Talk:Wales

The issue of whether Wales is a country or not has been repeatedly raised. The result of all these debates is that Wales is indeed a country. This has been confirmed in formal mediation. The discussion is summarised in this archive here. Further information on the countries within the UK can be found at Countries of the United Kingdom, and a table reliable sources can be found at Talk:Countries of the United Kingdom/refs.

Cymru am byth

Does anyone have a citation on this? Seems a little odd since most of the bits of the UK technically don't have mottos and it seems unlikely to be a royal motto.©Geni 16:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

"bits of the UK"!!! I've read WP:DNFTT, but sometimes it's just too much. Daicaregos (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

So do you have a citation?©Geni 05:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I reverted your change - apologies for the "vandalism label, that was a result of editing on the iPad - however you need agreement here, its not just enough to raise something. Personally I think this one is so self evident that the request for a citation could be seen as mischief making. A simple google search should give you more than enough evidence --Snowded ^TALK 22:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I did do a Google search and I'm finding nothing. No act of parliament, no act of welsh assembly, no ministerial ruling, no royal proclamations (I'm not even sure if any of the welsh kingdoms even had mottos). The phrase turns up from time to time but nothing giving it the status if a national motto. Incidentaly ipad use is not an excuse for abuse of rollback (I assume it was rollback admins are generaly whitelisted in semi automated tools).©Geni 22:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally yes it is, very easy to hit rollback instead of edit. Its not abuse if its a mistake and you immediately apologise as I did. --Snowded ^TALK 12:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Please get a consenus before changing something that people disagree with. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll be happy to. Do you have any citations?©Geni 22:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It's the motto of the Welsh Guards, though I think it was in widespread use before they were formed in 1915. You can find the phrase inscribed on a stone in the Washington Monument, for example.--Pondle (talk) 01:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

And Molon labe predates most of the welsh kingdoms. Thaty doesn't mean it's the motto of greece. I can only find 4 mentions on the entire welsh government website. One of which is a reference to the Washington Monument and the other 3 are in welsh. I'd expect a little more coverage of a national motto.©Geni 11:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Confusing the issue further, the motto on the Royal Badge of Wales is Pleidiol Wyf I'm Gwlad. In 2008 it superseded the old badge on which it was Y Ddraig Goch Ddyry Cychwyn. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

We were taught in school that it was on the shield of Llewelyn the Great. A google search on it with "motto' shows multiple de facto use. Rather like the English National Anthem, it may never have been formally defined --Snowded ^TALK 13:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. However, it would be helpful to pull out some good quality citations out of this lot. And, personally, I wouldn't want to rely on any of my old teachers as being "reliable sources". Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that modern wales is even the successor state to imperial Gwynedd. Was there even a 13th century tradition of having words on shields? Would be a little odd since most people wouldn't be able to read them.©Geni 13:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Quite. Rather than wasting any more time on this, let's have a straw poll to see whether the motto should be kept in the infobox (without citation), or not:

Keep "Cymru am Byth" is the de facto motto of Wales. Daicaregos (talk) 13:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

You can't vote your way around a lack of citations.©Geni 13:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It's just a straw poll, which we're quite entitled to hold. Your participation is not compulsary. It is to see whether the editors here consider "Cymru am Byth" the de facto motto of Wales. Daicaregos (talk) 13:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

What editors here consider to be the motto of wales is an irrelevance. Its what they can provide citations for.©Geni 14:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

""Cymru am Byth" is established by de facto usage" doesn't even make sense within English grammar as it is commonly used and we still need a viable citation. I mean come on if there is any validity to this claim it shouldn't be hard to find solid citations. There are enough constitution nerds and enthusiastic nationalists around that if the claim is true we should be able to find it documented in an unreasonably large number of reliable sources. Instead nothing.©Geni 19:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

That wording was copied directly from the England article's infobox (language section). If this enquiry has any credibility please raise a similar query there, add cn templates and come back. Until then I am reverting. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Nyet. If you wish to argue that the article on england needs further citations that is up to you. This is the talk page for the article on Wales and I'm trying to discuss the "wales" article. Despite a good faith search I've been unable to find any reliable sources for "Cymru am byth" being wales's de-facto motto. Despite ah vigorous debate on the talk page an impressive selection of reverts on the article no one else has managed to produce any citations either.©Geni 21:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

You know, no one in Wales would even question this and it appears more or less everywhere. You can say no in Russian as often as you want but you really don't have agreement to make that change. Any search will show you (try "welsh motto cymru am myth") clear de facto use, multiple statements that it is the welsh motto, its just you don't like what you see. --Snowded ^TALK 20:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

SERPS are not a vaild source.©Geni 21:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Please obtain concensus here before making controvertial changes to the article. Thank you. Also, the edit summary is not there to make points. Just to say what you're doing. Daicaregos (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Please obtain consensus at well WT:V among other places before trying to change our Verifiability policy. I have asked many people many times for sources. Since it appears they are unable to produce them there is no reason for to be in the article.©Geni 21:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no wish to take sides here, but as someone who has lived and worked in almost every part of Wales for 40 years, it has always seemed that Cymru am byth has tended to be used and promulgated by more nationalistic and pro welsh language activists and I have certainly rarely heard in areas where English is the common tongue. Now this comment of mine is equally unsourced and is not any basis for exclusion of any mention in the article, but I would urge that all editors put aside any "ownership" of Welsh issues that they might or might not have and view the article with complete detachment. I personally don't believe that Cymru am byth is the motto of Wales, official or unofficial even though I see it as graffiti on rocks and bridges, but if it is shown to be such, then it must be on the rules of verifiability that governs the rest of Wikipedia.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

My view is that it is nonsensical to use the (somewhat trivial) parameter "Motto" in the infobox at all, if there is any dispute as to what that motto is. Cymru am byth is certainly used as "a" motto, certainly by the Welsh Guards and, informally, more widely - but no sources suggest that it has any formal endorsement as a national motto. Apparently, the only motto used officially in Wales is the royal motto, Pleidiol Wyf I'm Gwlad - but I certainly am not suggesting that it be mentioned in the infobox. Much better if the section were left blank until such time as reliable sources can be found. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Trivial? To some perhaps. Nevertheless, it is ridiculous to call it a nationalist motto. The phrase is said by many people and has been for over 150 years (it's inscribed in the Washington Monument), quite possibly for several centuries. Obviously it would be said more by those who care about the country than those that don't. Admittedly, this seems rather nationalist to me, though possibly not in the same way you implied. These poor unfortunates weren't fighting for their own country, were they nationalists? Is this person a well-known nationalist too (it was a reply to Lloyd-George)? But I conclude with another well known "nationalist" (and serial racist) who says (quoted from Selected speeches: 1948-1955 ) "I cannot conclude without mentioning two things. First, I would like to say how much pleasure it gave me when the King bestowed the Earldom of Merioneth upon me , and secondly, to greet you all with your own motto, 'Cymru am byth'." (also noted by ITN). Daicaregos (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

There's one slight problem with it, though. This being the English language Wikipedia, the English translation should be prominant, with the Welsh translation in brackets. GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Another triumph for GoodDay. See France, Nepal, Spain, Mexico, Syria, Camaroon, Chad. Did you even bother to look at any other countries before you gave us your worthless opinion? Daicaregos (talk) 23:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, those are sovereign states, which Wales isn't. Secondly, I know of those articles & yes, they too should have the English version prominant & the non-English verison in brackets. PS: Please keep out the snide remarks. GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I, and I'm sure every editor here, is already aware that Wales is not a sovereign state. I said countries. And Wales is a country, as you know. Please either link to the specific policy that requires that the English translation of a country's motto be prominant, with the native translation in brackets, or shut the fuck up make no comment at all. Daicaregos (talk) 07:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 08:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

are you going to try and cite the washington monument? Because there is no way you are going to get that passed our reliable sources standard?©Geni 00:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

There are a lot of things around the various countries within the UK which are de facto, the English National Anthem for example. It comes of having a history and a lot of things get established by president. Neither is it nationalist as far as I can see. It is just used extensively on web sites, tourist material, road signs etc. etc. etc. --Snowded ^TALK 04:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Why should I bother to provide RS for the Wahington Monument? My purpose was to show the phrase had been in use for at least 150 years. Are you claiming it isn't on there? And if so, why? Daicaregos (talk) 07:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying it being on there is of no particular significance (otherwise you end up in the interesting situation where "Kilroy was here" is the de facto motto of the US).©Geni 14:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Its perfectly reasonable to request a WP:RS for content that is clearly debatable. If there is a dispute then providing a source will resolve it. If there is a policy that covers "de facto" content that cannot otherwise be sourced, then again a link to that policy will assist. From my reading here there are no more editor's in favour of inclusion than against.Leaky Caldron 15:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I still have no idea why you want a cite that “Cymru am Byth” is inscribed on the Washington Monument, as it isn't mentioned in this article. Nevertheless, to show my good faith, here is a reliable source citatation for my claim. Now, to show your good faith, please explain 1. what bloody difference it made and 2. why you didn't look for it yourselves if you think it's so important. Daicaregos (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You can easily avoid this content dispute and potential accusations of WP:COI by sticking to policy by inserting only material that complies with content policies by citing a reliable, third-party, independent published source. Its not about what you know, what you think you know, what you were brought up to understand, what your personal beliefs are or any other pink and fluffy ideals. Just a simple link to a published source; book, web or broadcast will immediately solve this in your favour. Leaky Caldron 16:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I have linked to a published source here. Please answer my questions. Daicaregos (talk) 16:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Which particular source are you claiming as a reliable source that wales forever is the welsh national motto?©Geni 16:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The sources are fine in the historical context of the sources. They do not however support the infobox claim, which is about Wales. Also, it is not currently in compliance with this guidance Help:Infobox#What_should_an_infobox_contain.3F relating to infoboxes.It is not in the main body of the article and is not a concise fact. Leaky Caldron 17:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Phil the Greek at his Address on Installation as Chancellor of the University of Wales (visit to Wales 28 April 1949), saying (Selected speeches: 1948-1955) "We all know what a great part this University is playing in the life and hopes of the Welsh people today. For this we are deeply indebted to those who, by their foresight and persistence, founded the several colleges of the University in different parts of Wales. My generation, although reasonably well-schooled, is probably the worst educated of this age. The war cut short any chance there was of acquiring a higher education. The immense strain upon the resources of all universities at the present moment is largely due to this lost generation trying to make up for what it missed between 1939 and 1945. However, the universities have more to offer than simply the benefit of a higher education. The ties and friendships made and the community life shared are of vital importance to graduates in the ordinary business of living in the outside world. Never before has the value of the universities been more highly appreciated, not merely for the twin opportunities they give to their students, but also for their preservation of all that is best in the national traditions and culture of Western Europe. Today, as many times before, the Fellowship of the Universities is doing a noble service to humanity; it has undertaken the great and increasing responsibility of providing the cradle for the mature thought of the future. I am both honoured and proud to be associated with this your work, and I shall watch your progress and prosperity with great interest. It gives me particular pleasure, therefore, to help you to do honour to men and women who, by their work and leadership, have won distinction in the State, in the Church, and in pure Learning. I cannot conclude without mentioning two things. First, I would like to say how much pleasure it gave me when the King bestowed the Earldom of Merioneth upon me, and secondly, to greet you all with your own motto, 'Cymru am byth'." (my emphasis) (also noted by ITN) Daicaregos (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Well thats better than what we have had so far. The problem is that it is unclear who exactly he is addressing and since Phil isn't known as an expert on wales he doesn't meet our WP:RS criteria. Hmmm talking of welsh universities isn't there someone at one of them we could contact about this? If Kilroy was here has been studied someone must have looked into wales forever.©Geni 18:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘It is clear that it was addressed to the Uni. of Wales on his installation as its Chancellor. That's not Wales. As an act of good faith I think it should be removed until a reliable source confirms it. At the present time it is plainly WP:OR. Leaky Caldron 18:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

This is good enough. Do you need a translation? Daicaregos (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that there are no sources which show that God Save the Queen is, de jure the national anthem of England, but there is plenty of evidence that it is de facto and it is listed as such (even thought it is also the national anthem of the UK). The same is true for English as a language in Wales and England, although ironically there is evidence that Welsh is an official language not English, but the evidence is there of majority use. This may be a wider issue of policy as the type of evidence being requested by some editors here could equally well lead to challenges of much which is informative to readers on many articles about the UK. I am not at home at the moment and won't be for three weeks, but if someone has access to the Encyclopedia of Wales it would be interested to check what it says --Snowded ^TALK 19:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

thing is we have entire articles on Dieu et mon droit and In My Defens God Me Defend. Thats why I started questioning wales forever. No article nothing obvious on google to suggest where it came from. It's also a bit of a contrast from the other two.©Geni 20:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Well for Monarchs you would expect that. Wales while maintaining a district culture is largely treated as a region of England until the 19th C, so a lot of things that emerge from that period are custom and practice as are so many things in the UK --Snowded ^TALK 20:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

custom and practice even when they do not involve the monarch also tend to be rather well documented. See for example Beating the bounds or the weighing of the Mayor of High Wycombe.©Geni 21:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

And you have lots and lots of example of it being used or referenced as a national motto. If it was a specific ceremony I would expect the examples you have --Snowded ^TALK 22:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm does anyone know anything about Edilivre? I've bee caught by vanity publishers on google books in the past.©Geni 20:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

This looks to me very like a vanity publishing site. "Submit your manuscript at Edilivre, join a community of more than 3000 authors and share your passion!" Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Would struggle at WP:RSN but you can give it a try, D. Leaky Caldron 22:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wales. Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘The content was removed because it has neither a source that is acceptable and, being in the infobox, should also be in the body of the article. An editor has reinstated with no edit summary. I am therefore removing it and think we should discuss it here before agreeing to its re-inclusion. Leaky Caldron 00:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

nonsense, there is no agreement yet to remove it. I and others have argued that the sourcing is fine, you may not like it but your decision is to final. Wp:BRD applies.--Snowded ^TALK 02:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "your decision is to final". Maybe you are editing from your iPhone again. All I want is to see the InfoBox content in the body of the article. This is the preferred approach as set out here Help:Infobox#What_should_an_infobox_contain.3F. Since clicking that link appears to have been assiduously avoided in this dispute I have copied the relevant guidance: Materially relevant to the subject. A common problem is including material which is trivial and would not otherwise be included in the article body: for example, a fictional character's blood type may be referenced in passing in a work, but it is not especially useful to understanding the subject. Infobox templates should not be used for details that are too trivial to include in the article body. Already cited elsewhere in the article. Infoboxes, like the introduction to the article should contain primarily material that is expanded on and supported by citations to reliable sources elsewhere in the article. No sources per WP:RS have yet been provided. "De facto" has no standing, regardless how many of the proponents support it. If you prefer, I'm happy to take the matter to WP:NORN or WP:RSN where more community expertise can take a look. What I'm not willing to do is let the matter drop because a few long-standing contributors have a preference. That approach doesn't wash with me and it's been mentioned briefly in GoodDay's RFC/U. Finally, do not, as you have done in the past, attempt to sideline me with the spectre of Edit Warring, Civil, NPA, etc. This is a simple dispute about about an unsourced slogan and can be resolved immediately by good sourcing per policy and we can all move on. Thanks. Leaky Caldron 13:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Stay civil please. You know perfectly well that a lot of stuff around the British Isles (including the National Anthem) is de facto not de jure. A simple google search shows that it is extensively accepted as a national motto. No one is trying to distract you, but you should not make changes without agreement, simply on your own authority/interpretation of the rules. --Snowded ^TALK 14:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Where is the agreement for this content? Where is the consensus for it? Where is the policy that allows unsourced info. in the InfoxBox and not in the article? If Google reveals extensive sources then it should be plainly straightforward to cite them. The earlier discussion in this sections suggests that finding an RS is problematic. What policy restricts me making changes? Who's "authority" or "agreement" do I require to make changes? Leaky Caldron 14:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It has been in the article for a very long time. If you check the conversation above and do a simple few searches you will find lots and lots of references to it as the motto. As to authority you need consensus of other editors. I put some effort into answering arguments above and you should really deal with those arguments rather than making irrelevant references to the GoodDay Rfc --Snowded ^TALK 14:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

What have been provided so far are ample sources stating that the phrase is "extensively accepted as a national motto" (Snowded's words, my emphasis), and that it is the official motto of the Welsh Guards. But, so far as I know, we have as yet seen no reliable sources that describe it as the national motto of Wales, either officially or de facto. The statement to that effect in the article text is unsourced. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

PS: For information, the inclusion of the motto in the infobox dates from this edit in 2002. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

@Snowded. I'm simply seeking to get to the bottom of a very simple content which another editor raised concern about 6 weeks ago. I'm not really keen on having my questions deflected by nuanced arguments about what is de facto, what is de jure and what might or might not be relevant in other UK & NI articles. Being in the article for a very long time is definitely not a persuasive, policy based argument and so can be immediately disregarded. Where is the long-standing consensus for the inclusion of the unreferenced material? At least editors here have questioned the validity of the material as unsourced content. Why is it not in the article body as well as the infobox? I did a simple Google search as you suggested - nothing authoritative there. Where do you think I should seek further advice on this content dispute? Leaky Caldron 17:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I remain surprised that anyone doubts it to be honest. It maybe that a sensible compromise is to say "extensively accepted" although to my mind that means the same as de facto. This is a general issue over a lot of UK terms. --Snowded ^TALK 19:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The mention in the article text needs to summarise the best sources available that specifically refer to a Welsh motto, and then whatever words go in the infobox need to reflect that. At present, the mention of the national motto in the text is unreferenced. I think we should concentrate on finding the best sources for whatever it is we say in the text. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘To clarify: I am adding a ^{[citation needed]} tag to the statement in the text. It's reasonable to allow a certain amount of time for reliable sources to be found to support the statement. If they can't be found - I would suggest by a month's time, mid January - I suggest that the sentence in the text, and the reference in the infobox, both be removed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan, 10x Ghmyrtle. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

This might help [1]. No idea whether it is a WP:RS but if it can be established it will be better than just accepting it because that's what people know/believe/think/remember from school. My father, who was Welsh, had it tattood on his arm underneath the Rock of Ages, but that doesn't make it acceptable. Leaky Caldron 19:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't access that source. What does it say, and is it sufficiently reliable? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

That source actually gives two mottos:

'The flag and crest of Wales both show a red dragon, and its two national mottos are Ddraig goch ddyry cychwyn ("The red dragon leads the way") and Cymru am byth ("Wales forever").' Lands and Peoples: Europe, 3, Grolier, 1972 

It would appear to be a reliable source, albeit a weak one owing to it being an encyclopedia entry not corroborated by secondary sources. It would be better if there were other sources to corroborate it.

By the way, is there any relation between this an Erin go bragh? --RA (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Welsh in the infobox

I agree with GoodDay's edit which Snowded reverted. Why does the infobox capital and demonym bits need to have the Welsh also provided? On no other article that i can find are regional or other official languages provided and the linked to articles clearly provide the Welsh in the ledes for them. Is there any actual need for it?

Mabuska ^(talk) 11:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Its an official language, and the purpose of the wikipedia is to inform people. Multiple previous discussions on this have confirmed use. --Snowded ^TALK 11:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious. Was GoodDay involved in any of those discussions? I'd hate to think that he would unilaterally remove the Welsh demonyms if he already knew that a discussion took place where the consensus was to use them. Carson101 (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

To english-only readers, these non-english words in the infobox serve no informative value. Those Welsh words are included merely to appease those who speak & read both languages (english & welsh). They're included for prideful not informative purposes. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It's also the English wikipedia so we tend to inform people in english. It goes against the practice of very sub nation state entity (and for that matter nation state) infobox. Probably the closest would be Scotland not mentioning "Glesga" or "Glaschu". Basque Country (autonomous community) doesn't mention the issues over the capital name in it's infobox and Graubünden doesn't mention the names of its capital in the various swiss languages.©Geni 21:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Vitoria-Gasteiz actually does contain both the Spanish (Vitoria) and Basque (Gasteiz) names. It's similar to the situation if the official name of Cardiff was Cardiff/Caerdydd. Which, in effect, it is. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Nope. The equivalent for the Basque Country would be Vitoria-Gasteiz (Vitoria) (Gasteiz). Messy no?. Still lets keep things simple. There are 26 swiss Cantons and the only one where more than one name appears the Common English language name is unclear. By comparison at this time by far the most common name for Cardiff in English is "Cardiff".©Geni 22:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that, rather than wasting anyone's time further here, you look through the archives, where this has been discussed on several occasions. You then need to make a slightly more coherent case for changing the existing consensus. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Concur, you might also like to take the advice on your own user page about edit warring. --Snowded ^TALK 22:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Just because other pages are not doing so, does not mean that this article is wrong. This has been proven time and time again. In my view a pointles waste of all parties' time arguing this case. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Could you give links to some of these discussions please? I went through the archives of this page looking for such discussion and all I found was this one-line WP:NPA-violation from 2004 - which I'm sure you'll agree isn't what you guys have described here. Pfainuk talk 07:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is one discussion - there are others if you go back far enough, I think. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah - OK. I was going through the archive box at the top, which meant that I looked through the older archives - but it finished at archive 9. Will fix it just as soon as I'm done typing this. (I thought there was some discussion somewhere, but I didn't think it was here - turns out, it was just my involvement that wasn't here).

But looking through that discussion, I don't see a particularly strong consensus for it, and the related MOS discussion came down fairly firmly against. I also find one here (which doesn't include any of my search terms because I was looking for terms specifically used in the infobox), and it got a mention here - but the first tends to come down against inclusion and the second contains little discussion of this point. I'm not sure the consensus is that overwhelming here.

IMO it's legitimate to note that this article is different in this regard to others (see, for example, Nunavut, Republic of Ireland, Bavaria for cases where non-English local names for cities are not used in this way - the first two being officially multilingual), and legitimate to ask what special circumstances make this a different situation to other articles. Obviously, if it isn't a different situation - and I don't see a compelling argument in previous discussion that it is - it shouldn't be different. It's a bit colour-of-the-bikesheds, sure, but it is still worthy of discussion. Pfainuk talk 19:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, another one. Not much in the way of reasoned discussion there, mind. Pfainuk talk 19:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

If there's no consensus in those archives, why does the demonym & capital 'also' have the Welsh versions? GoodDay (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Prince of Wales feathers

The edit summary ("Simply untrue. The reference supports the idea that it is a symbol of Wales rather than saying it is controversial") deleting content is wrong. The reference says "And it is bound to provoke debate over whether the Prince has the right to claim ownership of the centuries-old symbol" i.e. it is controversial. As the statement is supported by cited RS reference I have reverted. Daicaregos (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I have one major issue against the wording of this section. It suggests that the feathers are a controversial symbol of Wales, while the quote mentioned above suggests that it is a controversial symbol of the Prince of Wales and not Wales itself. So the controversy should not be placed here or it should be reworded (or, even better, a more appropriate reference should be found). Further, the reference is simply wrong. The symbol is a symbol of the PoW before it became a symbol of Wales. Should we be using false sources and passing them on as fact? Colwolyoung (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

In fact, the report does not state anywhere that the symbol itself is controversial to anyone. It states that the Prince of Wales' claim of ownership over the symbol is controversial - that is, it is to do with the use of the symbol by businesses without legal authority to do so. If there are any sources that state that the symbol itself is a matter of controversy, we have not yet seen those sources here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Article Map.

Why is it shown where Wales is in Europe? This gives the erroneous impression that Wales is independant. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

How do the words "in the United Kingdom" confuse you, precisely? Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It's the only map & wording that should be there. Wales isn't independant & so we shouldn't be showing its location in Europe. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you disputing the fact that it is located in the continent of Europe?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

That's not my point. The location of Wales in the UK map, should suffice. GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Why should that suffice? The article makes it perfectly clear the Wales isn't independent, and nothing on the map suggests it - you'd have to be pretty challenged to derive independence from a map of Europe showing a location. If you see a map of Europe with Paris marked on it, are you wondering if Paris is independent? Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Locating Wales in the United Kingdom should suffice. We should only show sovereign states locations in their continents. GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, why? I'm pretty much looking for a reason, not an opinion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Same reason we don't have a map showing where Paris is within Europe or where United Kingdom is in the Solar System. GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Just trying to discern whether this is a serious discussion or some kind of point-proving. I've got my answer, thanks. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's your opinon. Anyways, I'll let other respond, as I've little else to add. GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It's the little map in the bottom right corner, that I'm complaining about. GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Previously discussed, GoodDay trying to stir up a bit of conflict over something trivial. --Snowded ^TALK 19:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It's the inserted World map, that I'm complaining about. Not the large map, which I was a big proponent of. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

More classic trouble making. Look at the wording above, you specifically argue that Wales should be shown in the UK only so you are now contradicting yourself. You should also discuss this in one place rather than wasting editors time on three other articles --Snowded ^TALK 19:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I meant all along the World map. I'm not perfect, Snowded. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I saw a Barramundi trying to wriggle off a hook in Kakadu over the weekend GoodDay, it had nothing on you. I quote "The location of Wales in the UK map, should suffice" and you repeat it that position, then suddenly say something different. --Snowded ^TALK 19:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I'm not as good with words as you & I'm not perfect either. Please keep your attacks out of these discussions. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't fay-pretend a lack of education here Goodday, you have been quick to quote the greats in the past. But this attempt is pointless. Is Wales not in Europe? How is showing the location of a country in a larger geographcal location bad form? FruitMonkey (talk) 23:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The Europe map is alright. The inserted World map isn't. GoodDay (talk) 03:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It's been 8-days & there's no consensus for deleting the inserted World Map. Therefore, proposal is withdrawn. GoodDay (talk) 02:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to get everything off your chest now about the things you don't agree with on this article and the other UK country articles. That way the users who come here to disagree with you on a regular basis won't have to waste their time having to put you right every time you have a bee in your bonnet. Maybe you should ask the question, does this article in any way put forward the idea that Wales is an independent country? When, as I suspect, the consensus is that it does not, then maybe you will no longer have to waste your own time repeatedly asking the same or similar questions. Carson101 (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

No consensus was reached on deleting the inserted World map from this constituent country's article. PS: Please don't comment on the contributor. GoodDay (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Where is Wales?

"Wales is a country that is part of the United Kingdom in the south-west of the island of Great Britain"

Whatever your reference says, Wales is NOT accurately described as being "in the south-west of the island of Great Britain". That would be Cornwall.

It is true that Wales is on the west side of the Great Britain and is south of the the center line. However, to say that it is "in the south-west of the island of Great Britain" is misleading at best. It is comparable to saying that Liverpool is in the south of Great Britain. Everyone knows that Liverpool is in northern England. Liverpool is barely, if at all, north of the northern tip of Wales. Nearly all that is usually thought of as Southern England is south of the southern tip of Wales.---Dagme (talk) 17:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It was changed here. It's not easy to say precisely where Wales is located - "the western part of the central southern half of the island" isn't very snappy, and I'm not sure that any words really add much meaning over and above "part of the island of Great Britain, bordered by England to its east and the Atlantic Ocean and Irish Sea to its west." Shall we return to the previous wording? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Clearly you were not involved in the creation of Usenet newsgroups in the uk.* hierarchy in the mid-1990s as I was! I remember the original proposal for uk.local.northwest, being a newsgroup intended to cover northwest England. There was an immediate and vociferous reaction from our Caledonian brethren who pointed out, accurately, that northwest England is just about in the middle of the island and by no stretch of the imagination is the "northwest" of the UK. We eventually ended up creating uk.local.nw-england. Wales is, indeed, very much in the southwestern quadrant of the island of Great Britain, and I would urge you not to be mislead by the maps on the BBC tv weather forecasts, which because of perspective make Scotland look considerably smaller than it is. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

But there is a difference between saying somewhere is "in the southwestern quadrant of the island of Great Britain", and saying it is "in the south-west of the island of Great Britain" (my emphasis). We are not dealing in "quadrants" (people in the Midlands might be upset, for one thing) - we are dealing in what is natural to readers. Stating that a place is "in the south-west" of an island is likely to suggest to many, perhaps most, readers, that it extends to the south-western tip - which Wales does not. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

My vote is to revert to "Wales is a country that is part of the United Kingdom and the island of Great Britain", as was agreed in the mediation. Daicaregos (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Daicarego. Whether it's South West or not it can be explained elsewhere without changing the lede. Carson101 (talk) 17:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

32 --Human anatomy (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘This is really confusing. How can you say it's located in the South West of Great Britain, from what viewpoint does this hold? NSWE designations are really tricky. Can you truly say all of wales is located in this part of Great Britain? One could say, depending on how they look at it from Space or a map or whatever, that it's just as much in the west. Russia is located in West, East, South, and northern Europe. SO confusing. --Nutthida (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Daicaregos above; the shorter description reads better as well, the current sentence is rather odd and not normally used in these islands. Re: Arwel Parry's comment, it is true that visual comparison of Scotland with England is sometimes distorted in widely used maps, such as those on TV weather forecasts, but we should also factor in things like common perception - to most casual readers, the unfortunate truth is that "south-west of Great Britain" will be read as Cornwall/Devon, etc. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused now. The current sentence (24 December 2011) reads: "Wales is a country that is part of the United Kingdom and the island of Great Britain, bordered by England to its east and the Atlantic Ocean and Irish Sea to its west." Are people now disagreeing with that long-established sentence, or with some other version, reverted long ago, that talked about "the south west of the island"? I sometimes think that some people only read this talk page, and not the article itself. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, yes, you are right. Sigh, confession: did not read actual page. What on earth is Dagme talking about then? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

That was back in November - we changed it back after that...... Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Is Wales a country?

Wasn't Wales annexed to England centuries ago. Isn't it a single jurisdiction with England? How can it seriously be called a country? Surely the term "region" would be more appropriate? Appreciate there may be some nationalistic feeling around this but is there not an objective Wikipedia / academic criteria that can be applied transparrently to determine whether it is indeed a "country"? Thanks. 86.46.20.20 (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Please read the box at the top of this page which says: "The issue whether Wales is a country or not has been repeatedly raised......" Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

No doubt the question has been repeatedly raised, but clearly not adequately answered. 86.41.8.75 (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Not to your satisfaction perhaps, but a consensus exists nonetheless. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Consensus can change ... maybe there is a better way of putting it. --RA (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course Consensus can change, but Wales being a country doesn't. We have had a stable, accurate introduction to this article for over three years. Do you really want to return to it changing every other week, just because some passing IP can't be arsed to read either the article or the talk page FAQs? My vote is no. Daicaregos (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Concur. FruitMonkey (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

My point is that repeating that "it's consensus" every time someone poses an objection doesn't leave much room for consensus to change. If the current text is the best way to describe it then that can be explained in terms of the topic, reliable sources and policy/guidelines. Maybe a properly articulated FAQ might go some way to achieving that.

I would also humbly suggest that if there is recurring disagreement about the current text then the current text likely does not have consensus. There may, at best, be simply no consensus to change it. --RA (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry RA but that really wide of the mark. We have been through this before and studied all the citations. More recently the ISO body changed the only reference to Principality, from that to Country. This is not a consensus issue its a simple fact as far as the reliable sources go. What we have is a small, intermittent attempt generally by one time IPs to stir the pot again. Its disruptive and should not be encouraged. The top of the page has links and references for any editor with good will to follow. This sort of nonsense should be handled with a polite reference to that material and no further indulgence. ----Snowded ^TALK 01:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Assuming that it is "one time IPs to stir the pot" is poor faith.

Incidentally, since you mention sources, I've linked to two current sources below that say something other than country. Which is the ISO source? As usual, I'll add that I (personally) ordinarily say "country" for Wales, but there are other sources that don't come out in the article. --RA (talk) 02:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Its not poor faith, its an accurate description of a disruptive pattern of behaviour. The reference you want is here. Principality by the way only applies to a limited period in history a century or so ago. It is used from time to time, but the use is incorrect. ----Snowded ^TALK 02:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

It would appear to have been used at least up until 2010 ;-) Thanks, --RA (talk) 02:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

And I am sure the error will be perpetuated, just as people will use "England" when they mean "Britain", we are however an encyclopaedia not a means to propagate ignorance (although I doubt that sometimes)  :-) ----Snowded ^TALK 10:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Found the ISO source: Changes in the list of subdivision names and code elements (2010). Never saw that before. And the change in 2011: Changes in the list of subdivision names and code elements, 2011. Those are quite strong sources (for the changes in the way that Wales is being spoken about also.) --RA (talk) 02:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Wales is, and always has been a country, regardless of what happened during the (more recent) history of the British Isles. Go back as far as the Roman occupation and you will find Wales identified as a country! Either identify yourself and your show your credibility, which at present is "nil" or remain an "anon" and go away! Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The descriptive constituent country would be more proper for this article's intro, as well as the intros for England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. But, there's little hope of getting it adopted. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

@GGJ, comment on the contribution, not the contributor, regardless of whether they have registered for an account or not. --RA (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

New editor; but it is a widely embraced viewpoint, as I'm sure you have encountered yourself. The Oxford English Reference book states Wales as a country, does Scotland get this in the neck as much as Wales does. The mind boggles. FruitMonkey (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

An obvious omission is "principality" (also Oxford). Funnily, where the current text says the UK government almost invariable defines Wales a "country", it obliquely cites the UK's guidelines to the United Nations that define Wales as a "principality" (the same guide define England and Scotland as "countries" and Northern Ireland as a "province"). Don't get me wrong here. I would ordinarily call Wales a country, but there seems to be some NPOV issues going on, where sources supportive of a point-of-view are cited and sources that contradict that point-of-view are forgotten about (or just said to be "wrong"). Edit: that UN source is likely now contradicted by the more up-to-date ISO source linked above.

Additionally, as the first sentence in a general encyclopedia, saying that Wales is a country in the United Kingdom, while strictly true (so long as we shut our eyes to dissenting sources), is probably a little perplexing to the uninitiated. --RA (talk) 01:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

p.s. regarding "does Scotland get this in the neck as much as Wales" — if anything, I believe, the whole rankle about "country"/"nation"/"part"/[insert preferred word here] has been most fought over on the Scotland article. --RA (talk) 02:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ ... "constituent" as in component is how I would understand your meaning. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 07:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the dictionary's definition of constituent accurately described what type of country, England, Northern Ireland, Wales & Scotland are. Rightly or wrongly, country (on its own) is mostly used as a descriptive for sovereign states. GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

So you won't think I'm dabling in 'original research', Dictionary.com defines constituent as 'serving to compose or make up a thing'. In other words - England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland compose or make up the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The OED definition of constituent says nothing about countries. Thank you for providing us with your POV yet again, but your SYN is irrelevant. Their definition of country, however, is: “3. The territory or land of a nation; usually an independent state, or a region once independent and still distinct in race, language, institutions, or historical memories, as England, Scotland, and Ireland, in the United Kingdom, etc.” Daicaregos (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

So you won't think I'm dabling in 'orginal research', Dictionary.com defines constituent as 'serving to compose or make up a thing'. In other words - England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland compose or make up the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 18:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

So what. I recommend that you read (and try to understand) WP:SYN, which I linked to earlier. Daicaregos (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You see it as SYN, but I don't. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Then you don't understand the policy. Daicaregos (talk) 10:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The ISO have now corrected their error. They describe Wales as a country. Is this nonsense over now? Daicaregos (talk) 11:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Summary of this thread: we have been there again and again. If they can't be bothered to read the archives or the references, don't feed the mindless (mainly Anon IP) Trolls! Note that many of these "not a country" discussion (purposeful wind-up...) threads start when the inter-country sports events are on - wonder why? (Writes the Englishman with a Scottish/Irish name living proudly in Wales) Rgds --Trident13 (talk) 23:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, is ISO the authoritative source for "countryness" (whatever that may be exactly - it's a nebulous concept as there is no truly objective definition analagous to the UN recognised member state)? ISO 3166 is really just a coalition of standards agreements from national standards bodies aimed at globally standardising things like web addresses, phone numbers, document codes, etc, etc, it isn't and never has purported to be a ruling on the actual underlying political status. I think the word "country" is probably less accurate than "consituent country" in political terms (didn't that used to be the consensus around here - has that changed?) and therefore "country" is actually a little ambiguous, and I recall before that when we tried exhaustively to get clarification from government documents in Wales and the UK we could not locate an authoritative ruling that Wales is now a Country with a capital C - the status has been left vague. It's a bit like the word "nation" - sure, loads of things in Wales are called National xxxx - but does this mean at the top of the article we would say "Wales is a nation" - presumably not, as that would suggest it is currently a Nation State in the UN meaning. Similarly, should we be saying "Wales is a country" as this implies to many casual readers that it means "Wales is a separate political unit with its own government" - not quite accurate, although partially true. I believe there is still an issue here as each usage comes loaded with meanings that don't tell the whole story. True that the article can define it further though, which it almost immediately does. But the ISO thing is a bit of a red herring frankly. Note that ISO 3166-2 also defines Wales as a sub-unit of the UK (GB) for those who are interested in these things. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

the ISO point is not that it is authoritative, but that as casual use of terms like "principality" are examined they are changed to country. The simple fact remains that "country" and "nation" include the set "state" but are not bounded by it. We have been through this a hundred times or more ----Snowded ^TALK 08:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting clarification because it sounded higher up as though you were using the ISO source as a basis for Wales being a Country in some political sense, but the ISO source actually contributes nothing to the Country/Principality debate - it isn't an authority for the regular or preferred usage of the term over the P word, in fact it isn't a source for anything other than international standardisation drives for functional areas as described. I don't think it contributes to the actual debate here in any way. We need current governmental-level sourcing as to the official status of Wales, since that line in the intro is clearly intended to convey status. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

James, the terminology for the ISO is provided by a UK government source: the Permanent Committee on Geographical Names for British Official Use. --RA (talk) 09:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there are lots of confusions here I'm afraid. First off, the PCGNBOU was about non-UK names! Secondly, the ISO is NOT repeat NOT a British government source. ISO national bodies are autonomous and part of an historic pan-national organisation that predates the UN and is proud of its independence - see for example their about statement. [2] Its a common misperception that ISO speaks for governments, it does not. Governments may choose (and generally do) to abide by its rulings, but that's a different matter. ISO is not a source for the status of Wales as a country, period. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The PCGN "principal function is to advise the British Government on policies and procedures for the proper writing of geographical names for places and features outside the United Kingdom". However, it has secondary functions beyond this, including developing international standards. It is in this secondary function that the PCGN is given as the source for changing Wales from "principality" → "country" in the ISO standard (cited below).

At least until 2009, the PCGN defined Wales as a "principality" and was given as the source for doing so in UN and ISO documents. So this is a significant development — and authoritative. --RA (talk) 11:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think there are two questions here:

• Is Wales a "country"
• What is a "country"

ISO provides an authoritative answer to the first of those questions. Let me explain:

The source of the correction (and the entire ISO entry for the UK) is the UK government agency that advises and represents the UK Government on these kinds of matters ("corrections notified by BSI 2000-11-27, BGN/PCGN 2008, 2009 and 2011."). Consequently, it is a hugely authoritative source for the word used to describe what Wales is. (It also represents an international standard and is taken verbatim for the equivalent British standard, BS ISO 6133. Consequently, it is authoritative from those perspectives also.)

What it doesn't do, however (and does't purport to do), is explain what the word means or the significance of it. As an example, the same standard gives the Republic of Ireland as being composed of 26 counties divided between four provinces. From the perspective of naming the principal subdivisions of the Republic of Ireland that is bang on. However, what the ISO does not do is explain the political significance of these terms or designations (e.g. it doesn't say that County Dublin and County Tipperary have been split for local government purposes, it doesn't say that most of Ulster is in the UK, it doesn't say that the provinces have no practical significance outside of sport, statistical data, etc.).

TLDR; the terminology is correct and hugely authoritative (originating with the UK government agency for these things), but the significance is not explained.

--RA (talk) 09:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there any point to this? Daicaregos (talk) 10:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

No. None whatsoever. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 11:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually there is - ISO was being invoked as the authoritative source for us using the word "country". Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. We are discussing a reliable source, its authority and its significance. What't not to love about this thread? --RA (talk) 11:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, ISO was being invoked as the authoritative source for us using the word "principality” (ISO newsletter 30 June 2010, p 21). It has since been corrected anyway (ISO newsletter 13 December 2011). I see no point continuing this thread. Daicaregos (talk) 11:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The diff you linked to doesn't cite the ISO to support the word "principality". Indeed, it explicitly points to the change in the ISO since 2011 that supports the word "country". Did you give the right diff? --RA (talk) 12:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

When all of the above stems from an anon's posting five days ago, I cannot see any point to it. If the IP 86.46.20.20 had bothered to return to this discussion, well, "maybe", but I doubt it. Surely he/she is somewhere (we don't know where!) rubbing hands together with glee. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 12:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It isn't being discussed because of the original IP poster, but because other editors commented. Personally I agree with RA that the "consensus" doesn't mean change can't happen to the article if the consensus can be shown to have been wrong or poorly based. At the moment the article gives (as do many of the articles in UK-space that refer to similar issues) a slightly false impression that Wales is definitively a separate country - this is not politically true, even if it may reflect a host of historical, cultural and some current political facts. Calling it "a country" without further explanation in the intro must raise the impression in many readers' minds incorrectly that it has separate nation status. I know we go over this point endlessly in different ways, but it probably would be better to explain it slightly better - the question is how. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

We say that it is a "country which is a part of ..". you really can't be clearer than that. Also FYI, it is a nation, but it is not a sovereign state; it is a separate country , but its not a sovereign state. The current wording makes that clear. ----Snowded ^TALK 12:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I despair. This discussion was, in my view, not set off by the IP, who I assumed was acting in good faith but ignorance, and who I answered in one sentence (and a follow-up sentence to his follow-up comment). That should have been an end to it. If anyone here is proposing a change to the existing wording - which looks entirely neutral and satisfactory to me - we can have a "!vote" on it. I'm surprised and disappointed that experienced editors feel the need to revisit this - in my view, quite unnecessarily. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Concur ----Snowded ^TALK 13:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

While the current text is verifiable and true, the first sentence is of course a bit confusing for the uninitiated (and uninformative for the mistaken, like the IP). For most readers, surely, the idea of "countries with a country" is a strange one. A little explanation would be of help.

We shouldn't be afraid to approach difficult questions like this. The current approach seems to be 'it's a country and we won't speak any more about it'. I'm not saying that finding the answer will be easy. I can't think of any, right now, but we shouldn't shy away from questions just because they were handled poorly in the past.

I think there is a big difference between now and before. Now, I think, there is consensus (a genuine consensus) to describe England, Scotland and Wales as "countries". (Northern Ireland is a different matter, IMO, is still handled badly ... but that's another question.) In my view, too, the ISO document, which cites the PCGN, is a strong card in explaining that consensus.

As I suggested above, maybe, a properly worded FAQ would be one step. Just so that we can see stated — calmly, in neutral terms, without the red text or brow the beating references to the mediation cabal or a skewed table of sources — what consensus is. Maybe it could even be finally the start of a UK MOS? On that note, what do others think of this as a start (of a possibly long, though not necessarily painful, process)? --RA (talk) 13:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It isn't remotely confusing. We say per the sources that it is a country, we also say that it is a part of the UK. There is no question to answer, let alone a difficult one. There was a major debate on this in the past and no new evidence is being introduced (or rather any new evidence supports the existing consensus). Opening up the issue again without any substantial new evidence is complete time wasting. ----Snowded ^TALK 13:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

This is what is so vexing about this area. "We say per the sources that it is a country..." But if a source says it is a "principality" (for example), we ignore it because the source is "wrong" :-)

Anyway, the rub of this thread is not whether Wales is a country or principality or anything else (although it would be nice if sources were treated neutrally). Rather, it is that the article needs some sort of (short) explanation of how Wales is a country because, as the OP pointed out, what is meant by "country" in this context may not be how many readers understand the word. An additional improvement, IMO, would be a better FAQ section at the top so as to be able to politely and informatively head off question's like OPs again.

Is that really so hard? --RA (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Adoption of the descriptive constituent, would be more helpful to readers. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

...and doing so may be worthwhile, and hardly OR. I don't think it should be dismissed out of hand. However, I expect consensus will be heavily on just the word "country". What is more unhelpful than suggestions like that is the chilling effect that greets any discussion that brushes of this issue. --RA (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Treatment of sources around this issue (section break)

We didn't ignore the "principality" sources RA, we took them into account along with those which said country and also sources which identify the period for which Wales was a principality. Please stop trivialising the effort which went into this in the past. You also appear to be ignoring the fact that all the articles say "part of" to make the relationship clear. Again all the points your are raising now, were raised before discussed and resolved. If you want to improve the FAQ section that would be a positive contribution to prevent future disruption. "constituent country" has little or no support. As to a "chilling effect" that is a nonsense. You are an experienced editor and are fully aware of the previous discussions. Other editors raising the subject here are one time IPs and/or socks in the main. Its the sort of disruption that administrators are meant to prevent not encourage.----Snowded ^TALK 17:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely right. And as for this.... just.....no. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Snoweded, taking account of sources that supported views inconsistent with your own is a noble thing. Policy however require that we not only take account of them but that we integrate them into the article. Take this line for example:

"...after which [1536] the term principality, if used at all, was believed to be associated with the whole of Wales"

..."if used at all" implies that use of the term is rare after then; "was believed to be" are weasel words implying that use of the term in that way is incorrect; "was" indeed even implies that use of the term is historical. Yet, until 2011, the ISO defined Wales as a "principality". The SOED defines Wales as a "principality" today. That's the kind of POV issue I mean when I say that sources are ignored.

Now, I'd go and fix that but for the chilling affect that greets this issue. The immediate response from the same recurring editors is to label any discussion or edit on this issue as "disruptive" and "against consensus". In fact, it is that attitude towards collaboration, and an abusive approach to sources, that is disruptive.

With regards to the fact that all of the articles say "part of" to make the relationship clear ... it is saying "part of" that makes it unclear. What is said is that a country is a part of another country. Readers, not already versed in this topic, will find that unclear. How can a country be part of another country? We understand how. To them it will be clear as mud. A few short words that don't make a big deal out of it can clear that up ... but again how dares try to improve any article on this issue when contribution around it is "nonsense", "disruptive" or "trolling"?

@Ghmyrtle, it was just the start of a suggested start. Any part in particular cause indigestion? --RA (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Apart from the quite unnecessary reopening of what was a dead (or at least comatose) issue, you are placing undue weight on one source (the ISO text) and, in terms of the nationality issue, flying in the face of consensus in relation to self-identification, as well as completely ignoring a whole range of other complicating factors such as past constitutional and boundary changes. I really don't want to encourage you down this road by commenting further. Given that your only ally is GoodDay, I suggest that you read WP:DEADHORSE and reconsider. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

In deciding what to call something we apply WP:WEIGHT we don't just list everything which has a source. If you want to propose something concrete in the body of the article about the use of principality I am sure everyone would be happy to look at it. However rehashing old resolved issues is a different matter. And I am sorry, but you are more than capable of looking up the previous debates and you are fully aware of them. You are not raising a single new issue, just rehashing old ones. Its disruptive. If you even bothered to check the article you will find that "part of" pipelines to a clear explanation for any editor who is confused (and I see no evidence of any by the way. ----Snowded ^TALK 18:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The example I gave isn't one of WP:WEIGHT. Weight means that minority views are not given as much detail in articles, but no less "all significant viewpoints that have been published" must be fairly represented in articles. The example I gave is one of straight up POV: the alternative view doesn't even get a look in. Not a sign of fair representation is sight.

With regard to pipe linking "part of", that kind of easter egg approach is no substitute for a simple, clear (and brief) explanation.

And please, stop labeling all good-faith discussion that raise concerns about the article on this issue as being "disruptive" or "trolling" or "nonsense". Doing so is disruptive. We are here to collaborate. --RA (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

When you have to select what something is called, you work with the sources per WP:WEIGHT to determine what to use. Principality, aside from being wrong (per multiple sources) looses to country in that. If you want to include some material elsewhere in the article then lets look at it. If you want to explain the constitutional history of the UK in the lede sentence I will be interested to see how you propose to do that, its already long enough. Otherwise I haven't used the trolling word as far as I remember, but I stand by all the other comments and I think I am being very civil given the circumstances. It behoves experienced editors to respect past discussions and not encourage the sort of disruption we get intermittantly on this issue. You might also care to note that you are in a minority of one on this. I've wasted enough time. If you make a concrete proposal I'll look at it or even if you come up with new evidence, but I'm not prepared to indulge you further in this type of general discussion, which simply repeats issues resolved a long time ago. You'll be questioning the Derry/Londonderry resolution next (and I really hope I don;t regret saying that). ----Snowded ^TALK 18:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It's OK. I'll just edit the article. --RA (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Where is RA and what have you done with him? ----Snowded ^TALK 19:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Just to be very clear. You do not have agreement to the changes you are proposing. its perfectly reasonable to say that enough is enough in a conversation when an editor is in a minority of one. You are an Admin for God's sake, you really should know better. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

There comes a time, Snowded, when this game has to stop. This encyclopedia is collaboratively written but citing "consensus" and "discussion" as a means to hamper positive development of it is no good.

@Ghmyrtle, "when used" is still fall foul of expressions of doubt. It implies that the term is rare or infrequently used in some way. In reality, that is simply how Wales is described in everyday sources like dictionaries and news reports. --RA (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

"...[W]hen used...." gives no implication whatsoever about the frequency of use, except to imply that it it was frequently not used at all - the term used was, simply, "Wales". Your suggested wording was both ungrammatical (it may have been a typo) and not supported by the sources. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Its not a game RA, you are in a minority of ONE on this. I am prepared to believe that you think you are proposing positive developments, you might grant the same respect to those who think you are not. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

And in support of the long standing wording (although I am happy with Ghmyrtle's change), if we look at page 711 of the Welsh Academy Encyclopaedia (one of the most recent and authoritative sources) it says "Until the Act of Union (1536) Wales was divided between Principality and March. Thereafter, insofar as the name 'Principality" had any meaning (apart from its adoption by a building society and by local government's Council of the Principality), it was believed to embrace the whole of Wales". That is similar to John Davis in his History of Wales and its always be represented as such in the article. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Gaming consensus, as well as citing BRD and then stonewalling discussion, as a means to keep a particular POV is no way to approach collaboration. It has gone on for far too long. It should never have been allowed to fester here (and on other articles affected by this issue) in the manner in which it has done.

I'm glad you've taken to citing sources, again. Discussion of sources, and not simply saying something is "consensus" and thus not up for discussion (except by "disruptive editors"), is the form that normal discussions take on this encyclopedia.

Now, "insofar as the name 'Principality' had any meaning" is very different in meaning to "if used at all". And a citation saying that people mistakenly believed the former Principality of Wales "embrace[d] the whole of Wales" is far from cry from saying the term was mistakenly "believed to be associated with the whole of Wales" (indeed it almost contradicts it). Contrast that with two citations to the same sentence which say that Wales, in its entirety, is a principality.

Now, I know that this is just a small thing, but it is symptomatic of a larger picture problem with regard to this issue. I'm not interested in the truth of the matter. All I care about is the way sources are being handled and the way that POVs are being pushed. That is simply not on. Consensus needs to be allowed to develop freely and contributions that seemly threaten the current POV not be bullied away. --RA (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

You really are throwing out the insults aren't you. A consensus worked out through mediation cannot be called a "POV". Accusing experienced editors of being bullies or pushing a POV when they support an established position of that nature is poor behaviour, especially given the history of SPA IP accounts and sock puppets on this issue. You might want to strike those comments and stop misrepresenting my and other people's position. Oh and you might try reading that reference by the way. ----Snowded ^TALK 20:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

A POV cannot be worked out in mediation. Possibly the perception that one can is the source of the problem on this issue. Articles are written from a neutral point of view. End of. That is not up for discussion, mediation or anything else. Policy.

Similarly, some consensus worked out ages ago by some nest of editors cannot be used to browbeat consensus today. Consensus changes. Deal with it.

I read the quote. I went through it word-by-word. I wonder how many more sources are abused in that way. I don't care about "SPA IP accounts and sock puppets". This is Wikipedia, not a battle ground. Don't bite the new comer and assume good faith. Collaboration comes first. --RA (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Approach to collaboration

Right, let stop this right now. I have never seen such a pointless debate, particularly fired and continued by a claimed Admin. Please read this - as written on the Welsh Government website, approved legally by the UK Parliament. If this debate continues, then I will push through a WP:ADMINABUSE on said claimed Admin's attitude. Quite ridiculous. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Good luck with that. You appear to be willfully misunderstanding RA's point, which he used to illustrate an argument about conduct; the sentence he raised says "...Principality, when used..." this is not disproved by your Welsh government source, which simply refers to the current political situation. Incidentally, with a somewhat biased view of it - the word is still debated even now in the Welsh media and many international media sources and even one UN body called it that as recently as 2010. [3] Not that I personally think it is the Principality of Wales any longer, but the way that particular sentence is phrased is slightly off. As, frankly, are some of the reactions above - anyone raising any doubts about wording here not pre-approved by a particular viewpoint are, it seems, likely to be accused of a range of sins, mostly incorrectly. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The current wording of the article says clearly that if "principality" is used then it applies to the whole of Wales. The citation I gave supports that, but also makes it clear that the applicability of the term is at least questionable. RA is getting a reaction to his suggestion that the lede change from country to some (as yet unstated) wording that includes principality against the evidence and prior consensus. That reaction is not to a new editor, but to a very experienced editor and admin who is fully aware of the position and past discussions. The fact that he is also throwing out various insults is not helping. Concrete changes supported by evidence can be discussed, talking about nests of bullying editors (I suppose we should be grateful he did not add "of vipers") is not proper conduct. It is clearly the case, that as a result of extensive collaboration, the current wording was achieved and has been stable for some time. If new evidence was being introduced, disturbing that position would be easier to handle but it is not. His lack of concern about the sock puppets and single purpose IPs that have been an all to frequent problem around these issues is also disturbing. ----Snowded ^TALK 21:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I do think people need to be cautious generally about how they express things in the context of national pages in the 4-nations-space - a lot of things can sound harsh and to my ears I have to say I agree with RA that some of the above remarks have sounded bullying or aggressive. There is a tendancy to treat local nationalist "consensus" as binding on just about every national-related article in the whole of Wikipedia, let alone our islands; that doesn't mean we can't be better. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

If he had said that other editors were showing "impatience" I would not object. However he is not a new editor, he knows full well the issues and the history of prior collaboration to reach the current position. That he chooses to ignore that history, and the history of disruption by single purpose IPs and sock puppets is not impressive. He has taken a very aggressive stance here without actually proposing any real changes or introducing any new evidence, that is not the behaviour one would expect of an admin in dealing with experienced editors who he knows well. Sorry, but that behaviour is disruptive. Oh and its not a "local nationalist consensus" its the position of the UK government and international bodies. ----Snowded ^TALK 22:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

"RA is getting a reaction to his suggestion that the lede change from country to some (as yet unstated) wording that includes principality against the evidence and prior consensus." — Where did I make this suggestion? I don't believe I commented on removing country from the first sentence. I don't believe I have ever suggested adding "principality" to the lead. Indeed, on another talk page, in parallel to this discussion, in a thread that Snowded has to replied to, I proposed the exact opposite.

Comments like that are exactly the consequence of the sort of poor approach to collaboration that I have been commenting on throughout this thread. I haven't made concrete suggestions for changes to the article because for the most part I have been commenting here on behavior, not content. Although, the approach shown to sources that contradict a "consensus POV" does worry me and I have commented on that too.

In particular, it is the manner in which contributors are bitten, filibustered and stonewalled until they go away; the prevailing view that any discussion or contribution contrary to "consensus" is probably disruptive; and the belief that those who want to makes changes must "get consensus first" rather than everyone needing to reach consensus together. This failure to constructively collaborate is insidiously demoralizing and deeply bad for the project.

Developing a healthy environment to collaborate in is more important, even, than developing content. And a poor environment for collaboration has been allowed to prevail, IMO, in relation to the "country-ness" of the parts of the UK for far too long. It needs to change. --RA (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for saying what I too have felt for a very long time, but have been put down to a point where continuing in a debate ceases to have any possibility of an outcome beneficial to the Wikipedia community and greatly diminished the pleasure in working in Wikipedia. I applaud your courage and steadfastness in continuing to make a lucid and very valid point. Thanks  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, --RA (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

But I still don't understand why you would want to reopen a moribund discussion, apparently just for the sake of it, when you have not come up with any suggestions to change the article text (apart from one sentence, which was poorly worded and I suspect not the real cause of this debate). What are your (other) proposals to change the article wording? Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

And, for the record you clearly state above that you think the lede is confusing and should include all terms. If you don't believe that and are not proposing changes to the lede then why create all this grief? If you also check the initial responses to the IP they were polite and from several editors and the IP withdrew; then you took up the cudgels. You got a stronger reaction because you know the history. What changes are you proposing? Per the Northern Ireland Talk page I see that despite your earlier comments here about the lede you are actually proposing no changes to the lede? Why oh why waste everyone's time if you are happy with it as it is? ----Snowded ^TALK 05:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

What's the basis for a discussion being "all this grief" as you put it Snowded? If people raise doubts about the context and usage of sentences in intros, they can be debated without it being a major emotional trauma as you seem to be suggesting. It's just a discussion. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘As I wrote almost immediately above, the thrust of my comments in this thread relate to behavior, not content. Behavior is just as important as content development. Poor behavior is worse to the project overall than poor content on any one article or any set of articles. This is because poor behavior drives good contributors away and spoils the improvement of articles. When we approach disagreement with a view to "winning" an argument rather than arriving at a consensus, we in fact lose the project more than anything we may believe the project had gained from any piece of content being "right".

There are now, compared to the number who do not see the point of this thread, as many contributors here who have expressed unhappiness with the approach to collaboration shown here and on other articles when it comes to issues to do with "country-ness" of Wales, other places and related matters. This is aside from any question of the "rightness" of the content. It is about the "wrongness" of the behavior.

Snowded and Ghmyrtle, you both asked what changes I want to see. I want to see a large change in approach to collaboration on this issue. I want to see that approach be one that embraces collaboration and actively seeks to reach consensus when disagreements arise or concerns are raised. The approach at present is one that rebukes attempts at collaboration and what appears to use claims of "consensus" to frustrate genuine consensus from emerging, changing, developing or growing in any way (including consensus becoming firmer). That is bad, bad, bad.

I don't expect any grand mea culpa or any public announcements. But what would be good would be an acknowledgement that there is unhappiness with the current approach to collaboration (on this subject and across a range of articles). I do expect that it will take us a long time to "unlearn" the bad habits we have grown accustomed to. But acknowledging that there is unhappiness would be the first step to doing so. Later steps, we can take in future as they arise. --RA (talk) 11:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Approaches to editing will always reflect differences in the real world, and it's disingenuous to think otherwise. No editor is perfect. But... we have all reminded ourselves of the guidance on what talk pages are for, and how to behave; and of the fact that consensus can change. Can we leave it at that, please, and move on to more fruitful areas for improving the encyclopaedia? Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Developing a positive environment for collaboration is a fruitful area for improving the encyclopedia. The links above make for a good start.

Don't byte the new comer, assume good faith and the entirety of Wikipedia:Consensus also come to mind. Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and Wikipedia:Editing policy also would strike as a requiring a refresher. This chart, from Wikipedia:Consensus, might make for a useful reference too. Some reflection on Wikipedia:Gaming the system wouldn't go astray, in particular the points about gaming the consensus-building process.

With regards to content, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view would be good, especially some time spent reflecting on the idea that, "Neutrality requires that each article ... represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources ..."

For essays, Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing would definitely need a look at. And for a little humour at our own expense, we could do worse than ask ourselves if we know "The Truth".

Indeed, let's just go back to the five pillars and remind ourselves what Wikipedia is at all about. While we are at it, we could recall what Wikipedia is not too.

Would you be up for doing this? I am. How are you for acknowledging that there is dissatisfaction at the approach to collaboration on questions like the OPs? I see half the contributors to this thread expressing unhappiness at it. Do you acknowledge that (regardless of whether you intend to do anything about it)? --RA (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

There are established procedures to deal with behavioural problems. The IP who started this was pointed to existing material and was not bitten. The battle started when you weighed in with multiple accusations. I am happy to acknowledge concerns exist but I am dubious as to their legitimacy. I'll happily deal with specific proposals for change. I will reference past agreements. I will have reduced tolerance for disruptive SPAs. I regret wasting time with this thread now I realise no changes to content were being proposed.----Snowded ^TALK 16:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Concur. We cannot afford to have these time-consuming and disruptive existential crises every time a new editor - in good or bad faith - raises an issue that has been discussed many times before. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

OK. Neither of you seem to be taking anything positive from this. Yes, there are established procedures to deal with behavioral problems. If the problems I've described persist, that's the route we'll take. Good luck, --RA (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry RA. but I do see your intervention in a negative light, especially for an experienced editor. You may not remember it but this issue was a source of constant conflict for several years and was finally resolved through a lot of collaborative behaviour between many editors. I simply do not think that the facts support your view and I do not think you are correct when you say that there are problems in the way this has been handled. Its your call if you want to take that up elsewhere ----Snowded ^TALK 19:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Plaid campaign

It's also interesting to note on the above debate that the ending of the usage "Principality" is a key Plaid campaign. [Discussion about the identity of a Wikipedia user has been redacted] User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Just to ensure we have NPOV it's worth factoring this current political campaign objective of altering Wikipedia in. We need to always be watchful about such things. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Its also the position of the Welsh Government which has a Labour majority and any history of Wales makes the period of the principality clear. ----Snowded ^TALK 21:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure and I am not clear that anyone is saying it should be called a Principality as contemporary usage, but the Plaid campaign appears to be directed against any claims to usage of the word as valid, so I think we can assume that the aim of the campaign would be to downplay it in recent historical contexts as well. The term was pretty well universal in, for example, the London press throughout my childhood in the 60s and I distinctly recall the BBC routinely using it into the 80s. One hampering factor about a web cyclopedia is that we tend to over-focus on current (Google-able) sources. I suspect Principality was in fact the dominant usage throughout the 20th Century. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

If used it applies to the whole of Wales, but the term is only legitimately applied to the position before the Act of Union. The fact that it has been used since is there in the article. No need for drama, or changes to the lede. ----Snowded ^TALK 22:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of how completely precise it is, the fact that for the last couple of hundred years the usage has been very widespread means that it is notable and not, as you appear (correct me if I'm wrong) to be implying, something that should be ignored because the usage is now incorrect. I am talking about how the article covers something; lots of things are factually wrong but are nevertheless widespread common usages or misconceptions. The duty in Wikipedia is to cover that fairly and objectively. At the moment, the sentence we were discussing above gives a misleading impression that "Principality" is hardly used - it might be more accurate to study sources and make a statement based on very widespread historic usage and now broad political agreement that it is not used. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you may be misleading yourself. The text currently states: "The title also provided an income from the north–west part of Wales known as the Principality of Wales, until the Act of Union (1536), after which the term principality, when used, was associated with the whole of Wales." Nothing there about the term being "hardly used" - simply a statement that, when it was used, it applied to the whole country not just the original Principality. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

..."when used" implies infrequent use, otherwise it makes no sense. You wrote that it is "simply a statement that, when it was used, it applied to the whole country". Consider the opposite, what was it applied to "when not used"?

If what is meant is that, "the term principality was associated with the whole of Wales" then simply say that without the weasel-ish expressions of doubt. --RA (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

They are not "weasel-ish expressions of doubt". Clearly, Wales was and is often - usually - referred to as "Wales", more often than it is or was described as "the Principality". But on those occasions when the term "the Principality" or "the Principality of Wales" was used, it applied to the whole country, not just the north-west part. Saying that "the term principality was associated with the whole of Wales" is misleading, because it implies that the term was in general use - which it wasn't, and isn't. Ghmyrtle (talk) 00:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

But that's what's disputable. The part where you say "it wasn't" must be subject to doubt, not the cast iron situation you claim. The term was certainly widely used in the media during the last 50 years for example. I believe the term was also very extensive in the names of, for example, businesses in Wales. I just did some archive searching on the Telegraph and Guardian sites and there are many thousands of references. Really, this blanket rejection of doubt is the issue here. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no argument with the fact that, clearly, the term "principality" has been widely used - but you are missing my point. If we say that "... the term principality was associated with the whole of Wales", it implies that such an association was routine, habitual, regular, frequent, invariable. That was and is not the case - Wales was and is usually described as "Wales", not as "the Principality" or "the Principality of Wales". If we say that "...the term principality, when used, was associated with the whole of Wales", it makes it more obvious that there were circumstances (many circumstances, in fact) when the term was not used at all. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi there - This is the Editor who started this thread. There were a few postings above that suggested that I might have been acting in bad faith. I wasn't. Some other editors defended the spirit of collaboration and I am with them in that. Having read over the foregoing discussion:

Country

(1) I do think it is clear that there is no "consensus" around calling Wales a "country". Saying there is a consensus seems to me like wishful thinking.

(2)I also think that POVs come into issues like this. I note the importance attributed to the ISO source earlier in the discussion - Fair enough but that very same source describes Northern Ireland as a "province", the Irish state as "Ireland" yet on Wikipedia, these terms aren't followed. Why the insistence that the ISO source be followed in this case when it is not regarded as adequate in other cases? I'm sure there are many other examples. People can convince themselves they are being objective and NPOV. They may genuinely believe it....but that doesn't mean they are right.

(3)I still think the lede is plain wrong in describing Wales as a country in the way it does. It ignores a lot of common sense. I remember "constituent-country" used to be used and that to me seems at least a bit better. It immediately suggests to the average reader that this is not a "country" in the conventional sense of the word....as most people think of countries as separate entities (not a region within a single unified jurisdiction).

Any way, I do hope something postive is coming from these discussions. 86.45.54.230 (talk) 11:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

the weight of evidence when this was last examined was for country. In order to avoid confusion we used "is a part of" which removes ambiguity. I don't see any new evidence presented. Mid you have some please share it.----Snowded ^TALK 17:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Wales isn't even a jurisdiction....unlike say Northern Ireland....which is usually called a "Province"....Wales is legally part of England - and has been for centuries.....I must say the "evidence" would be interesting...but I think this is all regional politics in play. 86.45.54.230 (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

By what definition of jurisdiction? Wales has the right to make and enforce laws under the Wales Act, so even under a fairly restrictive definition, it should be considered one. As for country, it is a bit rich for you to speak for what "most people think of countries". Even granting that many people associate the word with sovereignty, that is not the only sense of the word. Such a preconception should not restrict our sense of the word so long as word things to prevent misinterpretation. I agree that constituent country is better and clearer, but I reject the contention that the use of the word country is wrong and even more that Wales is somehow not a jurisdiction. -Rrius (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems we've a disruptive editor Fred Bauder, who attempted tampering of a post in this thread & has wiped out post history concerncing this thead. Furthermore, Fred Bauer has refused to answer for his actions. GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

This guy is an administrator and he deletes discussion without reason. Where do we take this? FruitMonkey (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The edit that was modified concerned the identity of a Wikipedia editor. User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Very well, I understand now. GoodDay (talk) 23:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

New section

@Rrius, Wales is not a jurisdiction. While the National Assembly for Wales has powers to make laws for Wales, England and Wales are still one jurisdiction. That might change in future, but for now the status quo has not changed.

It is quite correct to says that sovereignty is not the only sense of the word country. Indeed, on these islands, it is not even necessary to have any legal or political independence (e.g. England) or even to have all parts in one state (e.g. Ireland). Preconceptions among our readers need no restrict our sense of the word. However, we should consider their preconceptions so as to clarify things for them in some way.

One way in which we may be able to do so, and address the NPOV issues with regard to "principality", is to add a short section dealing with the terms "country" and "principality" (possibly under the Etymology section). This section could:

• Explain that, like the English and Scottish, the Welsh are seen as a distinction nation in the United Kingdom and that, like England and Scotland, Wales is commonly called a country, regardless of its constitutional status.
• Explain that "principality" is also used to describe 'what Wales is'. It should be noted that it is irksome to [some?] Welsh people today (how long has it been an issue? for how many is it an issue?). However, we need to point out that it is still used by contemporary definitions (e.g. the OED, the PCGN) and by members of the British Government (e.g. the Prime minister and Secretary of State for Wales.
• Include the section beginning with, "The governments of the United Kingdom and of Wales ..." from the current copy.

This doesn't need to be long but it should be clear and neutral. --RA (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[To all] You may as well add Taffys and sheep-shaggers too, as that is what the term represents in Wales; and I am one of the least nationalistic editors attached to the project. As the 'Welsh Academy Encyclopaedia of Wales' mentions in their entry on "Principality", "the word has no meaning in Wales outside a building society and a local government council". After the Act of Union the term is an antiquated phrase. But sod academia, lets go with what some sections of English press call the country, not how the country defines itself. FruitMonkey (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

And the Encyclopedia of Wales is a reliable source for one POV. The OED and other sources represent a different POV. We need to fairly represent both to reach NPOV. This is not any comment on whether one or the other is right or wrong. Present both fairly and the reader can decide. --RA (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

As we have ----Snowded ^TALK 06:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a very good article now generally IMO, but it doesn't reflect this particular point adequately - the first mention of the word is way down in the medieval section and the wording (my bold) "..title also provided an income from the north–west part of Wales known as the Principality of Wales, until the Act of Union (1536), after which the term principality, when used, was associated with the whole of Wales" is plainly intended to suggest a minor usage. It is true that we need authoritative sources to show the patterns of use, but I for one vividly recall for example that the newspapers published in Wales extensively and freely used the term in the 60s and 70s, as a kind of accepted and normal usage. Clearly it isn't a "when used" situation. I know this is about history but the history of how Wales was described could be expanded slightly and go above or with the Etymology section near the top, or as a break-out panel. I like RAs suggestion. As to the current usage, yes, governments are not using it (although one major UN body in 2010 thought it was still called the P word) but it is still pretty widely used elsewhere and not just for the building society. WP should give as much information as possible about important and widespread usages, not just those stated by governmental bodies or encyclopedias. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Previous discussions on that point show that I inserted the words "when used" not to indicate any frequency of use but simply to indicate that it was not always used, which might be the suggestion if the words were omitted. The word "principality" to describe Wales was and is often used, and was and is often not used. We should not, in this article, be trying to determine or suggest how often it was or was not (or is and is not) used in any particular context - or indeed, in my view, to say that any particular use was "wrong" (except when that is what reliable sources say) - but we must be as clear as we can about what was meant by any particular usage of the term at any particular time. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

We're not philosophers seeking to dissect the semantic merits of "not used" and "used" - clearly the attempt here is to present the case of Principality as being (1) mistaken in all cases when applied to Wales as a whole - something that is actually quite debatable, at least in terms of popular and widespread perceptions not just in England but also in Wales and internationally and not just in the media but in government and (2) hardly ever used, other than wrongly. Both are basically nonsense and frankly it isn't our role to maintain a narrow modern nationalist perspective in these articles, but to present the facts, which are that the term has historically meant Wales on a very widespread basis even though in a narrow technical sense that was wrong and still often is. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, we need to see and discuss any proposed changes to the wording. Personally, I can't see very much wrong, or misleading, with the current wording. Of course, the question of whether and in what context Wales is or was referred to as a "principality" has very little, if anything, to do with whether, and in what context, it was and is also described as a "country". The terms are not mutually exclusive. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably we should split this off under a new Principality heading. The Country discussion has been done to death anyway and there seems to be general agreement that it's hopeless trying to define the undefinable, eg, the precise way to describe the four nations and their bizarrely ill-defined, vague, muddled and willfully unclarified constitional statuses and international nomenclatures. "Country" is still misleading to some extent in all cases as none of them are really modern "countries" in the way most people think of that word (to most it means what we in WP regard as "nation state"), but it's still better than the other alternatives. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Without wanting to start another argument about whether it's "most" people or just "some" people.... I agree with the principle that we should focus on identifying whether and how we refer to the use of the term "principality". If people have positive suggestions for changing the existing wording, we should consider them here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, here's a stab, I suggest it go as a third section in etymology:

Wales is sometimes described as a principality. Properly, the Principality of Wales refers to territory of the last Welsh princes of Wales. However, since 1301, after the annexation of Wales by England in 1284, the title Prince of Wales is conferred on the heir apparent to the British (then English) throne. The Principality of Wales retained certain distinctive legal and judicial features until the last of these were abolished in 1830. Despite this, "[the] concept of the principality of Wales within the United Kingdom survived, largely because of the distinctive culture, language and sense of identity of the Welsh". And the concept of the concept of both the prince and the principality were a focus of Welsh national sentiment.

Today, the term is rejected as inaccurate by the Welsh Assembly Government, who say the correct terms are country or nation. The Prince of Wales has no constitutional role in the governance of Wales, although his title might suggest it, and the word principality is described as having "no meaning in Wales outside a building society and a local government council". In 2011, following the intervention of a Welsh politician, the ISO definition of the subdivisions of the United Kingdom was changed from defining Wales as a principality to defining Wales was as a country. Nevertheless, the term is still used by members of the British government, including the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Wales, who have described Wales as both a country and a principality.

The hitherto-fore unseen quote is from A Dictionary of British History from Oxford University Press, which also acts as reference for the prince and principality being formerly a focus of national sentiment. --RA (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Before this goes much further, are editors here aware of the article on Principality of Wales, and discussions on that article's talk page about what should be said about the post-medieval use of the term? That discussion actually came to a shared view (I hesitate to use the word "consensus") on the wording of the relevant section of that article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed and the second paragraph above attempts to define the whole issue around a recent set of events to give a misleading impression. ----Snowded ^TALK 02:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

GHM, thanks for that. There's definitely meat over there that can be integrated into a similar section here (e.g. the Guardian style guide, Taylor's atlas, etc.) Obviously, though, the statement that the term has only been "occasionally used since the sixteenth century" (no more than "when used" in this article) needs revision as it is patently false. We should also integrate the additional text from here into the section in that article (it is marked as requiring expansion).

@Snowded, I don't follow. TBH I don't even know what "the whole issue" is. If you have further sources (older) to show a decline in sentiment towards use of the term principality then they would certainly be welcome here (and in the Principality of Wales article). --RA (talk) 09:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Unless we can justify it from reliable sources, I don't think we should say anything at all about the frequency of the term's post-medieval use, whether "occasional" or not - though we can certainly indicate who used it, and in what context. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. And yet you reverted me when I did so on Principality of Wales? Anyway, are you in broad agreement with the above suggestion for a section (to which we can add material from Principality of Wales and expand the section in that article also)? --RA (talk) 10:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I reverted you, not on the merits of the argument, but because the text of that article should parallel the outcome of this discussion, which is continuing, and so (in my view) undiscussed changes to that article, contrary to previous discussions there, are at best premature. Anyway, I accept the principle that there should be a reference in this article to post-C16 uses of the term principality, but I also believe that the issue is wholly unrelated to the issue of calling Wales a country. Countries (sovereign states, UN members, etc.) that are also principalities certainly include Andorra, Liechtenstein and Monaco - there may be others, but the point is that there is no necessary conflict between being described as both a principality and a country. What we need to be clear about, in this article, is the context in which Wales has in the past been described as a principality. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Historically, its use is unrelated to calling Wales a "country". I was hesitant to include earlier references (before the 20th century) calling Wales both a "country" and a "principality" for that reason (because the two are unrelated) but if it is thought necessary to make that point then why not include them?

However, with respect to treatment of the issue today, it is the contemporary sources that dispute that Wales is a principality that make the contrast (e.g. a WAG source contrast the two: "Wales is not a Principality. ... Wales is a country in its own right."). --RA (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a vast difference between saying that Wales is a principality (it isn't), and saying that some people sometimes call it a principality (they do). Wales is not a principality, but sometimes it is called a principality. The article should make both those points clear. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

There is already a consensus to call Wales a country, I don't see why that should start to change just because one or two editors are unhappy that this doesn't fit their own point of view. The majority of sources support calling Wales a country. Wales is as much a country as Scotland or England, trying to argue otherwise is just flying in the face of the vast wealth of evidence. --Welshsocialist (talk) 13:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion (immediately) above doesn't relate to the first line. It is about achieving NPOV later on in the article. --RA (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I really wish you would stop this NPOV nonsense. There may be a case for changes to the article around the historical use to increase clarification. However the existing text is not biased in any way. I suggest focusing on content improvement ----Snowded ^TALK 19:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I thinks consistency is important. In the context of Wales, people have put forward that the ISO position that it is a country is definitive...but where the very same point arises in relation to Northern Ireland, some of the same (I think) editors take a different approach.....so that they can argue that NI should be called a country too....Lots of POVs but not much neutrality in all of this. I am for consistency and a criteria. 86.42.178.193 (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't pussyfoot around. State who these editors are or get off the argument. At least they can then defend themselves. Otherwise this is a pointless statement.FruitMonkey (talk) 00:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't feed them FruitMonkey, Dublin based IP, SPA now where have we seen that before? ----Snowded ^TALK 23:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)