. Its team of European policy specialists works closely with the UK Permanent Representation to the EU to ensure that Wales gains maximum possible benefit both in terms of policy and funding."
Your second source is not about the EU it is the middle East
The "League of Arab States" is a clear international body! Read the sentence you quoted above again! ("international bodies such as the European Union")--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The third is about the Welsh Assembly getting more trade. It doesn't mention the word Europe Union at all.
See above! It's not just about Europe, obviously. Honestly - why do you think we have a Welsh Assembly?--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't revert but I will have to unless you find sources which match that 'Wales has direct ties with the European Union or else you change the sentence to match the sources you found.Wikipéire (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Again you have misread (and even misquoted) the sentence we have been dealing with. ("...more independent ties with international bodies such as the European Union"!!). The Welsh Assembly source covers both your line and the one in the article. The Middle East citation covers the "international body" side. Trade and commerce is pretty obviously concommitent here, but I'll append the words to better cover the Amazon warehouse citation (which you could have simply removed on its own if you had to, instead of reverting all the citations and disparaging them and the sentence - or you could have even been useful(!) and added the word "trade" to better cover the Amazon citation!). I have no idea what you personally think the Welsh Assembly and European union are there for, or what the four MEP's in Wales do - you seem to just want to belittle Wales and stop the article progressing. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The EU is a lot more than just some trade organisation. I have changed your sentence slightly to deal with the trade aspect that your sources are quoting. The whole EU thing you are trying to portray is just misleading. You are talking about trade no the EU. The new sentence justifies this. I don't see how I am stopping the article progressing. I am pretty sure a good half dozen changes have been made that are more accurate than was there before.Wikipéire (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If we are saying business, it is better highlighting it separately rather that making it the whole point - The Arab Nations citions says "political and cultural links" and the EU stats citation give non-trade regulations. They will deal with the Assembly directly, as will all these large bodies (even non trade ones). Amazon was different - the Assembly just helped broker a deal for Wales (and no other bodies may have been involved). --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
You are making all these changes without discussing them on here!! Do not start another edit war, discuss!!!Wikipéire (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
You have not given me much time over the last couple of edits. All I originally did was put in some citations for a Citation Needed! I've put the change in the edit note - I've just repeated it above: we can't explicitly narrow it as just trade. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
But to a large extent thats what it is. The sentence contains a lot of Original Research. The sources don't really say what the sentence in the article says. The whole sentence needs complete re doing to portray what the sources say. The way it reads now with more independent ties with international bodies such as the European Union makes it seem as if Wales has some special independet relationship with the E.U. as a state of some sort. This is misleading and is not WP:NPOV. Both of our edits are inaccurate as their are polticial ties with the Arab League as that wonderful 2002 source tells us. So therefore if completely re do the sentence to portray things more accurately while still saying what you wanna say I'll be happy.Wikipéire (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
What Original research? Give me examples. Why have you reverted saying I haven’t discussed? - I have above.
What's your issue with the Arab link? There are millions of Muslims in the UK - and the visit was partly "cultural" (as the link says) - why keep discrediting it?
The sentence in the article said: "Today, Wales continues to share political and legal structures to varying degrees with the United Kingdom, while now maintaining closer links with business, and more independent ties with international bodies such as the European Union."
It did not say Wales is an EU member state! Whether you like it or not, the EU recognises and goes through the Welsh Assembly regarding the Welsh and Wales. The EU was actually built around these kind of situations. Your perceived "special independent relationship with the E.U. as a state of some sort" is in your imagination! There certainly IS a particular relationship of a sort with Wales and the EU as it is recognised by them - you seem to want to hide it.
I'll try and re-write it in a way that even the quickest-reading fool won't suddenly think Wales is a separate EU member state - despite everything else in the article contradicting that! And heaven forfend that we even begin to suggest a mire such as Wales could even begin to presume such a horrible idea (shudder)--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say any of that at all. I just said it was misleading as it didn't describe in what way it had a relationship with EU. Your old sentence can be intrepretated in many different ways so thanks for saying you'll re do it.Wikipéire (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we need to remember that any participation by Wales in an EU institution or programme is contingent upon UK membership of the EU - so why are we highlighting Wales' EU links in the Wales intro? Neither Scotland, Northern Ireland or Catalonia include EU links in their intros. Besides, apart from its handful of MEPs, receipt of European funding and some minor interregional cooperation, I don't think that Wales has a particularly notable 'national' voice in Europe[10] If Wales has a significant representation in the Committee of the Regions that may be worthy of note, but it's probably not significant enough to go in the Intro. Pondle (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


That is exactly what I was thinking. Matt Lewis has argued otherwise and I'd agree to see specific statements about Wales' role in Europe and internationally put in if they were applicable to the situation. They haven't been so far but we'll see what he comes up with.WikipÉIRE\(caint) 23:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
It's because of the Welsh Assembly, and how it has changed Wales. It paints a picture. I don't really go by the Scottish intro - this is the Welsh one. It's not a 'boast' at all - it's just a picture-forming piece of information, and very notable imo. Wales has benefitted from being able to deal with these bodies directly, although the benefits are not part of the sentence.--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
In what sense do we now deal with EU bodies directly? OK, so the WAG has a few civil servants on the UKRep [11] - but we don't have independent representation in the European Council, the Council of the European Union, the European Commission or the European Court of Justice. Maybe the Committee of the Regions, but that's just an advisory body with two Welsh local councillors amongst its 344 other local/regional members from across Europe. OK, so the EU has a small office in Wales but it's had one 1976 - and it mainly just does PR.[12] Pondle (talk) 23:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
On the same website it say's "The EC office in Wales , founded in 1976, is the key link between Wales and Brussels for every European issue on the Welsh agenda." Sounds to me that its more than PR they deal with! --Jack forbes (talk) 23:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The EU Wales office has only 5 staff - one is a PA, one is a press officer and two of the remaining three are information officers. Its main duty is to keep the Welsh public informed about the EU. They appear to have no substantive policy role and don't even get a mention in WAG's own page about the EU [13]. I'm sorry but giving the EU such prominence in the Intro just seems like undue weight given that, as I said before, we don't have independent representation in the key EU institutions. Pondle (talk) 11:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The point is simply that they go straight to the Assembly in Wales - I'm not arguing that Wales has any comparatively significant ties - the notability is purely in the context of Wales, its past and future. It's 'swings a roundabouts' with bureaucracy, but I voted for the WA because of the practical benefits of being able to deal directly with these bodies. There are still issues in Wales over expense: almost weekly cost issues were initally seen by the media/public as "scandals" - but less and less now (hardly at all in fact) - mainly I'm sure because people are simply seeing the benefits (though certain 'growing pains' were a factor too). The 5 WA's are not the real picture - that anyone (AM's especially) can refer and act through a recognised Welsh Assembly (and vice versa) is the notable factor, and the EU is the obvious example.--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The WAG-UK Government Concordat on Co-ordination of European Union Policy Issues [14] states As all foreign policy issues are non-devolved, relations with the European Union are the responsibility of the Parliament and Government of the United Kingdom, as Member State. However, the UK Government wishes to involve the Assembly Cabinet as directly and fully as possible in decision making on EU matters which touch on devolved areas (including non-devolved matters which impact on devolved areas and non-devolved matters which will have a distinctive impact of importance to Wales). In general, it is expected that consultation, the exchange of information and the conventions on notifications to EU bodies will continue in similar circumstances to the arrangements in place prior to devolution. As far as I can work out, the only practical change in Wales' relationship with the EU post-devolution seems to be WAG civil servants' participation in the United Kingdom Permanent Representation to the EU (UKRep)[15] and the Committee of the Regions. It would be useful to clarify all this in the Politics of Wales article! Pondle (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Interestingly, the Concordat you quote from is not actually legally binding, though I don't think this is the issue here. It does seem to contradict itself, but I think the key words are "will continue in similar circumstances". How similar is similar? Certainly in terms of specifically UK Foreign Policy it would be the same, but clearly "the exchange of information" follows other patterns too, depending on what information is exchanged. What's the point in having the Assembly otherwise? It would hardly deal with something domestic internally - then go through London every time it needed to liaise with the EU! I know its all a bureaucracy, but it can't be that bad! We are not Scotland, but we do have some significant devolved powers.--Matt Lewis (talk) 02:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I really can't follow your argument Matt. The concordat is an official document describing the management of relations between the UK and EU in the context of devolution. The killer line is relations with the European Union are the responsibility of the Parliament and Government of the United Kingdom, as Member State. If you don't like it, that's fine, but Wikipedia isn't the place for opinion one way or the other.Pondle (talk) 09:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Can I ask a favour of you? Can we Talk about it on my Talk page? I'll re-explain my point. I'd appreciate it right now - we can come back after I've explained what I mean and what I want the line to do.--Matt Lewis (talk) 10:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Pondle. The sentence should be removed from the introduction to the politics section of the Wales Artice and the Politics of Wales article. It would insure the that no information given is misleading; unfortunatley it presently is.WikipÉIRE\(caint) 13:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Mediation requests

Anyone object if we remove both of these? On language we reached a compromise, on "country" the banned of a sock puppet seems to have closed the item and the concensus is clearly for country. --Snowded (talk) 04:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree. --Jack forbes (talk) 05:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Is it up to us to remove these before they are officially 'closed'? If so, remove them - the one on Country was a cynical waste of everyone's time, so should certainly be closed and removed. I accept the National Languages edit for the sake of compromise and stopping the wars/locks etc, though it's clear to me that Welsh is an "Offical language" in Wikipedias terms (the only one that matters with such a flexible term). I'm not happy with the fact that we had to compromise on it, especially given the character who started the dispute (with an edit by his now-banned sock puppet which he pretended to support), the IP address and the other sock-user who got involved (who's now banned), and the fact that as a consequence article got locked when I was busy working on the introduction. So yes - remove them (if we can) so we can move on: but I want to register that I'm not happy with the way things went with them, and if someone wanted to re-standardise "Official language" I wouldn't complain. Unlike the 'Wales is not a country' issue I don't personally care all that much about whether we use either National or Official for Welsh - I just don't like being conned, manipulated and generally warn-down into making compromises by a very small party (possibly even singular 'party') of sock-using cheats.--Matt Lewis (talk) 09:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I will leave it a day and then delete if no one objects. I agree with the overall frustration an the behaviour of a disruptive sock puppet or two. However I will admit I liked "language" rather than "official language" seemed less bureaucratic! --Snowded (talk) 09:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Matt, even though the compromise was agreed on there's still a slight feeling of being conned, and I don't even mind language. Have you looked at his userpage? For Scottish and Welsh Independance....hmmmm. --Jack forbes (talk) 09:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Jesus Christ are you lot are strange. I am not a sock puppet or some troller. I fully believe in the edits I am proposing. What's wrong with being pro Scottish independence. As I live in a fellow Celtic Nation, of course I'd want that. I suppose now there is consensus at the moment for keeping the first line as it is so mediation can be removed. However mediation may have to be opened for the European Union bit. Another editor and I say the sentence is nonsense but Matt comes out with all insults blazing....WikipÉIRE\(caint) 09:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The other editor does not say the sentence is "nonsense" at all - he questions whether it is right for the Intro (as Scotland doesn't mention the EU in the Intro), and has found an ambiguous 'concordat' which you clearly haven't read. the paragraph might need a little more work, but can I say I've been a bit waylaid lately? I was writing it when the article got locked in fact. Surely you wouldn't have the gall to go to mediation again? - you haven't even responded to the concordat issue: you just said "I agree with Pondle"! Agree to what? Read it. You must have a strange view of the local admins if you think they would appreciate another ruckus right now! --Matt Lewis (talk) 10:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes I did read it. with the European Union is the responsibility of the Parliament and Government of the United Kingdom, as Member State. Shows that your sentence is wrong. I agree in the fact that it should be removed from the intro and moved to a politics section where it can be talked about in more accuracy. I'm sorry there's no one fighting your corner but yourself. Everyone agrees it should not be in the intro. I agree it can be in the politics section but it has to be more accurate.WikipÉIRE\(caint) 10:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Strange? I know a lot of people who want Scottish Independance, but I have to say your the strangest one yet! As you say, you live in a fellow Celtic nation but you seem to want to pick arguments with your fellow Celts. --Jack forbes (talk) 10:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes because their pages are inaccurate! Stuff like Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau is the official anthem and that Wales somehow isn't a prinicaplity. Shocking. I'm for their independence but like to make sure the articles are written how it actually is. That makes me fairly neutral I'd like to think, rather than these editors who are going crazy thinking the edits I make belittle their country. The world is the way it is. You can't change it because you don't like what it says.WikipÉIRE\(caint) 10:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Not a Principality? We have always had it in the Intoduction - have you read it to the bottom? You are clearly trolling now so get lost. Let's ignore him. (seriously). --Matt Lewis (talk) 10:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Then why where you against the intro saying it was one then? May I remind you?Don't be a fanatic and Assume good faith
You wanted it in the first line, even before "country", you idiot: it was your "compromise". Other editors didn't want that, and were not willing to 'compromise' with trolls. You are a sock-user, an obvious sock, and a troll. Now stop winding me up so I can leave you alone.--Matt Lewis (talk) 10:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The fact that it was before country wasn't even discussed or negiotiated on. It was first merely for the flow of the sentence. I am not a sock nor a troll and have never attempted to wind you up in any shape or form. Stop taking things personally and get on with discussing changes in the correct and proper manner.WikipÉIRE\(caint) 10:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

OK I will remove both mediation requests. Can I just say that I am finding it very difficult to deal with Wikipedia in good faith. We get attempts to undo material (country, national anthem) in general from a minority position of one. (I will ignore our recent sock puppet which would have made it two). Evidence presented is ignored and countered at times with very poor quality sources. Then if Wikipedia is in a minority we get formal requests for mediation which consume time. We see similar patterns on other pages from the same editor. There are many things we can do to improve this page; constantly dealing with these edits is a waste of time. --Snowded (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not a country

Country can ether mean a soverien state or a nation. It's not a soverien state because it's not independent, and its not a nation because not everyone there would share the same identity. 122.105.217.71 (talk) 08:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Most people would recognise Wales as a 'country', and most people would accept that 'country' is an ambiguous term. My Dictionary of Human Geography defines a country as "any political unit or state on a national scale, regardless of whether it is independent. The Wikipedia article Country states "In political geography and international politics, a country is a political division of a geographical entity, a sovereign territory, most commonly associated with the notions of state or nation and government. In common usage, the term is used casually in the sense of both "nation" (a cultural entity) and "state" (a political entity). Definitions may vary. It is sometimes used to refer to both states and some other political entities. Pondle (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, this is an example of an official use of the term 'country' to describe Wales... Explanatory Notes to Waste And Emissions Trading Act 2003 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/en/ukpgaen_20030033_en_1 Pondle (talk) 18:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

In French the countryhood of the place is enshrined in its name: Pays des Galles. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I have already explaned why it fits nether definition. 122.105.217.71 (talk) 04:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes, and two other users have already explained why your opinion is open to debate. Restating your argument doesn't make you right - Pondle in particular stated the issues at hand quite well. Moreover, your particular interpretation of the concept of 'nation' is rather questionable. By your definition of a nation (somewhere where "everyone there would share the same identity") places such as England, Australia and the US would not fit the definition of a 'nation', and therefore a 'country'. Of course, not everyone in Wales would identify with a normative Welsh cultural identity, but such an identity exists, and many people relate to it and its connection with the land of Wales. Rob Lindsey (talk) 06:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This debate is pointless. The lead already states that Wales is a Constituent country, and the wikilinked article clearly defines what this is (i.e. a country which forms part of a larger entity, such as the UK). There's no point going over what has already been discussed on this and other British country articles. Bettia (talk) 09:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Pondle, it is not on a national scale because it is not a nation. The government of the UK is biased to wether Wales is a country. It says what the Welsh want to think. Rob Lindsy, none of the places you listed are nations but Australia and the USA are countries because they are independent states. 122.105.217.71 (talk) 10:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The argument put forward by user 122.105.217.71 has been repeated on the talk pages of the other constituent countries of the UK. Argue the case against, with cites, on the talk page for Constituent Countries and if successful there, delete the link here Alastairward (talk) 11:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not disputing anything that the constituent country article says which is why im discussing this on the Wales article. And the reson i put it on the talk pages "of the other constituent countries of the UK" is so it has the max chance of being notised. 122.105.217.71 (talk) 00:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Getting sick of this. Yes, you are disputing the definitions forwarded in the Constituent Countries article, because you are insisting that a country must be independent - you have not cited anything to make us believe that your definitions are notable or preferable alternatives. Bettia and Alastair are right - if Wikipedia must have this rather unproductive discussion, bring it up on the Constituent Countries talk page with citations. Rob Lindsey (talk) 01:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong for two resons. The 1st one is that im not insisting that a country must be independent. A country can be a nation. The second thing is that my definition (which is actuly wikipedia's) does not contradict the definition on the constituent country article. 122.105.217.71 (talk) 06:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I find your assertion that "Wales is not a country because it is not a nation" vaguely ridiculous. A nation is just as ambiguous a concept as a country. Benedict Anderson called a nation "an imagined community". Ernest Gellner said that a nation was defined by people sharing aspects of the same culture and recognising themselves as members of the same nation. The Wikipedia article states that "a nation is a form of self-defined cultural and social community". 67% of adults in Wales identify as being Welsh - see p.51 [16] That's good enough for me. Pondle (talk) 11:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I see two problems with your statement. First, your definition of country as being either a sovereign state or a nation is just your definition. The term 'country' is in general underdefined. As I understand it, there is no official international statement anywhere that defines the term clearly. If there were, we could at least make a stab at saying that Wales is (or is not) a country 'as the UN defines country' or whatever. Even then, of course, that wouldn't mean Wales wasn't a country; it would only mean it wasn't a country according to one particular definition. We already know that the British government refers to Wales as a country, for example. Second, you claim that Wales cannot be a country because 'its not a nation because not everyone there would share the same identity'. But under that definition, no country on earth is a nation. Pondle puts it well. But let's put the question another way: if Scotland and England are countries, so is Wales. If Wales is not, then neither are the other two (I'll leave Northern Ireland out of it, as I want to avoid inevitable disputes about the extent to which it's part of Ireland etc). Now, the British government describes them all as countries, as do (I believe) most members of the British population. This, I would guess, is based on a multitude of factors: history, independent entry into international sporting championships, separate cultural identity, language, and so on. So 'country' is a tricky concept, underdefined and understood differently by different people. To attempt to impose one particular strict definition on it without any obvious official backing seems to me to be entering very muddy waters indeed. Here's my suggestion: if we need to justify calling it a country, use the UK govermnent website. If anyone can find some sort of UN definition of what constitutes a 'country', then we can include that as well for contrast. garik (talk) 11:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This debate reminds me of the 2001 census, which was wholely biased in terms of the nationality question... which goes to the heart of the issue imo. The census questions were designed in such a way that in Scotland and Ireland residents there could check a tick-box describing themselves as of Scottish or Irish nationality. However, respondents in Wales only had the option to check a box describing themselves as white-British.... and had to take further steps to describe themselves as of Welsh nationality. Overwealmingly respondants in Scotland and Northern Ireland checked that they were Scottish or Irish and not white-British. Critics expect Welsh residents would have responded in a simular manner. However, without a simular option for Welsh respondants as many as one-third replied that they were British. The government was biased in that they designed the questions to elicit a response inwhich the majority of respondants in Wales and England would respond as though they were British (in the absence of any other tick-box options).... inflating the results. A caveot: Respondants in England were not given the option to descibe themselves as English either and responded that they were British. For context, the census was conducted in the middle of the foot and mouth crisis, which post-poned the 01 UK general election but census authorities said did not effect the results.Drachenfyre (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

From my persepctive, Wales and the Welsh qualify as both a nation and a country.... but not a soverign nation-state.Drachenfyre (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


Discussions opened by 122.105.217.71

An identical discussion doubting the "country" likeness has been opened by the same anonymous 122.105.217.71 for talk:Wales#It is not a Country, talk:England#It is not a Country, talk:Northern Ireland#It is not a Country as well as talk:Scotland#It is not a Country. The focus has been on the "definition" according to the wiki article and has sparked extended debate. As the law of the UK clearly states these regions are countries I would strongly suggest to close it here, as no argument on Wikipedia is going to change UK law. Arnoutf (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The UK government doesn't have a neutral pont of view. It says what its population wants to think. 122.105.217.71 (talk) 08:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Phillip's Great and Collin's world atlases don't include wales in the lists of countries, while having Wale's borders marked as an admin. devision. And while i'm at it, can you tell me one single difference between Wales and a USA state. 122.109.250.74 (talk) 10:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Welsh Assembly Government - European Union".
  2. ^ "Welsh Assembly Government - Wales and the EU".
  3. ^ "BBC News - Ties with Middle East strengthened".
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wales/Archive_6&oldid=1084990767"