Talk:West Country

June 2006

"the further West the less Easterly one would consider part of the region" um. right. Jafafa Hots 02:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

it means culturally, not just geographically. --Krsont 17:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Cornwall

I snipped a lot of information out which may seem dramatic, but here are the reasons why:

1. The historical info is very interesting, but strictly speaking irrelevant to an article about the West Country, and certainly irrelevant to a section defining what counties the West Country includes. It should be in an article on Cornish history. The same applies to whether or not Cornish people consider themselves English. It assumes that to be part of the West Country is to be English. Cornwall is indubitably part of England, so I don't see how that works.

2. I found the wording of the paragraph hard to understand. It states that Cornwall (I assume its people) have a "distinct view", but it doesn't say what this view is. Also, what does "the exclusivity of what defines a West Country county" mean? I suspect (with no offence to the writer) that these are words for words sake.

I trust no one is offended by the change, and I apologise for any offense caused. 219.89.19.187 (talk) 08:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Good call! However the phrase "Cornwall is considered by many" is unencyclopaedic / imprecise and really should be re-worded accompanied by a reference. --Cheesy Mike (talk) 08:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that the phrase is imprecise. It's the best I could think up at the time. The problem is that "West Country" is an informal designation, so common understanding is the only basis for saying whether a county is or isn't in it. I shall try and think up an improvement; in the meantime, please feel free to alter. 122.57.187.208 (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Gloucestershire is not part of the West Country

Gloucestershire is in the Midlands. The guidelines are generally considered to be historical and modern cultural: Gloucestershire was never a core shire of the Kingdom of Wessex unlike the other counties (excluding Cornwall), and indeed the northern border of Wessex was generally held to be the River Thames and the Bristol Avon. Moreover, all but very southern Gloucestershire receives Midlands local broadcasting.

I'd disagree with that. Gloucester is regularly referred to as being in the west country by the media. I've even heard Hereford reffered to as a west country town, but that is much more rare. A quick Google search finds loads of references to Gloucester being in the west country. The problem with an informal area like this is that everyone will have their own definition of it and you can never conclusively say which borderline areas are in and which are out. Gasheadsteve 19:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Gloucestershire certainly isn't in the Midlands offically, and in common use the vast majority of people I've heard refer to it as being in the west country or south west England. The fact it wasn't usually considered part of Wessex is irrelivant as this article is about the modern day west country. Also, the BBC West page and [3] would disprove your theory about the broadcasting, it can't be in both regions. As for culture, I'd consider Gloucestershire to have much more in common with Bristol, than Birmingham, for example. Marky-Son 22:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I live in Gloucestershire, and its definately part of the West Country. The Midlands start at Worcestershire. Scibah

Gloucestershire is not part of the West Country. For a start some of it is north of the Bristol channel, almost in Wales. I wouldn't even include Bristol but it's on the border. It's basically the West Country frontier town. TheMathemagician (talk) 12:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

IMHO any talk of "Wessex" on here is a complete red herring...we are talking about a modern reality and not something that existed 1000+ years ago. It's a nice idea but to subscribe to the idea of any exact boundaries to something which by its very nature has for a millenium been amorphous borders on farce. I mean anyone in the rest of England knows what the West Country is and that has nothing to do with a "concept" which would include counties such as Oxfordshire or Berkshire.PS As a Gloucester person form a Goucester family I've never heard anyone seriously contend that the county is in the Midlands...whatever next Norfolk is in Yorkshire..well if we're going to talk rubbish we might as well extend it to the rest of the country... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.127.188 (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Gloucestershire is part of the West Country and absolutely not in the Midlands. 86.2.38.112 (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Gloucestershire is in the midlands, so are bristol and bath, saying otherwise is just ridiculous.----Greatestrowerever^{Talk Page} 11:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Bath is in Somerset! Of course it's not in the Midlands. TheMathemagician (talk) 12:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Gloucestershire is not in the midlands, it is in the South of England. Not only that, but it is very much a part of the West Country sub-region of Southern England.

Gloucestershire is in the South and in the West Country, is are Bristol and Bath. Denying these facts is nothing short of ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.33.158 (talk) 22:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Avon

There is no such county as Avon anymore. Cardinal Wurzel 18:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - it's Somerset now - so Avon should be removed. White43 (talk) 11:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

...but I've added City of Bristol back in. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Principal Towns

"The area is mostly rural, with a few notable cities (principally Plymouth)"

Hmmm. What about Bristol, Exeter(Devon), Bournemouth/Poole(Dorset)?

Does anyone else think that the list of towns and cities is getting a bit long? Perhaps it should be restricted to cities only, and after each county have a link to it's list of towns (e.g. List of places in Cornwall). Any objections to this? At the very least I think we should remove some of the smaller towns from the list, like Calne and Totnes. Gasheadsteve 15:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It cannot be resricted to just cities as Truro, Plymouth and Exeter are the only cities in the westcountry. (for whichever fool listed bristol as within the westcountry go look at an atlas!!!!) --Greatestrowerever 13:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You find me an atlas with the Westcountry labelled on it and you're very lucky, it is an informal area. Bristol clearly is in the Westcountry. "For the ITV franchise, see Westcountry Television." Marky-Son 14:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Another definition

When I look up this word recently, a dictionary says West Country is "west of a line between Southhampton and the River Severn". This is a common definition that should be in Wiki article, or not?

I've never heard of this before. What part of the River Severn?! Depending on where the line would go, you could well be leaving out places like Swindon and Cheltenham, and certainly places west of the River Severn, like the Forest of Dean. Dividing up geographical areas in straight lines annoys me, unless it's an American state, it's just silly. Marky-Son 13:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

are you taking the mickey?

Gloucestershire is not in the west country, wiltshire is not in the westcountry, bristol and bath are not in the westcountry, whoever wrote this article is a fool. ----Greatestrowerever^{Talk Page} 11:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice to have such constructive comments. Fool indeed! --TimTay (talk) 12:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Good tim, i am glad you agree. We need to completely re-write this article removing places like Gloucestershire, wiltshire, bristol, bath and bournmouth. That map needs redoing as well because it is incredibally misleading and tottally inaccurate. ----Greatestrowerever^{Talk Page} 12:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree at all. Trouble is that there is no formal definition of West Country - and the article makes that clear. I just added two more examples which add to the confusion - the EU-sanctioned West Country Farmhouse Cheddar Cheese designation which can only be applied to cheese that come from four most south-westerly counties, and West Country Tourist Board which also covers Gloucestershire, Bristol, Bath and Wiltshire. I think it is right that the article features all definitions of what the West Country comprises. Your own strongly-voiced opinion could I suspect be argued equally strongly and opposite by someone from Gloucester, Swindon or Bristol. --TimTay (talk) 13:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of TimTay's comments - but the reference to West Country Tourist Board is misplaced and I've reverted it. WCTB actually excluded Gloucestershire and SE Dorset - see this map, and changed its name to Tourism South West when it was reconstituted a few years ago to include those areas and so become coterminous with the Government's South West Region. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Pretty ignorant and petty if he's actually being serious. Although Bournemouth and Swindon are borderline, you can't get any more West Country than Bristol and Gloucestershire, even Herefordshire is considered West Country by some. His arguement is like a Geordie saying Liverpool and Manchester are not northern. The boundaries of "Westcountry Television" are not relevant. 82.5.208.124 (talk) 21:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

"you can't get any more West Country than Bristol and Gloucestershire" Ha Ha, you make me laugh, look at a map, you can get a good hundred miles west of bristol!!! The West country is Devon, Cornwall, West Somerset (west of Burnham) and West Dorset (e.g west of Lyme bay). ----Greatestrowerever^{Talk Page} 21:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The University of the West of England isn't in Penzance, it's in Bristol. You may laugh, but to some people "West Country" means anywhere west of, say, Reading. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The university of the west of england is, undoubtedly in the west of england. That doesn't mean it is part of the west country e.g the peninsula. Liverpool is in the west of england but i don't hear many people on here claiming that as part of the west country. ----Greatestrowerever^{Talk Page} 20:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but the basic problem is that everyone has a different definition of the "West Country". If you're in Devon, say, it may be "obvious" that the term West Country refers to the area down the peninsula, but if you're in, say, Bristol, there is often a different and wider definition which can include places like Gloucester and even Swindon. The point is that it is an informal term, with no clear boundaries, and the article needs to reflect that rather than seeking to argue that somewhere is definitely "in" the West Country and somewhere else is definitely not. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

What Swindon and Gloucester are definitely part of the West Country! Both culturally and geographically, we get West Country media here, like newspapers and tv, and the people here would say they were part of the west country, although we are on the border that doesn't mean we shouldn't be included. Jimjom (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjom (talk • contribs) 19:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I just reverted, as vandalism, changes made by Greatestrowerever. This user removed most of the content in the article relating to his/her dispute as set out in this section. Removing text, against the consensus of the other editors is vandalism, plain and simple - especially given this editors history of disruptive edits. --TimTay (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

History of disruptive edits? are you serious? You need to look at a map my friend. ----Greatestrowerever^{Talk Page} 22:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes I am very serious. As for looking at a map, there is one right at the start of this article which clearly shows the commonly accepted definition of the West Country. Opinion here on the talk page is quite clear. While there are differing opinions on what constitutes the West Country, this article should refer to the most common definition while making it clear that there are differences. I think it does a good job of doing that. Your contribution history on talk pages shows that you are often uncivil and that is not acceptable on Wikpedia - see WP:CIVIL. Please don't resort to personal attacks such as calling people fools or stupid. --TimTay (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

As with any article about "common usage" it is difficult to give specific definitions, but personally I would agree with the current state of the article including Gloucestershire, Bristol, Bath and Wiltshire, however I think further references to back up these inclusions would be useful.— Rod ^talk 20:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Good thinking Rodw - I've added some examples and references. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The map is mis-leading. It only shows one definition of the westcountry and as this talk page and the article itself shows there are more than one definition. The map should be changed to reflect the different definitions, possibly different shades or something. ----Greatestrowerever^{Talk Page} 22:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that is that there would be an infinite number of "different definitions" - most people use the term in a pretty vague sense rather than having a clear view of boundaries, and the different approaches set out in the text can easily be comprehended from looking at the map anyway, in my opinion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there some controvercy over the term Weat Country? It appears to only include the South West of England and not the West Midlands or the North West. I am from the West Midlands (region) which is in the west of England and I prefer to use the term South West when I am just refering to the South West. Also I don't know where the term West Country comes from. So do the South Westerners think of themselves as better than other Westerners or what? (Tk420 (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC))

The term "West Country" is traditionally only used in the South West of England. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The West country is Devon, Cornwall, West Somerset (west of Burnham) and West Dorset (e.g west of Lyme bay)

No, the whole of Dorset is in the West Country and I think you'll find we(residents in Dorset) all think so too. I don't know one single person who would say it's 'West of Lyme Bay', which is an odd thing to say as Lyme REGIS is on the border with Devon. Sure, Bournemouth and Christchurch residents, having previously been part of Hampshire might say otherwise. As previous peoples have pointed out, there is no clear definition of the West Country and this article must reflect that. Instances of Gloucestershire and Wiltshire, Bristol and Bath have all been included in the West Country. White43 (talk) 11:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd certainly consider Herefordshire more West country than Midlands, culturally at least. The accent's the same, and there's also the strong link to cider. I've lived there most of my life and never felt any social tie with the Midlands. Depends how you define the West Country, really. Is it purely geographical, or cultural? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.76.130 (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Just because someone from Wiltshire or Gloustershire or Bristol says that they are from the Wes Country doesn't mean they are. I could just as easily claim that Cornwall is part of Wales, and get some companies to mention it on their products, and set up some websites about it, and even have some journalists refer to it as a region of Wales. This doesn't make it correct! The Westcountry is Devon, Cornwall and Western parts of Somerset and Dorset. Just because many inhabitants of bordering areas try to hop on the bandwagon doesn't mean they are. (And obviously there are going to be more sources from Bristol, Wiltshire etc.. as there are more people that live in these borderlands than there are in the West Country.) Ghmyrtle and TimTay both seem to have a vested interest in keeping references to these areas in this article - i would imagine that they are just these types of hangers on, probably from Bristol or Bournemouth, who want to try and make where they live seem more exciting by getting in with the West Country as opposed to not really coming from anywhere - a bit sad really. They also both strike me as the type of person who thinks that Colombo is the capital of Sri Lanka - just because some other people think it is - with out ever bothering to find out the truth! ----Greatestrowerever^{Talk Page} 21:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm more in agreement with Greatestrowerever than disagreement although I'd be slightly more inclusive. For me the West Country border arcs from Bristol, Bath, Frome, Yeovil down to Dorchester. Including Wiltshire and Gloucestershire, or even east Dorset towns like Poole and Bournemouth, is just wrong. TheMathemagician (talk) 12:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Notable towns and cities

What criteria is being applied for the inclusion of towns in the notable towns and cities section? I see, for example, that Lyme Regis which has a population under 5,000 is included, as is Tewkesbury with a population of around 10,000. Can we agree on some clear criteria then review the list to ensure the right settlements are included?

I also suggest the section should be renamed to "Notable settlements"

Opinions? --Simple Bob (talk) 07:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

So here's my suggestions:

• All cities
• All county towns
• The top five settlements by population in each county which do not meet the above two criteria.

The advantage of using the latter is that it does not let the list length get out of control and it also ensures that principal settlements in more sparsely populated counties get featured. --Simple Bob (talk) 08:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Using the above criteria, as an example, Somerset would have Wells and Bath as cities, Taunton as the county town, then the top five settlements of Weston-super-Mare (71,000), Bridgwater (33,000), Yeovil (27,000), Frome (24,000) and Portishead (22,000). Total 8 entries. --Simple Bob (talk) 08:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a useful approach, however seeing as there is little agreement about what the "West County" contains, getting agreement on these could also be difficult... and when you come to "places of interest" it is even more subjective.— Rod ^talk 09:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think such a strict approach would work for the reasons Rodw suggests. Is Portishead really more "notable" than Lyme Regis, say? (Is Portishead even in "Somerset"? - a debatable point. Administratively, it isn't.) Perhaps one way forward would be to include a list of urban areas by strict population size in the South West England article, and link to that list from here? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

All good points, I just threw in my suggestion to get a discussion started. Another question then. Do we even need the notable settlements and visitor attraction sections at all given their subjectivity? --Simple Bob (talk) 10:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec)This brings up the debate about Ceremonial counties of England v Unitary authorities - I thought the wp guideline was to use ceremonial counties. As far as population lists go there is still a problem - do we use civil parish, Combined statistical area, County borough, Metropolitan area or Larger Urban Zones etc & do we use data from United Kingdom Census 2001 or more recent estimates? - these things are never simple.— Rod ^talk 10:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest using this database for any list of urban areas by population - it's 9 years out of date, but is verifiably consistent in terms of the definitions used. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

But from that database would you use Bristol (420556) or Bristol Urban Area (551066)?— Rod ^talk 10:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Using the database above, I applied the rules I suggested to come up with the following list. To be honest I'm quite impressed - it doesn't seem to give any particular glaring errors to me. Note: I have included unitary areas within their respective ceremonial counties. I have also used Bristol in the strict city definition leaving its urban area (most notably South Gloucestershire) within their respective ceremonial counties. An asterisk means it is a city or county town (show for clarity, I'm not suggesting it should go into the final version.

• Bristol
• Cornwall: Truro*, Camborne, Redruth, Falmouth, St Austell, Penzance
• Devon: Exeter*, Plymouth*, Torquay, Paignton, Exmouth, Barnstaple, Newton Abbot
• Dorset: Dorchester*, Bournemouth, Poole, Weymouth, Christchurch, Ferndown
• Gloucs: Gloucester*, Cheltenham, Kingswood, Chipping Sodbury, Mangotsfield, Stroud, Cirencester
• Somerset: Taunton*, Wells*, Bath*, Weston-super-Mare, Yeovil, Bridgwater, Frome, Clevedon
• Wilts: Trowbridge*, Salisbury*, Swindon, Chippenham, Devizes, Melksham, Calne

What do you think? To me it is certainly better than the one that is in the article at the moment. --Simple Bob (talk) 11:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Bournemouth and Poole are not West Country towns

Bournemouth and Poole are not West Country towns. They are far removed from the actual West Country, both geographically and culturally. Their inclusion in Dorset is not synonymous with inclusion in the West Country - they have only been part of Dorset since the 80's, so it would be foolish to suggest that they are suddenly part of an informal region that is primarily defined by its cultural aspects rather than any real border.

As the article itself states, the border for the West Country is not defined and is in fact open to debate. I have seen no good evidence to suggest that Bournemouth and Poole is part of the West Country, so I have taken it upon myself to remove them from the "notable towns" section. I hope that the editors here are reasonable and do not revert this change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.58.89 (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That's your opinion. I disagree, as do other editors who have debated the area's composition at length and so I have reverted your edit. Dorset is part of the West Country, Bournemouth and Poole are part of Dorset and so are part of the West Country. If Dorset isn't part of the West Country then how do you explain the UK and EU sanctioned "West Country Farmouse Cheddar Cheese" PDO which states that milk must be sourced from and cheese must be made within the four counties of Somerset, Dorset, Devon and Cornwall? Are you saying that cheese made in Poole and Bournemouth cannot use the PDO? Bottom line, there is no right/wrong answer and that is made clear in the article, but it is simply wrong to completely remove Dorset and the towns within it. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 18:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The article would benefit, in my view, from the complete deletion of the lists of Counties and unitary authorities, the "Notable towns and cities", and the "Places of interest". The last two are matters of opinion - unencyclopedic - and, like the first list, are debatable because the area covered by the "West Country" is itself debatable. The article should in my view simply set out where is defined as the West Country in different sources, and note that there are different definitions - with links to more formally defined areas such as the South West region. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Your argument is deeply flawed, Simple Bob. I can assure you that the vast majority of people from these two towns, as well as the vast majority of British citizens in general, would contest your opinion that they are part of the West Country.

Again, the West Country's boundary IS NOT set in stone, and it CERTAINLY isn't defined by the source of cheese ingredients (for the record, food with the label "British meat" is partially imported from Europe, I suppose that might qualify the continent for inclusion in the UK by your logic?). Dorset may be regarded as part of the West Country, but that does not mean ALL of Dorset is part of this undefined region. You have to realise that, as the boundary is known by all to be undefined, any manufacturer that attempts to use entirely West Country-sourced ingredients and materials for its goods has to be lenient on what is and what is not part of the West Country, as the only way they could completely ensure that they are not using non-West Country ingredients would to be exclude the counties on the periphery. If there aren't any proveable boundaries they have to use a catch-all criteria for what is and what is not viable, so the inclusion of all of Dorset cannot mean anything.

On to my next point. In Bournemouth's case, it is utterly vital to remember that this town has only been part of Dorset for a few years, and its changeover from Hampshire to Dorset is convenience-based and arbitrary at best. Are you honestly telling me that a town that has been a non-West Country town by any standards for several hundred years, is suddenly included in a region without ANY borders whatsoever because it swapped counties a few years back? Nonsense. Dorset itself is not the boundary of the West Country, there is no boundary, so to use it as such for this article is erroneous.

I will repeat myself - the boundaries of the West County are non-existent in any real sense and is wholly opinion-based, the region is totally informal and the West Country is at best defined by its culture - not an ounce of which is present in either of the towns I am contesting. and the There is no border for this region any town on the peripheries can be legitimately contested, especially if they bear no resemblence whatsoever to the rest of the region and do not recognise themselves as such. In fact, Bournemouth and Poole could not be more different to rural Dorset, including accents, architecture and even drink of choice. I fail to see how such vastly different places could be called one and the same, especially seen as they are not officially or legally recognised as such.

Bournemouth and Poole are not part of the West Country, they are not considered as such by any reliable source (tenuous inclusion as a potential source for cheese ingredients hardly counts) and so I have corrected your error on the article. Please do not change this back, for I am not willing to waver in my decision, and should this go to ANI I'm sure your undefined, unsourced and opinion-based argument will go down nicely.

Ghmyrtle, I whole-heartedly agree that these sections should not be included. If the inclusion of any information is wholly opinion-based then it has no part in this article. I would be happy with such a reasonable outcome and I support your proposal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.58.89 (talk) 23:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Various definitions of the west country include Dorset. Bournemouth, Poole are part of Dorset so by extension they are in some definitions of the west country. However Ghmyrtle's suggestion is a good one. This isn't a government region so I see little point in including exhaustive bulleted lists, however the various counties should be listed within the various definitions. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 08:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

b.t.w. WIkipedia is based on consensus reached through rational discussion. So threats to go to ANI at such an early point in a discussion are unnecessary, as are statements such as "I am not willing to waver in my decision". Your decision? Read WP:OWN and you will see that you don't actually own the article so your decision counts for nothing - consensus is what matters. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 08:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

There is also the point that Bournemouth and Christchurch were not part of the historic county of Dorset, they were historically in Hampshire. I (ok, we) will take the lists out, and await counter-arguments. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

By the way, if the IP thinks that Bournemouth is "far removed from the actual West Country", he/she must have a pretty clear idea of where they think its limits are. Not that their views carry any weight here, but it would be interesting to know. Is it the Bristol area "West Country", or the Cornwall & Devon "West Country"? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Very, very few definitions include Poole, and I have seen none that include Bournemouth and Christchurch. None that hold any water anyway - the only reason Bournemouth is believed (incorrectly) by some to be part of the West Country is that it has recently been moved into Dorset. However, as the West Country's border is totally undefined, and because Dorset was only seen by some as a possible boundary BEFORE Bournemouth became part of Dorset, Dorset's border cannot possibly be considered one and the same with the West Country's, by ANY stretch of the imagination. After all, this entire region has no real definition whatsoever, it has NO solid boundaries, and the term "West Country" only exists due to the cultural differences between this region and the rest of England. Therefore, a town that has NOT been a part of the West Country for centuries cannot suddenly become a part of a culturally distinct and non-political region because it changed hands between counties. Remember now, the West County isn't a POLITICAL region, it is a CULTURAL one - Bournemouth may have changed counties but its culture remains the same, and it is this culture that had prevented Bournemouth from being included in just about any definition the West County prior to it switching counties. So I ask you, how could an arbitrary border change for a county possibly qualify this town for inclusion in a distinctly different cultural region?

Poole is not part of the West Country for this very reason. It is culturally distinct, and as the West Country is not a political region and there is no legal definition for it, it is therefore a cultural region. I strongly suggest you look up the definition for "cultural region", there's an article about it right here on wikipedia in fact - cultural regions are defined by their culture alone, NOT by any legal borders, and these legal borders are often found to bear little resemblance to what is and what is not deemed a part of said cultural regions. This is the same for countless examples all over the world, and even elsewhere in England (for example, the South/the North/the Midlands are ALL undefined, non-political cultural regions and are not bound by county borders). Considering that there isn't an ounce of West Country in the entire Bournemouth/Poole/Christchurch connurbation, it's fair to say that they are not part of it.

As for views on what makes the West Country, views certainly DO carry weight here as this is an undefined cultural region. We have nothing but viewpoints for constructing any form of definition, so views certainly do carry weight. But as I said, there's nothing distinctly "West Country" about this connurbation. Needless to say, the Bournemouth/Poole/Christchurch area isn't the typical rural farm/village/market town/ so synonymous with the image of the West Country, nor has it ever been related to typical West Country trades such as fishing, but it in fact bears little resemblance to the major cities of the region. The architecture is strikingly different from similarly-sized settlements such as Exeter, there are no pastries being made or sold within the towns, there is no fondness for clotted cream and there is no adoration of cider - there's not a single brewery in any of the three towns, nor even one pub selling West Country scrumpy to my dismay. These towns are so far removed in fact, that people are often surprised that Dorset has its own accent - it's practically unheard of, and instead the populace sounds just like the rest of southern England. There's not even the slightest hint of the distinctive West Country twang anywhere in the three towns; the accent instead bears a much closer resemblance to the people of London. There's even a coach service in Poole which advertises that it goes TO the West Country, and that alone says alot.

As for threatening to take it to ANI, it's fair enough to do that as I'd like to get this over quickly. In addition, consensus is no substitute for sources - in an article that cannot be sourced and one that is based on opinion, any argument pushing something that is nothing short of POV is destined for failure, and so the content shall be removed. That is what I am proposing, and that seems to be the conclusion we've all reached.

As for "my decision", I meant that I have decided to continue to revert this article until it is as impartial and unopinionated as it needs to be. I do not have total control obviously, but I have made the choice to put my efforts into relentless debating to ensure that this article about an undefined cultural region becomes as neutral as possible. That is what I was referring to, not control of the article.

I don't think there's much left to discuss here really - as we've all agreed to omit an exhaustive list of towns from the article, the status of Bournemouth et al is now a moot point, so hopefully we can now all move on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.58.89 (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I have already soundly deflated your arguments for the inclusion of Bournemouth in this article over a year ago, Simple Bob - please do not use a new account to continue to insert unfounded claims upon this page. It has already been made very clear why Bournemouth is not a part of the West Country, and your continued insistence upon its erroneous inclusion highlights your bias. Ignoring this discussion whilst introducing an unfounded claim which goes against a clear consensus is disruptive POV-pushing, and overall bad practice.

You have already been told to stop, and I am telling you again. Bournemouth is not a part of the West Country as per the reasons raised in this discussion and a clear consensus has been reached, and so there is no grounds for its inclusion.

I urge you to reconsider your position; I do not want to tell you a third time. 82.26.33.158 (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

"I do not want to tell you a third time?" Is that a threat? What makes you think consensus is formed because one person constantly bleats about his point of view? Where is the consensus to support your opinion? --Bob Re-born (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

In no sense is that a threat. I am merely stating that I do not want to have to chastise you for your disruptive actions yet again.

Could you please read the discussion again - a consensus was most certainly reached. Not only that, but I only have to continue to point out the fact that Bournemouth is not a part of the West Country simply because you continue to push your point of view upon the article by making highly disruptive edits.

The consensus is in this discussion. Not only that, but valid reasons have already been made which clearly show that Bournemouth is not a part of the West Country in any way, shape or form. Please take the time to read the discussion carefully before you continue instigating an edit war. 82.26.33.158 (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

In addition, "wtf" yourself. It is hard enough to believe that someone is genuinely trying to include Bournemouth in an article about the West Country, but it beggars belief that you continue to POV-push when we have already personally discussed this and come to a conclusion on the matter over a year ago.

I have already explained the situation to you clearly, so why am I suddenly having to do this again? 82.26.33.158 (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The article is clear that there are many definitions of West Country. You clearly have just one in mind. There are sources that show that a number of these definitions include Dorset, and while Poole and Bournemouth may be on the edge of Dorset, they are nevertheless within the county and therefore fall within some definitions of West Country. --Bob Re-born (talk) 23:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

That's right. Unless the IP can show that no definitions of the West Country whatsoever include Dorset or Bournemouth, it should stay in that list. As I said before, the IP must have a remarkably precise idea of West Country boundaries, in order to suggest that Bournemouth is excluded. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your attempt to be neutral by prefacing Bournemouth's inclusion with "various definitions", but the fact of that matter is that no definition includes Bournemouth. Not one. If it is to be included, you must come up with a reliable source, because as it stands the phrase "various definitions" refers to your personal, subjective, and incorrect definition of what constitutes the West Country.

Simply using sources which say "Dorset" does not hold any water either. The boundary of the West Country is taken to be the historic county of Dorset, not its arbitrarily-changed state. Bournemouth trading counties between Hampshire and Dorset - a political change - does not warrant its inclusion in a cultural region, and thus, due to its centuries of history of not being part of the cultural West Country region, it cannot simply become a part of such a region by a very recent and entirely arbitrary political change. Therefore, sources which cite Dorset as being part of the West Country cannot be used to justify Bournemouth's inclusion in any way, as political decisions do not influence cultural regions. Such sources can only be taken to refer to the historic county of Dorset, not the entirety of its current state, and either way are utterly useless in backing up your claim as they are wholly open to interpretation. After all, who is to say that saying "Dorset is in the West County" includes the non-historic regions of Dorset set apart from the West Country both historically and by culture? The boundaries of the West Country were taken to be around the historic border of Dorset, and so any sources claiming Dorset as part of the West Country can only be said to confirm that its borders extend into Dorset, not that it incorporates the entirety of it. So, while you say that some definitions include the Bournemouth in the West Country by citing Dorset-relating sources, I am pointing out that - for the valid reasons stated above - these sources cannot be said to include Bournemouth in the West Country unless otherwise stated. Therefore, if your claim that "various definitions include Bournemouth in the West Country" relies solely upon mentions of Dorset, Bournemouth cannot be said to be part of the West Country as such definitions cannot be said to include Bournemouth (and could only be used to do so via your own subjective interpretation, which can be outright ignored). Therefore, if this is the only argument you can muster to defend your view, Bournemouth is fated to be removed.

If Bournemouth is to be included in this article, then it is imperative we find a reliable source that directly states it as being part of the West Country. The rules of Wikipedia state that any controversial, debatable and/or subjective information (all of which apply to Bournemouth's inclusion here) MUST be reliably sourced to warrant its inclusion, or else it is to be removed. As it stands, there is no evidence whatsoever that Bournemouth is a part of the West Country by any definition other than your own, and any and all use of sources relying on Dorset's status as part of the West Country cannot be used as they are completely open to subjective interpretation, and are thus useless in this discussion.

And no, I must not prove that no sources contain Bournemouth, that is nothing short of nonsensical. It is impossible to prove a negative, and with that logic I could say that you must prove that there are no sources stating that Shakespeare was Norwegian before removing a statement on his article claiming that he might be Norwegian "under various definitions". Please consider the general rule of thumb known as "innocent till proven guilty", which is essentially the groundwork for all logic, morality and law as we know it. Just as I cannot be said to be an especially verbose kangaroo until you can prove it is so, we cannot say that Bournemouth is part of the West Country until we can conclusively prove that it is (and for reasons already mentioned, your subjective interpretations of Dorset-related sources are not enough).

Instead, if a claim is contentious and its veracity in question (which yours is), you must provide a reliable source to back it up, or else the information is to be removed as per the rules of wikipedia. Please check the rules if you do not believe me - a debatable and unverified statement must be proven via a reliable source to be included in an article. No-one must ever prove a negative in order to remove content, or else we could write whatever we wanted and no-one would be able to do a thing about it.

No, I do not have an exact definition of the boundary of the West Country, nor do I need one by any stretch of the imagination. The boundary of the Midlands is also wholly undefined, but I can state with authority that London is not within its borders. Likewise, while I cannot pinpoint the exact blade of grass at which the West Country ends, I can clearly state that Exeter is within its boundaries and Bournemouth is not. After all, Bournemouth has not been included under any definition of the West Country for centuries, so how can a recent political change redefine its cultural standing? It cannot, simply put, and unless you can show me a source stating that its culture has changed significantly enough for it to be considered a part of the West Country region, it cannot be included under any terms.

And no, I do not have a single definition in mind. I am aware that there are many, however I am pointing out the fact that there are no definitions including Bournemouth in the West Country any more than there are for Southampton. If some definitions include Bournemouth, then show me them - and once again, sources claiming Dorset cannot be used as the historic county of Dorset is what has been used as the boundary of the West Country, not the parts that used to be in Hampshire, and any sources referring to Dorset cannot be said to include all of Dorset in its current modern form unless explicitly stated. Any and all attempts to use sources referring to Dorset being in the West Country to back up your claim are unjustifiable as this is based solely upon your personal interpretation of the sources. A source stating "Dorset is in the West Country" does not automatically mean the parts that used to be in Hampshire; the historic county of Dorset is taken to be the border (and is by far the closest we are going to get to a distinct boundary of the West Country) and due to arbitrary political changes not supervening upon historic cultural boundaries, any attempts to use such sources to back up your claim cannot be used as per the rules of Wikipedia. You must - and I repeat must - find a reliable source explicitly stating that Bournemouth itself is part of the West Country or else its inclusion in this article is unsourced and unverifiable, meaning we would have to remove it unless a source can be found. If we can simply included unverified and subjective claims without sources, however, then I can quite happily include Portsmouth and claim that some definitions claim it is part of the West Country without any need to source this claim. I could also say that in "various definitions", the West Country doesn't even exist - shall we include that too?

Furthermore, claims based on Dorset being part of the West Country can still be easily contested. The West Country is a cultural region, not a political one, and its inclusion is based solely upon culture as opposed to which town belongs to what county. The historical county of Dorset most certainly do reside in this region, but that which historically belonged in Hampshire - namely Bournemouth and the surrounding regions - was not a part of the West Country in any way, shape or form. It may have changed counties, yes, but this is a political change, not a cultural one, and thus such a change does not warrant automatic inclusion in a cultural region unless otherwise stated. Therefore, even if you set aside the fact that you are using such sources based on your personal subjective interpretation of them (and that alone deflates your present argument), then I can quite rightly point out that such sources are too unreliable for use as they have failed to take into account what defines the boundaries of a cultural region (i.e. not political boundaries). So again, you must include a source that directly and clearly supports your view (as opposed to the indirect, subjective and unreliable ones you are currently using) or withdraw your claim.

As it stands, Bournemouth's inclusion is still utterly unjustifiable. Once again, you must provide a reliable source explicitly stating Bournemouth's status as a West Country town, or concede that it is not a part of the West Country and accept the consensus achieved. I have explained why it does not deserve to be included in this article many times now; please do not make me explain this to you again. VoiceOfReason922 (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Now look. That list of significant towns and cities is not exhaustive, and for a good reason - it is impossible to create an exhaustive list for a region that has a blurred boundary, and as we all already agreed over a year ago, attempting to create such a thing would be highly problematic and very contentious. Therefore, the list only mentions some - but not all - notable examples. After all, where's Bath? Where's Dorchester? Where's Weymouth, or Newquay or Truro? They're not there, because they do not need to be. Bournemouth's inclusion is no more necessary than theirs, as the list only mentions some examples and excludes many notable ones.

So, what point is there entering into a discussion that will go on for months (and return annually, it seems) when there is absolutely no need to include Bournemouth either way? We are looking at having a very deconstructive and immensely lengthy dispute over something that either has no business being in the article, or whose inclusion isn't required anyway. As a rule, articles with intense arguments and edit wars raging are of inferior quality than those without such things, and it is very difficult to constructively improve an article when those who edit them refuse to co-operate. This is all very unnecessary over a single word you cannot even prove has a place in the article.

So, I make an appeal to reason. There is currently no evidence that Bournemouth is a part of the West Country by any definition; it is an unverified, debatable, contentious and unsourced claim (and thus its unsourced inclusion goes against the rules of wikipedia); its inclusion is going to cause no end of arguments, and risks causing major problems for the article as a whole; and even if it were in the West Country (which as yet has not been successfully argued for or sourced), it does not need to be included in the article due to the list being required to be non-exhaustive. All in all, I think it's fair to say that it is best if it were removed, and I'm sure that any impartial parties reading this would agree.

Now, if you can find a reliable source explicitly stating that Bournemouth is in the West Country, then it can be included. However, if you cannot find any sources other than ones that only back up your claim under certain interpretations (i.e. sources referring to Dorset that are most likely referring to the historic boundary of Dorset, and cannot be shown to be stating otherwise), then for the sake of neutrality we should remove the mention of Bournemouth from the article.

I hope that you can see reason. VoiceOfReason922 (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I support the removal of the entire list. It's unnecessary - they are shown on the map, which should remain if a better source for it or a similar map can be found - and it's not supported by the supposed source, which relates to the official South West region. Some sources regard the region as synonymous with the "West Country", but not all. Including a list of towns could suggest, over-definitively, that the West Country includes those towns but excludes others - it does not add any information of encyclopedic value. However verbose and irritating the IP / VoiceOfReason922 may be, he/she is essentially right. As a PS, I believe it is a complete abuse of admins' powers to fully protect the article over such a trivial disagreement. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree; I have always thought that a list of this nature is unnecessary, especially as it cannot be exhaustive due to the nature of cultural regions having blurred boundaries. I would agree with any decision involving the removal of specific mentions to specific towns, and will help in finding a more reliably-sourced map, preferably one showing a historical, traditional and more generally accepted outline of the West Country.

I do apologise for being irritating, but considering we've done this before I felt it best not to hold back in my push for reestablishing consensus. Besides, Bob Re-born's attitudes thus far have been considerably worse.

As for the admin fully protecting the article, this was, in all fairness, actually due to Bob Re-born's actions. Looking at the logs, RFP request and talk page discussions, it seems that article was originally partially protected to prevent the likes of me from making further edits (I had just reached the 3RR limit) with the intention of directing all parties to the talk page while still allowing some users to edit. I attempted to re-instigate the debate here, but not only did Bob Re-born ignore the discussion and the consensus, he outright blanked the messages I left on his talk page, along with blanking messages from another user with regards to Bristol's status in the West Country (something which should also probably be removed from the article, yet the messages of this user had also been ignored and it seems Bob Re-born continued with his edit war instead). Worse still, Bob continued to make edits relevant to the dispute in question, which is nothing short of abuse of the partial lock. His actions were brought to the attention of the admin by another user, and as the lock was intended to inspire discussion (which had failed due to Bob obstinately ignoring all attempts at discussion), it seems he was forced to initiate a full lock.

To be honest you can thank Bob for having a lock in the first place - I repeatedly informed him of the discussion we had had here and reminded him of the established consensus, yet instead of openly discussing it he rashly requested a lock without even bothering to warn me. Not only that, but you can thank Bob for having this dispute in the first place - not only was he the one pushing his own unsourced point of view upon the article over a year ago but he has been doing the exact same thing this time around, all the while ignoring the consensus that he himself helped establish. This could have been much easier without things like that.

Anyway, I am glad that you agree we should remove the list of towns. Hopefully we can establish a consensus soon, and if so, I'll be sure to implement the change once the lock ends. VoiceOfReason922 (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I aggree with VoiceOfReason922 and i'd also be in favour of removing any references to Gloucestershire as they are not backed up by the majorty of the citations in the area boundries section. (Nor are Bristol and Bath really but that is a disscussion for another day) --95.180.16.79 (talk) 09:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Great news. I would also agree that the inclusion of Gloucestershire and Bristol is pretty nonsensical, and Bath's inclusion is also highly contentious seen as the main reasoning for its inclusion seems to be that it is located in Somerset (which, as I've demonstrated, isn't grounds for inclusion at all). Perhaps once this is finished we can begin discussion on whether or not to remove these from the article as well.

So, with 3 users agreeing to remove Bournemouth and the list containing it from the article, and with Bob Re-Born yet to cast his vote, we have re-established the consensus agreed upon last year. Come December the 6th, I shall be removing Bournemouth and the list of towns from the article - and should Bob Re-born continue his vandalism (or should anyone instigate another edit war, for that matter), I shall waste no time in reporting the issue on ANI.

I don't think there's much left to discuss here really - we've all agreed to omit the list of towns from the article, so hopefully we can now all move on. Remember to do that this time now bob. VoiceOfReason922 (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The new consensus - as well as the old consensus clearly established last year in April - has now been enforced. Bournemouth has been rightfully removed, along with the unnecessary list of towns and cities (including Bristol). The article is now thankfully free of vandalism and subjective interpretations, returning this page to the neutrality established by the previous consensus.

I strongly recommend that simple bob/bob re-born does not continue to wage his edit war here. Consensus has clearly been established, just as before, and so any further attempts to vandalise the page by introducing Bournemouth or ignoring consensus again shall result in the guilty user being reported to ANI.

I hope we do not have to go through this for a third time. VoiceOfReason922 (talk) 20:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Whoever drew that map is out of touch with reality

In fact they don't have a clue. Imagine having Bristol as part of the Westcountry!!!! It is laughable. Next they will be arguing that Newcastle is in scotland or that Brussells is in France--Westcountry4ever (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Read the article. Read the comments on this page. Everyone has their own ideas of where it covers - we report what the sources say. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I have read it and the map is not in keeping with the article. The article says that the westcountry is Devon, Cornwall, Somerset and Dorset while SOME people regard it to be a wider area. The map should reflect this by having the westcountry proper in one colour and the borderlands in another shade. At the minute a casual observer could just click on the page and see the map and assume that everywhere in it is part of the westcountry. P.S Gloucester and Swindon - you are having a giraffe!--Westcountry4ever (talk) 10:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Some people in Gloucs and Swindon certainly regard themselves as being in the West Country. I think that what you are saying is that we need a new map - but it would not be realistic to attempt to draw a map of "the West Country". What we need is a good map of South West England, simply as background - but I'm not sure what should be included on it. Ceremonial county boundaries, or local authority areas? Which towns? I'll raise the question at Talk:South West England before making a request at Graphics. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked Westcountry4ever (talk · contribs) indefinitely as a vandalism-only account (see his other edits). Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring over opening paragraph

The long-established wording of the opening paragraph was as follows:

The West Country is an informal term for the area of south western England roughly corresponding to the modern South West England government region. It is often defined to encompass the historic counties of Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, and Somerset, and the City and County of Bristol, while the counties of Gloucestershire and Wiltshire are also often included. Some usages of the term include wider areas, while others are more specific, though with little consistency of definition.

This was changed here by Zacwill16 to:

The West Country is an area of south western England, roughly comprising the counties of Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, and Somerset, as well as Gloucestershire and Wiltshire in some definitions.

... and through subsequent discussions and edits to:

The West Country is a loosely defined area of south western England, roughly comprising the counties of Bristol, Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, and Somerset, as well as Gloucestershire and Wiltshire in many definitions.

But, that wording is inadequate, and the alternative wording now in place is this:

The West Country is a loosely defined area of south western England that roughly corresponds to the modern South West England government region. It is often defined to encompass the historic counties of Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, and Somerset, and the City and County of Bristol, while the counties of Gloucestershire and Wiltshire, and the Isles of Scilly, are also often included. Some usages of the term include wider areas, while others are more specific, though with little consistency of definition.

The point at issue is not to do with the historic counties (though they are important) - it is to do with the need to emphasise that there is no consistent definition, and indeed that different organisations use conflicting definitions. Attempting to shorten the opening paragraphs in the way that Zacwill16 suggests would give insufficient weight to the need to emphasise the variation in definitions. More important than those considerations is the need for the edit-warring parties to come to this page to discuss the matter, rather than attempting to win the argument through edit summaries. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

While it should be stated that it's not a rigidly defined area, it should not be overly stressed; doing so suggests some kind of bizarre POV against the West Country. The previous version already describes it as 'loosely defined' and 'rough compromising the counties of...' Adding an additional line calling the region 'inconsistent in definition' is entirely unnecessary, and treats Wikipedia readers as idiots. Note that articles on other regions in the British Isles, such as the Scottish Highlands, don't feel need to describe them as INCONSISTENT half a dozen times in the opening paragraph. Zacwill16 (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The Scottish Highlands are a relatively well-defined area. The West Country is not - there are conflicting definitions, as a reading of the article and previous discussions on this page will inform you. All that can be said is that most of (not even all) the definitions fall within the South West region - but there is no consistency as to which parts of the SW are included. That is important. There is no "POV against the West Country", merely an intention to provide accurate and not inaccurate information. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Speaking as a Scot, the Highlands are absolutely not a well-defined area. You could find just as much variation in definition as you could for the West Country. Two mentions of the fact that it is not consistently defined are quite enough to get the point across to readers, without giving this fact undue weight. Zacwill16 (talk) 10:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The article must remain as it is. The article explains exactly what needs to be explained in as concise a manner as possible; in no way shape or form is it "overly stressing" anything, and any edits to the current status quo are nothing more than mistakes. Edits such as yours clearly indicate a bizarre pro-West Country POV - you are far too eager to claim large swathes of the southwest as inarguably part of the West Country, and my editing shows a clear dedication to neutrality and reason. As said before, everything in the article is required or else we are underplaying a point that it is vital to make, and removing this is an unacceptable error. It is not treating anyone as an idiot - removal of it would inevitably lead readers to come to a false conclusion, irrespective of their level of intelligence, because your edits fail to inform them of all the facts. Notice how other articles, such as the Highlands, don't have issues such as the differences between current and historic county boundaries to contend with - as for making the point "half a dozen times", it is mentioning it exactly as many times as is necessary and in exactly the right way. Nothing is dead weight - removal of anything is bad grammar at best, and completely omits key facts and misleads readers at worst.

As said before, the Highlands don't have issues such as the differences between current and historic county boundaries to contend with, so in the case of the West Country we must go a step further. As for the other mentions of inconsistent boundary definitions, I'm afraid to say that articles failing to deal with the issue in the manner that we have done here have made an error, and cannot be held up as good examples.

For the record, you aren't making a good case for repetition of a point being needless considering that we've explained this to you a dozen times yet you still insist on POV-pushing. I'll spend a lifetime explaining it to you if you want, but either way, the article will stay as it is. 82.26.33.158 (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The introduction as it currently stands is illogical, because on the one hand it states that it roughly corresponds to the South West England government region, but on the other it states that there is little consistency of definition, and states that according to some definitions it does not include Wiltshire and Gloucestershire - in which case, it doesn't always correspond with the South West England government region. I propose removing the line "that roughly corresponds to the modern South West England government region", as this is attempting to pin it down to a particularly defined area. On the question of whether the looseness of the definition is being overly stressed or not, I don't have such a strongly held view as others here. To me, either of the following would be acceptable, though if I had to pick one, I'd choose the first:

The West Country is a loosely defined area of south western England, often defined to encompass the historic counties of Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, and Somerset, and the City and County of Bristol, while the counties of Gloucestershire and Wiltshire, and the Isles of Scilly, are also often included. Some usages of the term include wider areas, while others are more specific, though with little consistency of definition.

The West Country is a loosely defined area of south western England, often defined to encompass the historic counties of Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, and Somerset, and the City and County of Bristol, while the counties of Gloucestershire and Wiltshire, and the Isles of Scilly, are also often included.

PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

It depends how loosely you interpret the term "roughly". Some definitions use the term as synonymous with the official SW region, while others do not. I'm not opposed to either of the suggested rewordings, though I prefer the first, to emphasise the variation - and conflict between - alternative definitions (for example, those who insist that the West Country refers to Devon and Cornwall, while others insist that it refers to an area including Bristol, Swindon, etc.). Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Though neither are ideal in my opinion, I also find the first preferable. Since three of us are in agreement, I have instated this version (though without the term 'historic county', which is redundant: the historic and modern counties are identical in this case). Zacwill16 (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

That's OK with me, though I've changed "defined" to "regarded" in one instance, to avoid repetition. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The edits are acceptable, with the exception of the omission of the term "historic county" - as previously made abundantly clear, the term is in no way redundant as the historic and modern county boundaries are different in this case. Removal of this term is highly misleading and is therefore unacceptable, and so it shall be re-inserted as per the discussion, which you have once again failed to address.

Furthermore, there were not three people in agreement when you removed the term "historic". In fact, there were three of us in agreement to KEEP it, so your edit is a clear example of POV-pushing. You also summarise your edits as "per talk" when you outright ignore valid points raised in the discussion in addition to ignoring the clear consensus of three users.

Deceitfulness is not a trait of a good editor. I would strongly recommend you improve your conduct before you continue to edit wikipedia. (This is the previous IP user) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.194.189 (talk) 17:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I strongly recommend that you, IP editor, quit this ridiculous hectoring. Comment on content, not contributors. Thanks. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

If a user's behaviour is problematic and preventing reasonable discussion, it is right to point that out. Nothing ridiculous about that, quite the opposite actually.

And I strongly recommend that people remember that POV-pushing and deceitfulness is significantly worse than addressing problematic editing, especially when previous, more restrained attempts have failed to have any impact. Such things cannot go unsaid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.194.189 (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

And for the record, when I have had to deal with zacwill's repeated bad behaviour, I reserve the right to take moral high ground. I deserve your support, not your criticism. 213.205.194.189 (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you acquaint yourself with Wikipedia protocols. If you believe an editor's conduct to be egregious, you have the option of raising the matter at WP:ANI, where administrators can assess the situation. However, seeing as you have already involved yourself in edit-warring and making personal attacks, if you were to file a post at ANI, you might find that your own conduct rather compromises the strength of your complaint. I suggest you moderate your comments in future. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, I suggest you acquaint yourself with Wikipedia protocols. Issues can be addressed before taking them to ANI - if not, what on earth do you think you are doing attempting to lecture me? With regards to edit-warring, I have been maintaining a long-established consensus from edits that outright ignored it, as well as being demonstratively POV-pushing. I would be quite safe on that front, whereas zacwill would not be so lucky due edit-warring against users maintaining the consensus-supported status quo without bothering to take things to the talk page as he should have done. As for personal attacks, care to point them out? I have pointed out bad conduct and poor editing practices, not personal flaws, and I am well within the rules to do, especially considering that I have explained their validity quite clearly. No weakening of any claims I might make there. zacwill, once again, would struggle due to his initial suggestion that my edits were influenced by personal tragedies, and your ironic suggestion that I "cut out the holier-than-thou" might not be received too kindly either - and even if it is, mine shall not fare any worse considering we're doing the exact same thing in the exact same manner.

My edits will continue to be appropriate to the situation and within the rules. I suggest you moderate your own comments lest someone start to think you're falling prey to your own criticisms. 86.13.104.229 (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

You have described another editor as deceitful and of arrogant POV-pushing. Considering that you do not know someone's motives, I would regard that as a personal attack. I expect you will disagree, but I shall not be making any further comments on this matter. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I have clearly demonstrated that another user has been deceitful and is POV-pushing. This is merely highlighting bad editing practices, not attacking the character of an individual. I also never used the word "arrogant" or anything like it, that is merely something that you have wrongly assumed. Of course I will disagree, as these are clearly not personal attacks. And I am glad that this shall not be continued.

Also, just in case anyone is confused, as previously stated I am IP user 213.205.194.189. 86.13.104.229 (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

In which case you are in breach of WP:3RR.Charles (talk) 21:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

And if you actually bothered to read the 3RR page, you would see that my edits fall under the exemptions, namely reverting obvious vandalism - we have established consensus for a third time, so reverting breaches of this by a previously-disruptive editor passes as an exemption. Once again, it's time for you to stop being disruptive. 86.13.104.229 (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

And I've only reverted 3 times in total anyway, which is clearly not in breach of the 3RR even if I wasn't already covered by the exemption. You really aren't any good at this. 86.13.104.229 (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you really calling the removal of a superfluous word 'obvious vandalism'? Especially when I clearly explained my reasoning on the talk page and received approval from another user, Ghmyrtle. In risk of stooping to your level, I would say that the only vandal here is you, with your bullying tactics and arrogant presumption that 'the article will stay as it is'. Zacwill16 (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you really denying that repeatedly breaching well-established consensus is obvious vandalism? You have completely and utterly failed to explained your reason as you have not even addressed the reasoning for including it in the first place, merely arrogantly ignoring it. Even if you have gained his approval - unlikely considering he has agreed with me for about 4 years and in 2 other similar situations on this very topic - it would still be a 2:2 split, meaning we revert to the previous consensus which concluded with the inclusion of the word "historic". You have already stooped to far greater levels, that of deceitfulness, arrogance, bullying tactics, POV-pushing and a refusal to properly discuss the topic. You have continuously ignored consensus from the get-go, making you nothing more than a disruptive vandal, and I have merely upheld consensus. It is not arrogant to state that the article shall remain as is - there is no good reason for its removal, and the fact that you continue to fail to address the facts behind its inclusion suggests that you know this already. 213.205.194.49 (talk) 19:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The West Country Challenge

Would you like to win up to £250 in Amazon vouchers for participating in The West Country Challenge?

The The West Country Challenge will take place from 8 to 28 August 2016. The idea is to create and improve articles about Bristol, Somerset, Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, Dorset, Wiltshire and Gloucestershire, like this one.

The format will be based on Wales's successful Awaken the Dragon which saw over 1000 article improvements and creations and 65 GAs/FAs. As with the Dragon contest, the focus is more on improving core articles and breathing new life into those older stale articles and stubs which might otherwise not get edited in years. All contributions, including new articles, are welcome though.

Work on any of the items at:

• Core articles
• Missing article hotlist
• Missing photograph hotlist

or other articles relating to the area.

There will be sub contests focusing on particular areas:

• Bristol (Day 1-3)
• Cornwall and Scilly (Day 4-6)
• Devon (Day 7-9)
• Dorset (Day 10-12)
• Gloucestershire (Day 13-15)
• Somerset (Day 16-18)
• Wiltshire (Day 19-21)

To sign up or get more information visit the contest pages at Wikipedia:WikiProject England/The West Country Challenge.— Rod ^talk 15:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Recent changes

@Ghmyrtle: I have removed the pictures. The previous version was almost entirely unreferenced, and I had corrected that. Please do not abuse roll-back. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I intend to make further contributions to this article when I have more time next month, so that hopefully the focus will not be on the varying use of the term. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 00:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I did not use rollback. I reverted you, which is not the same thing. Please do not accuse other editors of things they have not done. It is quite wrong to use a map of the recognised South West region to illustrate this article - unless you explain more clearly how it relates to the article. The West Country does not necessarily relate to the South West region - it is a term that means different things to different people and organisations, and the article discusses that. It would be misleading, and quite wrong, to attempt to define the West Country in this article as a geographical area - although some would regard it as broadly equating to the SW region, others would most definitely not, and you may want to take a look at the often heated previous discussions on that point. For the same reason, it is misleading to include pictures of places that may, or may not, be of places that some people regard as being within the West Country. The most notable feature of the term "West Country" is the imprecision of its definition, and the article should continue to reflect that. You are quite correct that the article, and its referencing, need to be improved, and I am happy to help. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

On a quick read, I cannot see any mention in the BBC source of the West Country being defined by its accents/dialects. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The three pictures I included in a hurry were from Devon, Dorset, and Somerset, which are all unambiguously part of the West Country. They probably wouldn't be appropriate without first expanding the article. The above user is correct that I will need a better reference for that sentence. It shouldn't really be in the lede anyway. I thought that for the sake of a quick fix (and in consideration of the general state of the article) that a quick mention of the regional accent could be made in the lede. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Although to the casual outside observer there may appear to be a "West Country accent", in fact there are a wide variety of accents covering a wide area (as in similar broad areas elsewhere, such as "the North West"), so we should not place undue emphasis on that. And it's not quite correct to say that Devon, Dorset and Somerset are unambiguously part of the West Country. Someone from Plymouth, for instance, would be unlikely to consider someone from Poole as being from the "West Country". Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

We have a fairly large article on the West Country dialect, and it should definitely be discussed here. Like I said, I intend to expand this article considerably at a later date.

Your point about perception is certainly correct, and I imagine it has a lot to do with social class, but at the moment we have no references which support it. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 09:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what class has to do with it, if anything. I haven't seen any academic discussions of the use of the term "West Country", and its variability. If such sources exist, they should be used. If they don't exist, all we can do it is point out the variety of definitions that do exist, and leave readers to draw their own conclusions. One pointer may be if an area is used by linguists to define the term "West Country English" - but that is not the only definition. What we should not do is attempt to build up an article about the West Country as a clearly defined area (whether using our own definition, or that used by others), and discuss its history, geography, industries, etc. Those are matters for other articles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Moved from page

Moved per WP:PRESERVE:

The West Country is mostly rural, with only a few sizeable towns and cities. Tourism and agriculture, especially dairy farming, play a significant role in the economy. The landscape is principally granite moorland in the west, and chalk and limestone downland and clay vales in the east. Historically, tin mining and the fishery were sources of income and employment in the west of the area, but less so today, although the latter still contributes to the economy. The region is traditionally famous for its production of cider, clotted cream, and pasties, and in modern times has also become well known for the Glastonbury Festival and other attractions.

L.R. Wormwood (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

If material about the area's geography, history, industries, etc., can be referenced from reliable sources that use the specific term "West Country", my view is that it can be included in this article - although such content would be better treated in more depth in articles about more tightly defined regions (such as South West England, or the individual county or city articles). Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I think that it can be included, as the references are available. if i have time i may do this, as it is a valid section for a fairly short article. A Guy into Books (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

But bear in mind that the West Country is not a defined area - unlike, say, Somerset, or Cornwall, or South West England. So, which area would such sections cover? And, why would they be needed here if they merely duplicate sections in those other articles? Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Herefordshire and Worcestershire

Herefordshire and Worcestershire are West Country. There is a West Country culture there, and this is the area that the West Country accent really begins. --Mozart834428196 (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Where are your reliable sources? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Where are yours? All these sources claiming that the West Country is exclusively southern is just someone's opinion. My intent is to have both opinions, also including the opinion that it includes part of the West Midlands. --Mozart834428196 (talk) 13:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

On top of this, the news website This is the West Country includes Herefordshire. --Mozart834428196 (talk) 14:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

The news website 'This is the West Country' also includes stories in Staffordshire [4] - so are you going to include Staffordshire in the West Country too? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Look, all I'm trying to say in the article is that one opinion is that Herefordshire and Worcestershire are in the West Country. We can have both views: the view that the West Country is exclusively southern, and the view that the West Country includes Herefordshire and Worcestershire. There are no official boundaries, and so it is down to views. As an encyclopaedia, Wikipedia's article on the West Country should cover all views. --Mozart834428196 (talk) 20:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not based on opinions - they are based on what published, independent, reliable sources say. Thisisthewestcountry.co.uk, by the way, covers Cornwall, Devon , Somerset... and national stories, which could be anywhere. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that as an encyclopedia, we should cover all views on the boundaries. It should mention that some say it is exclusively southwest, others say that it includes part of the West Midlands. Both views should be mentioned on the page. --Mozart834428196 (talk) 14:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The current wording is as follows:

The West Country is a loosely defined area of south-western England. The term usually encompasses the historic counties of Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Somerset, and often the counties of Bristol, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire, in the South West region. The region is host to distinctive regional dialects and accents.... Apart from the Bristol Channel and English Channel, the West Country's boundaries are not precisely defined and as a consequence there are a number of different definitions used. Some definitions are roughly synonymous with the administrative South West Region, while others use it more specifically to refer to just the southwestern part.

I think that's fine, but if it is to be amended slightly it could say:

The West Country is a loosely defined area of south-western Britain. The term usually encompasses the historic counties of Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Somerset, and often the counties of Bristol, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire, in the South West region of England; other areas are sometimes included. The region is host to distinctive regional dialects and accents.... Apart from the Bristol Channel and English Channel, the West Country's boundaries are not precisely defined and as a consequence there are a number of different definitions used. Some definitions are roughly synonymous with the administrative South West Region, while others use it in a wider sense, or more specifically to refer to just the southwestern part.

The change from "south-western England" to "south-western Britain" is in line with the cited source, and can be taken to refer to a wider area (as Britain is larger than England). Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I think it should clearly state though that some include Herefordshire and Worcestershire. --Mozart834428196 (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

You have not yet provided any source for your claim that it is sometimes used to include Worcestershire. Herefordshire is mentioned in the article text, but it would be giving it undue weight to mention it specifically in the lede. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Ancestry.co.uk has "Ancient West Country Families" in its Herefordshire stories :[5] --Mozart834428196 (talk) 12:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, West Country breweries have (or have had in the past) several breweries in Herefordshire . --Mozart834428196 (talk) 12:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

No-one disputes that there are some organisations that refer to Herefordshire as being in the West Country. But, probably not very many, and there's no need for that to be mentioned in the lede which exists to summarise the most important parts of the article, and not to mislead readers. I have seen nothing, anywhere, to suggest that Worcestershire should be mentioned. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

OK, I see. I've written "Some include Herefordshire in the West Midlands." I haven't put right in the middle, but it mentions it. Also, I have found that there are some West Country ales locations in Worcestershire . --Mozart834428196 (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

That's a bit like saying Merseyside and North Wales are "sometimes considered" part of Scotland because Scottish Power operate there. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, I suppose. Companies aside, I've added that some consider Herefordshire part of the West Country, because it should be added. --Mozart834428196 (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

"Because it should be added" is rarely a good enough reason for adding anything here. So far, no-one has agreed with you that it should be added to the lede, and you should wait until there is a clear consensus on this page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Everyone I speak to in real life regarding this issue agrees with me. It just seems to be those behind a screen who disagree. --Mozart834428196 (talk) 12:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

We do not accept hearsay. Find reliable sources.Charles (talk) 21:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Hold on a minute here. These sources are just someone's opinion. There is no set definition of the West Country in the bible or anything. It's just an idea, and, as an encyclopaedia, it is Wikipedia's duty to say that some believe that Herefordshire is part of the West Country. The way I advise it is not to say that is part of the West Country, in a factual manner, but rather say that some definitions include Herefordshire. That is the way that many encyclopaedias would handle this. I was reading the talk, there were some people who thought that Gloucestershire and Somerset weren't in the West Country. Some people's definitions were that extreme that they thought the West Country was pretty much the very tip of Cornwall. Yet Gloucestershire and Somerset are still included. I believe that Gloucestershire and Somerset are in the West Country. I believe that pretty much all the South-west is in the West Country. However, I also believe that Herefordshire, in the West Midlands, is also in the West Country. --Mozart834428196 (talk) 11:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

This is where you are wrong. You say that " as an encyclopaedia, it is Wikipedia's duty to say that some believe that Herefordshire is part of the West Country." No, that's wrong. Please read WP:FRINGE: "Because Wikipedia aims to summarize significant opinions with representation in proportion to their prominence, a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner." Although there may occasionally be references to Herefordshire (but not Worcestershire) as being part of the West Country, those references are few and insignificant, and it would give them undue weight to mention them in the opening paragraph. The wording that states that the area is "loosely defined" and "usually" encompasses counties in the South West is accurate and sufficient. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

PS re Worcestershire: The claim that the West Country is sometimes defined to include Worcestershire was added at West Country English in this anonymous and unexplained edit in 2011. I've seen no evidence to support it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Offline print encyclopaedias would include several views. --Mozart834428196 (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

... if supported by reliable evidence. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Duplication

I reverted this change as it is an entirely unnecessary duplication of elements of the section that immediately follows it. Of course there are different definitions of the "West Country", and the text explains some of them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

West Country trading ketch

Sources seem to use the term "West Country trading ketch" to refer to a particular type of boat - but, I have not yet managed to find a specific definition anywhere. If one can be found, it should be added to the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

"West England" and "Western England" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirects West England and Western England has thus listed them for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 2#West England until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Jay (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Relevance of historic counties to the definition

An anonymous editor has taken the time to actively edit this article to change "counties" to "historic counties" multiple times, and I've only now seen that this is perhaps related to the discussion "Edit warring over opening paragraph", where this came up but seems to have been lost amongst other discussion about the wording of the introduction. From their edit summary, this user's argument appears to be that "there's nothing to say that you can't define it as being specifically the historic counties". But this is not an argument for going out of our way to include it in the introduction to the article. There is equally nothing to say that it can't be defined as ceremonial counties, or non-metropolitan counties -- that's the nature of it being a "loosely defined region". People have different definitions of it. And that is adequately covered by the word "counties" -- the ambiguity of the term being perfectly fitting for an ambiguous region. Inserting the word "historic" is inappropriately specific, implying that other meanings of "county" don't apply, when they might.

The anonymous user has now hit the 3 revert rule, so I am going to hold off implementing this for the moment, but I am inviting them, and anybody else, to make the case here for why they think it is appropriate to limit the definition of the West Country to one specific definition of counties -- and more importantly, to provide a credible source (not one that simply copypasted the text from this article) that the West Country is typically defined by historic counties vs any other definition of counties. Joe D (t) 19:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you for opening a discussion regarding this.

Secondly, the discussion you are referring to didn't get lost amongst others. We did come to a conclusion and it was to maintain the inclusion of the word "historic".

As for the topic itself. The non-historic portions of Dorset were once part of Hampshire. There are no sources indicating that Hampshire, nor any region within it, has ever been a part of the West Country. As such, prior to the adjustment of the county boundaries, there had been no argument for the non-historic portion of Dorset being a West Country region, it simply was not. To suggest that this area is now a part of the West Country (which your proposed removal of the word "historic" indicates) would therefore mean that the status of this area has now changed. However, all we know is that the boundaries have changed, which is a political alteration based primarily on which councils run which regions. The West Country is not a political entity, however, and it is not governed by a council. This, therefore, is no proof at all that the non-historic regions of Dorset have changed their status from being distinctly not of the West Country, and we need to look elsewhere for evidence of this.

I appreciate that your source seems to be that evidence, however, it gives no insight into whether or not the individuals contributing to the poll made any distinction between the historic and ceremonial regions of Dorset, and so it cannot be considered by itself evidence of even a change in public perception of these areas. What evidence is there that anything has changed for this area? What is there to suggest that people didn't vote for Dorset being part of the West Country based on the reasoning that they believe ~90% of Dorset to be, or that they wouldn't have made the distinction had they in fact been asked the questions being posed here?

The question posed in the YouGov poll is loaded in a sense, at least in terms of what we are discussing. They merely asked what users thought of Dorset, not what they thought of the parts of Dorset that were once Hampshire (which the poll makes clear is not considered the West Country) and did not ask if people had changed their minds regarding the region in question. We cannot assume that they believe this area to have changed when the source does not indicate it.

Also, I understand the request for a source, but the burden of proof is on those attempting to prove a positive as opposed to those supporting a negative. If there has been a change in status for the non-historic portion of Dorset from being considered not of the West Country, then we are required to provide this. I do not believe we have found that yet, and so I believe that the inclusion of the word "historic" should remain.82.4.221.138 (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

It is in the nature of the term "West Country" that it is impossible to try to impose a rigid definition on it. Simply using the somewhat vague term "counties" is, in this case, just fine. We should not give undue weight, or try to over-interpret, a single poll. It is simply one source among many others. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC) PS: It seems to me that the argument here is all about whether or not Bournemouth should be considered part of the West Country. The answer is that some people might say it is, and some people might say it isn't. This article should not indicate either way. It depends on your definition, and the basic point is that the "West Country" cannot be definitively defined. Questioning which definition of "counties" is used in the opening sentence is irrelevant. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

(Edit conflict - sorry, I think Ghmyrtle has probably now already said what I was going to say, but much more concisely.)

Sorry, I've read through the discussion above and I do not see any conclusion or consensus in favour of including "historic". I can see one editor in favour of removing it, one editor who appears to be indifferent and did not challenge its removal from the final text, and an anonymous editor in favour of including it. Would it be correct for me to assume that you are the same person as the anonymous contributors in that discussion? It rather looks like we have just one person pushing this issue.

You are quite correct that "the burden of proof is on those attempting to prove a positive as opposed to those supporting a negative" -- which is exactly why you need to prove the positive that "historic" should be included. There is nothing partisan about simply stating "counties", which on its own can be interpreted broadly to include any and all definitions of county. By inserting the word "historic" you are implying that the West Country can only be defined by historic counties, and that respondents to the cited survey meant only historic counties -- the burden is definitely on you to prove that. Removing the word "historic" does not imply the opposite -- that the West County can't be defined by historic counties, or that respondents to the cited survey didn't mean historic counties, only that any one of the definitions may have applied. Given that the source doesn't specify, neither can we.

If we instead follow your reasoning regarding proving a negative, then the same argument can be applied to changing the wording to "ceremonial counties", or "non-metropolitan counties". Given the sources available, we can not prove that people do not think of those counties when they think of "West Country". We could add all three terms to the text, to cover all cases and emphasise the fact that "West Country" is an ambiguous term for a loosely defined area. Or we could simply say "counties", which does the same job excellently. Joe D (t) 20:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle - I agree that it is impossible to impose a rigid definition of it, but that does not mean that we should not be mindful of areas that we have clear reason to believe are not of that region with no real reason to believe that this has changed, as we have here. I do not believe that the use of a vague term is the appropriate decision when we have strong reason to believe that it is incorrect, and no reason yet put forward to dispute this. I also agree that we should not give undue weight to a single poll, and this is exactly why we should not base our decision upon it, especially when we can see that it does not dispute the above reasoning.

Steinsky - I'm sorry, but that simply means you have not read the discussion as a conclusion was very clearly reached, which was to maintain consensus. The attempt to overturn the established consensus failed as no new consensus had been achieved, and we maintained what had already been established. It would be correct to assume that one of the anonymous user in the previous discussions was me, but no, not the other, nor the other user accepting this to be a fair decision This was established in the discussion itself as you can also see. There have been many people defending this position over the years as is again clear from the discussions, including Ghmyrtle, as is again abundantly clear.

I'm glad that you agree that "the burden of proof is on those attempting to prove a positive as opposed to those supporting a negative", as this is exactly why you must prove the positive that non-historic regions have changed their status. The problem with simply saying "counties" is that they do not account for the demonstrated nuance, i.e. that the non-historic region of Dorset were once part of Hampshire, which is itself not part of the West Country by your own source. Politically joining a county is not evidence of joining a non-political, cultural region. It would be wrong to interpret such a thing so broadly, as you have yet to prove the change of status of the purely ceremonial areas. Including the word historic does not imply that the West Country can only be defined by historic counties, it merely takes into account that there is no proof supporting the belief that the full ceremonial county has suddenly changed its status from demonstrably not being of the West Country. It also acknowledges that the respondents to the survey were only asked about ceremonial counties, and were not questioned on whether they think the non-historic portion of Dorset is has changed its status when they have themselves demonstrated they do not believe it this area would be West Country had the county lines not changed. The burden of proof is definitely on you to prove that. By removing the word historic you are indeed implying the opposite - not that a region can't be defined by historic counties, but instead implying that a region confirmed to not have been part of a non-political and cultural region has joined because it became part of a political region. It also implies correctly that we do not know if the respondents meant historic counties or ceremonial counties as they were not asked to do so, with no proof of the reasoning of said respondents. Given that the source doesn't specify, neither can we specify based on that source. As we have no source that supports the individual with the burden of proof, the positive has not been proven and we are obliged to include the word historic in order to be appropriately correct.

If you follow my reasoning regarding proving a negative, then the same argument would be correctly be made for distinctions between other historic, ceremonial and non-metropolitan regions, as we cannot consider changes of status regarding political regions to correspond to changes in changes of status regarding non-political regions. Political and non-political regions are, I'm sure you'll agree, different things, and the burden of proof is on you to provide a reliable source that states that the status of the region in question has changed. Given the sources available, we cannot prove that people think of these non-historic county regions as West Country. We of course have no need to use three terms, and we have already emphasised the fact that the West Country is a loosely-defined area. We simply need to say "historic counties", which not only does the job excellently but is the only choice that accurately describes the region based on what we know be true, and the only choice that does not make assumptions based on faulty reasoning.21:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.221.138 (talk)

The argument is regarding the non-historic region as a whole, as opposed to simply one part of it. I agree that some say this region is and some say that it isn't, but we have no proof that most believe this region to be so. We have a section of the lede that says "and is often extended to" in order to make the distinction between the areas that most believe to be West Country, and the areas that few do - if we are to include that section, we must include the word "historic" in the lede as well, in recognition of the fact that while some may believe the non-historic regions of Dorset to be West Country, we have yet to have anyone show this. The inclusion of "historic" therefore remains necessary, as the alternative currently proposed implies the region to be generally considered as West Country, and this has not been proven by any measure.82.4.221.138 (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I've read the 2015 discussion yet again and still see no consensus there for including the word "historic". From what I can see, an agreement was reached on the wording of an introductory sentence with the exception of inclusion of the word "historic", over which there was very much not a consensus. I can see you insisted on including it, Zacwill insisted on removing it, Ghmyrtle didn't express a strong opinion either way in the discussion (but acceded to Zacwill's edit and has since made their opinion clear in this discussion), and PaleCloudedWhite who, although the proposer of the wording, appeared to be trying to act a neutral arbitrator in the edit war rather than argue one way or the other over that word.

Interestingly, the word first appeared in the edit history of the article here, when Ghmyrtle added it in response to somebody else removing mention of "Avon" from the article. I'll leave it for Ghmyrtle to explain the reasoning behind that edit -- if they even remember all this time later, and if there even was one, or if it was casually thrown in -- but given that they have made their views clear in this discussion now, I don't think it can be cited as a precedent for including it. So it's still the case that I can see absolutely no existing settled consensus, or even anybody arguing in support for including it except you. It is just wrong to claim that there is an established consensus on this specific issue.

The rest of your argument rests on assumption that there is simply no evidence for: that people have an internally fixed idea of the West Country as "a cultural region". But our own article does not describe the West Country as "a cultural region". It describes it as a term that people use for any number of different areas and purposes. There is no need for anybody to prove or disprove that the "cultural region" of the West Country has changed, or that it was or was not affected by administrative boundary changes, we only have to describe what the term is and has been used for. Different people use the term to mean a wide variety of different things, and most of them probably put no thought into what definition (if any) of counties they're applying -- many of them probably haven't even heard of this frankly fairly niche issue.

There is, though, one instance where "historic" is clearly explicitly wrong. Our own article states that "West Country" is often used as a synonym for South West England, with various citations, which is a clearly defined area that is based on ceremonial counties. So yes, we do already have the proof that, in some cases, people do not mean historic counties when they use the term "West Country".

This discussion has made me think about a different potential change to the introduction which I think could enhance the clarity and accuracy of it, though, and which might at the same time render this argument redundant. To avoid mixing too many different strands of discussion together, I'll start a separate sub-section for that, below. Joe D (t) 22:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

My apologies, I should have mentioned that the consensus was established in a prior talk section entitled "Bournemouth and Poole are not West Country towns". I forget the ins and outs of it exactly but I recall the consensus was established by myself and others on several occasions, and the conclusion of the other section was to revert to the established consensus at the tail-end of this discussion. Again I apologise, I should have been clear of this.

Perhaps "cultural" is an assumption, but it is certainly not a political region. A change of county lines only proves a change in the political region but does not prove anything further in and of itself. I would say that we would need proof that the West Country region, however best defined, has changed along the county borders in order to be truly reliable, and I would hold that this is required for us to be truly accurate here. That being said however, yes I grant you that it's unreasonable to expect it when I can't imagine more than a small handful of people besides myself care enough to seek out the answer. I also concede that your argument regarding the use of "historic" being wrong is indeed correct - the source does indeed prove that some people include this region that I'm talking about in their definition. Although I still believe we don't have proof that most do, and I certainly vouch for your proposal as the alternative (the one I had in mind had been a bit clumsier), but I accept defeat here if your proposal isn't taken.82.4.221.138 (talk) 23:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, but I had also read that discussion, and there is no consensus in that section regarding "historic". There is a consensus to remove a list of settlements from the article. This is all rather moot now, but could you clarify, are you the same person as was posting in that discussion as "VoiceOfReason922"? Joe D (t) 17:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

There certainly was consensus regarding the user of the word "historic", although numerous, similar consensuses were reached. They all pointed to a similarly vague term that served the same purposes, but one we've currently landed on I believe to be ideal.82.4.221.138 (talk) 17:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

As you have now chosen to perpetuate edit warring this evening, I'm going to press the point: are you User:VoiceOfReason922, or is that a different person? You've repeatedly claimed in discussions and edit summaries that "established consensus" makes it OK to keep reverting edits, so it has now become somewhat relevant that we establish whether the "consensus" really is what you claim it is. Joe D (t) 17:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Although it isn't clear why you're pushing such a point as the information needed is within those discussions, I'm happy to make things clear, although it is again clear from the discussions above.

First of all, as has already been shown, I have not been edit warring. ghmyrtle first chose to initiate an edit war while us two were still in the process of discussing, followed by NebY choosing to perpetuate this edit war by contradicting both the new and established consensus, requiring me to add the newly-accepted wording to fix this breach as well. User hey man im josh chose to continue an edit war himself, again making the mistake of ignoring the consensus both past and present, resulting in me fixing this mistake as well. Preventing users from breaching both of these established consensuses is not edit warring, merely reminding people to resolve this via discussion instead of perpetuating an edit war, as they were so doing. Even if it were edit warring, which is not so, clearly these three users are far more egregiously in breach of this. Therefore even if my edits hadn't been as appropriate as they are, it makes no sense to single me out instead of reaching out to the true perpetrators of this. This is made all the more true by the fact that my second-to-last edit is not even a revert, but instead an addition to the article whereby I added the agreed-upon solution made in attempt to quell the renewed edit-warring of NebY, which is exactly what you are supposed to do when dealing with something like this. This therefore cannot be included in this aspect of the discussion by any stretch of the imagination.

Secondly, I had not initially pressed this point as we had agreed upon a solution at this point, but it is now relevant to point out that PaleCloudedWhite very clearly did not remain neutral in the previous discussion, and did in fact agree to include the term "historic", as you can clearly see from the chat. Both of us agreed to maintain the article as-is, with not enough other users disagreeing to overturn the inclusion of this word. The conclusion therefore was to retain the word "historic" - which is how these discussions work even had this not simply been based roughly on previous discussions. We would have needed consensus to overturn this - this was not achieved back then, so "historic" was rightly included. It has been achieved now, and so no longer is, instead we have gone with your proposal. So I agree that this is a moot point, but I'm happy to continue.

Regarding the discussions prior to this, as you can see, the consensus was established by user 95.180.16.79, Ghmyrtle and myself as VoiceOfReason922/82.26.33.158 (the identity of both accounts being myself were made known and recognised openly by the others). This made three of us with only one voice of dissent, Simple Bob/Bob Re-born (who also made it clear that both accounts were him), so as with the several previous consensuses that were clearly established, a consensus was established once again. The inclusion of the word "historic" was inserted (by someone other than myself, for the record) as yet another way of preserving the nature of the established consensus, merely with different phrasing. As said before, this would require a new consensus being established to overturn, the conclusion being that this was not achieved, therefore leading us to continue with the inclusion of the word "historic" which maintained the integrity of the consensus established prior to this.

So, to summarise. The consensus in the first talk section was established by three different individuals, one of which myself, with only one voice of dissent. The newly-worded lede which maintained the essence of this consensus was challenged, but with two users (one of which myself) against one or two users, the conclusion was to maintain the prior consensus in spirit. This was then challenged by yourself, with Ghmyrtle in favour and myself against, before all three of us agreed on your resolution. My use of previous usernames do not change this as it had been made clear in each discussion who was who, and with myself casting one vote in each discussion over consensus. The result was that, with other users alongside myself, consensus was consistently maintained to - in one form or another - emphasise the ambiguity of the region's borders sufficiently. This leads us to now, where we have now achieved a new consensus that has been accepted and implemented.82.4.221.138 (talk) 21:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: "parts of"

What if we said something like:

"...usually taken to include all, some, or parts of the counties of..."

I think including "parts of" could enhance the accuracy and clarity of the paragraph. Without "parts of", the wording perhaps implies that definitions always include a discrete set of counties. But I know in my head when I think of "West Country" it only really includes a bit of Wiltshire, fading out somewhere around the the western slope of Salisbury Plain. Other people in the discussions have claimed that Poole is not West Country but other bits of Dorset are. And in the "specific uses" section of the article, many of the definitions include "parts of" counties. This wording would surely also render any discussion over historical counties redundant? Joe D (t) 22:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I fully agree with that, I think you've covered it perfectly. Thank you for the proposal.82.4.221.138 (talk) 23:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

If the wording helps to stop the pathetic edit-warring over this, good. But, of course, "...I know in my head when I think of "West Country"..." is almost the very definition of "original research". Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree with the proposal, but please watch your tone ghmyrtle, there is no need for childish insults. Regardless of what stance you have chosen on this occasion, the fact is, if you believe that striving for accuracy in a wiki article is "pathetic" then you are on the wrong site.

I hope we can resolve this peacefully now. 15:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not the discussion over content that's pathetic (though it's very trivial) - but the edit-warring (which you will find impossible to deny) certainly is. Please remember to sign your posts using four of these: ~ Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

There has been no edit-warring for about seven years, other than your edit that I reverted, so it's incredibly easy to deny when it has clearly not occurred. I have not breached the 3RR as my revert of your edit correctly reminded you to maintain consensus until the discussion surrounding the issue had concluded. You made the mistake of breaching consensus within a handful of minutes of your post, giving myself no time to respond and neither me nor Steinsky the time to come to any alternative proposals as we have successfully done so here. Reverting your mistake is not edit-warring, and it is not reasonable for you to act as if it were simply because you're not fond of being reminded not to jump the gun.

If you are referring to the previous edit-warring of years gone by, I agree that the edit-warring of such users is pathetic, but it is wholly unreasonable to tar me with the same brush seen as I was, again, very certainly not edit-warring myself. Preventing users (particularly rude and nasty ones) from POV-pushing and vandalism whilst maintaining an established consensus is not edit-warring, and it is impossible for you to pretend that it is. I deserve your respect for that, not your ridiculous and unfounded chastisement, so can you not become petty and unreasonable just because you were called out for your own mistake which, accidental though it may be, renders you the only one here guilty of edit-warring. It's not a big ask.

Additionally, why are you reminding us of the triviality of this issue when both users have admitted to it themselves? And why did you accuse Steinsky of original research for what was clearly a friendly gesture in the hope of making any further conversation a civil and pleasant one? It's not appropriate to become this passive aggressive when an issue has been resolved as fairly as it could be, so again, please watch your tone as you are veering towards becoming disruptive.

Case in point, I did sign that comment using the ~. Please can you actually bother to read my posts fully before replying to them (And the sinebot made a mistake, I had included the ~ in that post but it wasn't recognised by wiki). Thanks.82.4.221.138 (talk) 15:48, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

This is mildly amusing nonsense. If you signed correctly, your signature would have appeared. And, I suggest you should carefully read WP:3RR. Other than that, WP:TLDR. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Please do not lie, you are not even remotely amused, otherwise your otherwise-neutral tone that you maintained in these conversations over the last decade would not have suddenly shifted to one that is so passive aggressive and childish. I signed correctly, and the signature did not appear. I don't need to remind you of the existence of glitches, do I? Even if it had not been - and it was indeed - I have to question the integrity of an individual who points out what is, at best, a tiny and understandable mistake that the user consistently is not making. There is no need for such petulance just because the grandmaster of wiki isn't happy about being correctly chastised by an anonymous user for breaching consensus and his brief spell of edit-warring.

I suggest you yourself carefully read WP:3RR, my projecting friend. Rolling back edits that breach consensus while a discussion is still not only ongoing, but in fact presently active, is not in breach of the 3RR. Your edits were, however, in breach of established consensus, and rightfully removed, as the article I referred you to states. And by all means head off, your ridiculous comments are counter-productive and you don't seem inclined to be a helpful editor at the moment. However, please remember not to breach consensus on issues that have an active discussion, let alone try to claw back points by making nonsensical attempts to accuse others (both us faultlessly civil and respectful towards you) of misuse of this site. Doing so renders you a disruptive presence on the articles you are attempting to maintain, not to mention, in this case, playing fast and loose with the concept of logic. If you value your awards displayed on your page, I'm sure you value my advice.82.4.221.138 (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:NPA as well, please. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Considering you began this with calling people pathetic, I would advise you read your own material and stick to it for once. Also I can indeed point out disruptive behaviour in order to address it, of which you are the only guilty party.82.4.221.138 (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I did not call anyone "pathetic"; I said that edit-warring was "pathetic". Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

You just received a valid warning for edit warring but you're stating there hasn't been edit warring. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

If you call the behaviour of individuals "pathetic", yes, you are indeed calling those conducting that behaviour is pathetic. You are guilty of what you are accusing others of.

I did not receive a valid warning, and I am correctly asserting that there hadn't been any edit-warring except on ghmyrtle's part. You have started edit-warring yourself, however.82.4.221.138 (talk) 17:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)