Talk:Wales/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 →

BREAK - on the United Nations quote

A UN document has been found that lists Wales under Principality and not country: it is the only quote so far whch seems to possilby have something to it. However, the document doesn't explicitly say "Wales is not a country" (and nothing yet found does). Can we find evidence of the UN calling Wales a country? Wales is clear proof to me countries can be a Principality too! Wales has been considered a Principality since 1216 when the Princes of Wales were Welsh! --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The ISO 3166 standard does not list Wales as a country: [www.guavastudios.com/country-list.htm] Unlike what you said, this one has not been disguarded thank you. Gozitancrabz (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
For the upteenth time: England, Scotland and Wales etc are not on that country list, or most lists like them. The reason? Because the United Kingdom is there instead of them!! The UK represents the 'Constituent countries'. The United Kingdom is a collective and a unity, and for obvious legal reasons is seen as the 'country' in International law. It does not mean Wales, England etc cannot be a countries in within the union! You have never once adressed this, Gozitancrabz. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Is all this necessarey? Just show both sides of the argument and let the reader make up their mind. It is the most WP:NPOV!WikipÉIRE\(caint) 23:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Who says there is "two sides"? Who says Wales is not a country? I have never once read that line: just stuff about it being a Principality, and endless lists with the UK in them instead of the constituent countries. The evidence FOR Wales being a country is the same as for England and Scotland - massive and all-encompassing.--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems that if they are going to enforce their POV and refuse any of the links, then unfortunately, it is neccessary. -.- If by the morning, they are still refusing to listen to the links, can someone pleae file a mediation request. I am going to bed now. Night! Gozitancrabz (talk) 23:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
By carrying on just repeating like a parrot that you have 'all this proof that Wales isn't a country' (you don't), and never addressing comments like my one above on the UK you are simply destroying debate. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The whole issue is that legally Wales isn't a country ie UN,EU, lack of sovereignty etc but can be seen as a country by virtue of history and ethnicity. Thats the whole point.WikipÉIRE\(caint) 00:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't say the EU doesn't class Wales as a country: I'll look at the UN tomorrow. Generally the United Kingdom is the country in "international law", yes - but the EU sees Wales as a constituent country of the UK, and as having an identity that is classed as a country. The notoriously "PC" EU was created to be flexible with these matters. It doesn't have to hold member capacity to be recognised in this way.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


If a mediator is involved then they should look at the debate under constituent countries as well. Todate the argument for Wales being a country has cited official UK Government sources. The argument against has cited no source of any repute (school web sites, cult sites from the US) and has misinterpreted many of its own sources. The only argument which has any cited authority is the reference to a Principality. However this phrase is also used by the UK Government in conjunction with statements that Wales is a country. There is precedent elsewhere in the world which established that Principalities can be countries. Welsh history when it was independent was also based on Princes not Kings.
A simple review of the material here indicates that we have two editors who have a POV on the use of the word country and are trying to create a smokescreen in the face of official UK Government statements to get that POV across. Country is the neutral term and is in common use. The other thing that a review will reveal (if it includes the constituent country discussion) is the persistent refusal of the protagonists to engage with the evidence or show any respect for other editors attempting to engage them in the project. On the constituent country page one editor (also an administrator) put all of the evidence into a summary table and this was ignored.
Matt, I think we have at least one Troll here and I would not be provoked. This is a simple matter of evidence, and we should focus on that. --Snowded (talk) 02:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Alright - I've just caught that. He has actually got under my skin, so I'm going to back off a bit. He is pilling on the text and going for a war of attition - mainly by trying to scroll out of view all the stuff we write (most of which he is totally ignoring). I can't keep writing the same stuff again and again. Wikpeiire isn't reading it all either - it is evident in some of his comments. I spent a stupid amount of time in here yesterday and have to focus offline anyway. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
"The argument against has cited no source of any repute (school web sites, cult sites from the US" - if that is what you are calling the BBC, the EU, the UN, and the ISO?
"I think we have at least one Troll here and I would not be provoked" - please remain civil thank you. I am exhibiting no viewpoint, and am simply basing it on the sources. Gozitancrabz (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I back snowded here. AGF was kept past anybody's idea of a reasonable point. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Show the common decency to respond to the detailed criticism of your "sources" and also discuss the issues raised by other editors rather than ignoring them and I will happily with draw the label of Troll. Your only reputable sources reference Principality but do not say that Wales is not a country. Most of your sources turn out to be obscure sites (school web sites, news stories about insurance companies that you have not even read. Your BBC quotes are not from any formal BBC statement and have been countered. For the moment Troll is an accurate description, either that or you are politically naive and know nothing of research, source validation etc. --Snowded (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Have you even read the ISO list? (a very well internationally, reliable standard, I will add). It lists every single official country, and guess what; Wales isn't listed. The UN does not list Wales in its list of countries, and lists it as a principality. The same seems true with the EU one. So how about you discussing these issues. And how have I ignored what you are saying? Also, if I am a troll, then you should go report me to an admin right now - so do so; otherwise, retract the statement. If neither, I will raise the issue myself. Gozitancrabz (talk) 16:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The ISO list doesn't list England - is that not a country either? Who made you the judge of whether the alwasy-listed 'United Kingdom' can have 'constituent countries' or not? The EU recognises Wales as a country. The UN calls Wales a Principality but doesn't say whether that can be a country or not (it can).--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Colons again Gozitancrabz. I have made several comments on the fact that listing Wales as a principality does not exclude it being a country and the difference between lists of sovereign nations and countries. SO have others but you have not engaged with the debate. Until you do I have no intention of retracting the statement. Feel free to report me to whoever you will. I and others put a lot of effort into editing many pages. This whole debate (which you initiated) has consumed a huge amount of time and your refusal to engage with views of others plus your quoting (without withdrawal or apology) highly dubious sources (some of which you have not even read) makes your behaviour provocative. As I said above there comes a time when there is a need for a compromise. The suggested edit by Wikipiere makes the sovereign nation point well and handles the UN list in a way which I think is acceptable. I suggest you read it.--Snowded (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Are we talking about the same ISO 3166 list that includes Svalbard and South Georgia on its list of countries ? It's pretty arbitrary. Why does it have Svalbard, a legal part of Norway, as a country but not Shetland, a legal part of the UK ? Nevertheless if that list is evidence that South Georgia, with no legal system, government, or citizens is a country. Then surely Wales which (at least has citizens, never mind its assembly) passes Gozitancrabz's country test with flying colours. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you telling me you are going to ignore the UN, EU, and ISO sources? Gozitancrabz (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you once again going to completely ignore the conversation and repeat yourself over and over again? If you continue to do this people may start to think there is no point talking to you! --Jack forbes (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
You are the one ignoring us. Whatever your oppinion of the UN, EU, and ISO, they are reliable sources. And in response to someone saying they do not say Wales "isn't" a country; well these lists list everything they consider a country, and the fact Wales has been left out is significant. Please stop ignoring that point. Gozitancrabz (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Gozitancrabz, I now consider this abuse. It is not unlike holocaust denial: I live in a country of 3 million Welsh people for Christ's sake! We are not 'New Mexicans' or something like that.
  • The ISO list uses the collective title of 'United Kingdom' above using the 'constituent countries' of Wales, England etc (as all country lists do, including Wikipedias).
  • The ISO and EU examples CANNOT be used with the UN example: the UN accepts 'constituent countries of the UK', and the ISO and EU use the UK as the collective title! (and the EU calls Wales a country anyway).
  • The EU was built to recognise constituent countries like Wales (its not just about member states) - it really is clueless to say the EU. The EU recognises Wales as a country.
  • The UN document (the SINGLE shred of evidence I have seen) list Wales as a 'Principality' WHILE AT THE SAME TIME CALLING England and Scotland constituent 'countries'. The question is: do they recognise that a Principality can be a country too? Of course they do! Why the hell wouldn't they? Wales itself is proof of it. The UN is a representational body (what else is it?).
I have now repeated the 'United Kingdom in lists' issue in particular so much (without any response) that I feel happy calling Gozitancrabz a troll. Shall we get mediation? He/she has no reason to be here other than to disrupt. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Political organisations aren't particularly reliable sources. And if there's one thing that the UN, EU and ISO have in common, it's that they are highly political organisations. I would not want to use their opinions to settle whether Tibet was an independent state, nor to settle what might constitute or not constitute a country, since they are so much influenced by their members political interests and territorial ambitions. Ignoring them would definitely be the sensible thing to do. An academic source would be far better. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Please don't take his word for his statements above: he's a troll. I 've gone through them again. I agree that academic consensus is strong though (with a significant weight of good historical texts) - good point. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
"Ignoring them would definitely be the sensible thing to do." Totally... if you want to push POV that is. You have no right whatsoever to push your views these are not reliable sources. Wikipedia clearly states they are, and as such, their views must be reflected. Gozitancrabz (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't get excited - this is clear trolling. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Can people please give their opinions on the compromise introduction sentence which shows both sides of the argument, instead of all this continued arguing?WikipÉIRE\(caint) 17:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
"Compromise" over my country - no. I've already said in Talk why I feel Principality should be at the bottom of the Intro - refer to earlier in Talk if you want to see why: It is formal and not used colloquially at all. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
If we are to use what is used colloquialy then take note of: the word "country" can be sometimes viewed as synonymous with "sovereign state," as one may often find in colloquial usage. If Principailty is a formal definition then it should be there. The compromise includes both.WikipÉIRE\(caint) 18:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Why should it be up there because it’s a formal definition? I'm having a break here now - I've got really wound up and it's affecting my offline life. I cannot accept a line (or suggestion) in the article saying that "there is debate" about this when there ISN'T. This horrible shit only happens on Wikipedia. Everyone was happy with the existing parag on Principality (which puts it in its historical context) - to move it up the top would disrupt that context and would give a rarely used word over-prominence. I don't accept you and Gozitancrabz as a 'party' to "compromise" with, however persistent you are: it would make a mockery of Wikipedia if I did.
THE ARTICLE IS FINE AS IT IS ON THIS MATTER. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) Please remember to keep your comments civil, for about the fifth time Matt. Swearing, capitalizations, personal attacks such as your frequent reference to me and Wikipiere being "troll"s, all contribute to unvility. Please stop, or you could be given a warning, or a block for your actions. Gozitancrabz (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Any reasonable person would get frustrated at your unprofessional refusal to engage with any argument placed in front of you, your assertion (but not withdrawal) of poor quality sources, or sources that do not actually support your position. I don't see that Matt is behaving unreasonably here, the disruptive element is clearly you. It is a long time since I have seen this degree of abuse of wikipedia by an editor clearly pushing a position without any intention (or it seems ability) to engage in debate in a reasonable way. --Snowded (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
It's a shame this had to go to mediation but at least now the arguing will stop. Let's all now sit tight and see what judgement is made.WikipÉIRE\(caint) 21:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I'm back. (From the archives that is.) Phillip's Great and Collin's world atlases don't include wales in the lists of countries, while having Wale's borders marked as an admin. devision. And while i'm at it, can you tell me one single difference between Wales and a USA state. 122.109.250.74 (talk) 10:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

First Minister over Prime Minister?

I would like to suggest that the First Minister should be shown above the Prime Minister as the article is actually about Wales. If you look at articles on American states, Australian states, and Canadian Provinces you will see there is no mention of Presidents or Prime Ministers in the infoboxes! I don't actually propose the removal of the PM, just the reordering of the names. A discussion on this subject is currently going on at the Scotland talk page and I was wondering if anyone at this talk page would agree with this change to the Wales article. --Jack forbes (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Normally, I'd agree to this. But, seeing as England has no First Minister? I'd suggest keeping status-quo (UK PM above First Minister). GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
England having no First Minister has no bearing on this proposal. I feel as though I've been here before! --Jack forbes (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The fact that England has no First Minister has nothing to do with this article. I therefore support the proposal Welshleprechaun (talk) 00:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind either way, although with the Queen at the top, the PM is 'next in line' so to speak. Yet if we ordered by 'hands-on' importance, we would put the Queen at the bottom, with the Secretary of State and then the PM above. Then Jones, and Morgan first. We certainly need colons in there - it reads like two columns! --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree first minister (also agree with Matt to take it further) --Snowded (talk) 04:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there an agreement to change the infobox? If so, is it the change mentioned by Matt and agreed by Snowded, or the one I suggested? For the record, I would be happy with either one. --Jack forbes (talk) 13:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

We could see what the longer one looks like. I'd rather not make the edit at the moment, if you fancy it doing it: I'll support it if it looks appropriate. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I've just changed the names around for the moment. If a longer format is needed perhaps someone with more expertise could do it, I'm still learning as I go along! --Jack forbes (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have also left the monarch at the top of the page. If there is a consensus to move her down we will do that. --Jack forbes (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine. The Queen would have to go at the bottom for it to make sense, though (ie. as a top-down 'hands on' importance list). I think it needs colons too, just to stop it from looking like two columns (which it did before). --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll do that later, the wife is dragging me out shopping. Ahhh...the joy :< --Jack forbes (talk) 15:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Queen at the bottom sounds good --Snowded (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Looks tidy. Good call WL (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)