Misplaced Pages

Talk:Wales: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:33, 1 March 2014 editMatt Lewis (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers9,196 edits →Alternative proposed wording of new paragraph on ethnicity: What is interpretation from me?← Previous edit Latest revision as of 11:07, 15 December 2024 edit undoSirfurboy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users21,585 edits →History Section: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 14
|minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Wales/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{ArticleHistory {{ArticleHistory
|action1=GAN |action1=GAN
Line 25: Line 19:
|action3result=kept |action3result=kept
|action3oldid= |action3oldid=

|action4=GAR
|action4date=18:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Wales/1
|action4result=kept
|action4oldid= 984721271


|currentstatus=GA |currentstatus=GA
|topic=Places |topic=Places
}} }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|vital=yes|1=
{{Skip to talk}}
{{WikiProject Wales|importance=Top}}
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{WikiProject Celts|importance=Top}}
{| class="messagebox standard-talk"
{{WikiProject United Kingdom|importance=Top }}
|-
{{WikiProject UK geography|importance=Top }}
|align="center"|The issue of whether Wales is a country or not has been repeatedly raised.<br> The result of all these debates is that <font color="red">'''Wales is indeed a country'''</font>. This has been confirmed in formal mediation. <br>
{{WikiProject Countries}}

{{WikiProject Anthropology|oral-tradition=yes}}
The discussion is summarised ''']'''. Further information on the countries within the UK can be found at ], and a table of ] can be found at ].
|}
{{Outline of knowledge coverage|Wales}}
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=Geography|class=GA}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject UK geography |class=GA |importance=Top }}
{{WikiProject Wales|importance=Top|class=GA}}
{{V0.5|class=GA|category=Geography}}
{{WikiProject United Kingdom |importance=Top |class=GA }}
{{WikiProject Celts|importance=Top|class=GA}}
{{WikiProject Countries |class=GA
|b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = yes
|b2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> = yes
|b3 <!-- Structure --> = yes
|b4 <!-- Grammar and style --> = yes
|b5 <!-- Supporting materials --> = yes
|b6 <!-- Accessible --> = yes}}
}} }}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{archive box|search=yes | bot = MiszaBot | age = 3 | units=months |index=/Archive index|
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
# ]
|maxarchivesize = 150K
# ]
|counter = 19
# ]
|minthreadsleft = 5
# ]
|algo = old(30d)
# ]
# ] |archive = Talk:Wales/Archive %(counter)d
}}
# ]
{{Welsh English}}
#*]
{{tmbox|text=The issue of whether Wales is a country or not has been repeatedly raised. The consensus of those discussions is that <span style="color:red;">'''Wales is indeed a country'''</span>. The discussion is summarised ''']'''. Further information on the countries within the UK can be found at ], and a table of ] can be found at ].
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
}} }}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index
|mask=/Archive <#>
|mask=/Archive country poll
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes}}
__TOC__

== Government and politics images ==

I removed the image of First Minister Carwyn Jones from the Government and politics section (since reverted) for two reasons. Firstly, per ]. Jones has been First Minister of Wales since December 2009 – less than four years. If anyone should be pictured in the section, Rhodri Morgan would be my first choice - he was in office for the best part of ten years. However, while I accept that many articles show their country's current leader, MOS has no requirement to do so AFAIK, and not all country articles do e.g. Ireland and Northern Ireland. The second reason was that the image bled into the following (Local Government) section, making the article look amateurish. The section is too short to accommodate three images (and the image of the Senedd should remain). May I suggest an alternative resolution? Replace the image of the royal badge of Wales with the image of Carwyn Jones. Any objections? ] (]) 10:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
:Certainly none from me.<br /><strong>— &#124; ] &#124; <small>]</small> &#124;</strong> — 11:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
::No problem. I think an image of the current political leader helps reinforce the message to readers that Wales is a current political entity. ] (]) 14:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
:::{{done}} ] (]) 09:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

== Royal Badge of Wales. ==

You people are aware that the Welsh government has a coat of arms right? Why isnt it featured next to the flag like all the over government coat of arms from various countries? http://en.wikipedia.org/Royal_Badge_of_Wales <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:The Welsh government doesn't have sovereignty over Wales, unlike other states. I'm bothered either way however. ''']''' (]) 20:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
::Please expand "bothered either way"! <strong>— &#124; ] &#124;<small>]</small>]&#124; —</strong> 20:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

:::I don't mind whether it's included or not, since I have little idea of the extent to which the Royal Badge symbolises Wales. I disagree with the ] assertion that a symbol of a Government, is by essence, a national symbol. And it may incorrect in this case, since the Royal Badge doesn't represent the sovereign of Wales. Simply, a symbol represents a country, if it is used to represent the country. ''']''' (]) 21:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
::::The Royal Badge is not the badge of the Welsh government. It's the badge of the Queen in Wales. ] ] (]) 21:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
:::::Thanks, as ever, to {{U|Ghmyrtle|Ghmyrtle}} for clarifying this! <strong>— &#124; ] &#124;<small>]</small>]&#124; —</strong> 21:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
:::::I don't think whether it's a coat of arms or not is conclusive, various national symbols are placed along side flags in countries' infoboxes, but I don't think the badge is a national symbol. ''']''' (]) 21:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2014 ==

{{edit semi-protected|<!-- Page to be edited -->|answered=yes}}
<!-- Begin request -->

In the second par in the main article, this sentence should have a comma added after "century":
"Welsh national identity emerged among the Celtic Britons after the Roman withdrawal from Britain in the 5th century and Wales is regarded as one of the modern Celtic nations."

<!-- End request -->
] (]) 01:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)Listserv
:] '''Done'''<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 19:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

== Commas ==

If a sentence looks like "(subject) (predicate), and (another subject) (another predicate)" or "(subject) (predicate), (another predicate), and (yet another predicate)", commas are correct. If it looks like "(subject) (predicate) and (another predicate)", commas should not be used. ] (]) 19:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

:Indeed. So shall we put them all back now? ] (]) 19:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
:{{ec}}Okay, I've looked at all of the disputed commas. A few commas, such as the ones in "light and service industries, and ]" and "governors, and the flower of its youth", are Oxford commas and can go either way. Most of Marimari2k1's removal were correct, and I've fixed the few that weren't. ] (]) 20:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

== ==

Edits:
*Infobox tidy.
**Removed translations out of piped links per WP:OVERLINK.
**Added ''native phrase'' template to motto.
**Removed links next to names of ministers regarding their membership to legislatures, as they're pointless with the ''(HMG)''
**''UK'' > ''HMG'', Actual abbreviation for British Government.
**''US$'' > ''USD'', ''USD'' is more correct. (''$'' is also applicable)
**Removed ''(UK)'' next to ''+44'', calling codes cover a variety of regions, and are not necessarily specific to sovereign states.
**Removed dividing line, a section of the infobox lacking a heading is inconsistent formatting. Also, the ''(HMG)'' clarifies which ministers are part of the British Government.
**Added soundtrack for anthem.
**Other minor formatting edits'
*Introduction edits.
**Irish Sea is part of the Atlantic.
**Expanded location description.
**'bordered by England' > 'shares a border with ]' Better wording?
**'part of the United Kingdom and the island of Great Britain' > 'part of the United Kingdom. Predominantly located on ]' More correct.
**Other minor wording.

Issues?

Regards, ''']''' (] | ]) 20:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
:A few (thanks for discussing this):
:* I have never heard Wales' motto noted in English. It is a translation only and, as such, should be in 'small'
:* The national anthem is known as ''Land of my fathers'' in English, which should be noted.
:* The sound file is not of sufficient quality to appear in the infobox (this has been discussed )
:* The dividing line was created deliberately in order to differentiate between the Welsh Government and the UK Government (this has been discussed)
:* The UK Government should be noted as the UK Government.
:* Gruffydd ap Llywelyn's name should be noted in full
:* No need to note 'UK' after +44
:* Dewi Sant should be part of the Wikilink
:* The opening paragraph, and especially the opening sentence, has the been subject of extensive discussion. It must not be changed without achieving concensus on the talk page. I would personally prefer some of the changes made (although none of those made to the opening sentence), but they should still be agreed first on talk. ] (]) 22:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

::Oh, I didn't explain some things clearly, I'll go though:
::*The ''englishmotto'' section is for translations, and displays the translation in the same way it was previously (this hasn't actually changed anything).
::*National anthem in English - Okay
::*Sound file not appropriate - Okay
::*Dividing line - I'll look further into this
::*UK Government should be noted as the UK Government - I poorly explained this. Currently, next to 'Prime Minister' it states '(UK)', I changed this to '(HMG)', the abbreviation for the British Government, rather then the UK. Ie, it would state 'Prime Minister (HMG)' rather then 'Prime Minister (UK)'. This is because the First Minister is a British (UK) minister, they're just not a British Government (HMG) minister.
::*Gruffydd ap Llywelyn's name in full - Okay
::*No need to note 'UK' after +44 - I'm guessing this means you agree.
::*Including 'Dewi Sant' within the Wikilink is over-linking (]). Since it's clearly a translation of the linked text, linking it also doesn't serve any purpose. Although these are part of the same link, it is still essentially linking the same term twice, right next to each-other.
::*Introduction agreed first - Okay
::''']''' (] | ]) 23:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

== Changes to Demography section ==

I've reverted for several reasons. Firstly, they are poorly written: ''"According to the 2011 census the population of Wales is...."'' - no, it ''was'', almost three years ago. ''"Populace"....."reside"....."Historiclly"'', etc. Verbosity and poor spelling should be discouraged in articles. More importantly, in Matt's version there was an over-emphasis on, and over-detailed interpretation of, the census statistics on national identity, which seem to be written up in a ]y manner. Some referenced information seems to have been removed. The previous text was better balanced, and better written, so I have reverted to it - and subsequently tweaked it a little for better flow. ] (]) 11:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

:NO REFERENCES WERE REMOVED BY ME. I removed the POINTY-ness! That's what my edit was about. You could have changed spelling error and the odd word. But you just full-revert. ] (]) 15:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
::If you didn't remove references, I apologise. Sometimes the "compare" function makes it very difficult to see what changes have actually been made. ] (]) 16:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
=== Dealing with Original Research in the demographics section (the section was also very jumbled) ===

I don't have much time right now... but made an edit this morning which took me a lot of time last night and this morning too. It improves the oft-jumbled text of the Demographics section, and CLEARS UP ONE VITALLY IMPORTANT AREA OF ORIGINAL RESEARCH AND MISINFORMATION.

The text gave someone's own personal reading of a Census data sheet: I've simply shown the data as percentages: not interpreted and judged on it. The incorrect and 'OR' reading is/was said '''"34.1 per cent had no Welsh identity. 16.9 per cent considered themselves wholly British and another 9.4 per cent considered themselves as partly British. <u>73.7 per cent had no British identity</u>."''' (my underline)

80 percent of people in Wales ticked only one box - mostly ticked Welsh, as they asked to after 2001. That does not mean they are not British. '''There nationality (the census question) is chosen here as Welsh.''' That's how it works in the UK. People can choose to say one or the other in the UK (that was the whole point of people wanting it in - I did myself after 2001, not becaise I'm not British!), it doesn not mean they are not the other - ie British nor Welsh! Many (I think most) people in England and Wales think that Welsh, Engilsh etc just IS British by default: that's the '''legal''' idea too. The qestion asked '''"How would you describe your nationality"'''. Everyone knows most people just say their 'sub-nat', not their 'super-nat'. It's just the way it is. Britishness can even be seen as beyond-national anyway. It can also be seen as a simple legal default people accept. The do not have to be mutually exclusive.

We just cannot make these sweeping interpretations. As a side, we actually know that the whole census was actually regarded as confusing by over 50% of people. We also cannot say that 34.1 percent are '''NOT Welsh'''. It's pure Original Research. The Welsh gov summaries allude to what people put, not what they ARE. I added information the following 'ethnic group?' question on the census as it expanded (and shed light on) on the very same theme.

All we need offer people is the information. We don't have to tell them what to think.

I put this alternative in instead (which adds relevant missing information, like the first line, and various data.)

(https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wales&diff=next&oldid=596754513#Demographics)

:The census of 2001 was criticised by many in Wales for not offering 'Welsh' as an option to describe their national identity.<ref name="Census row (2001)">{{cite web | url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2288147.stm | title=Census results 'defy tickbox row' | publisher=BBC Online | accessdate=February 23, 2014}}</ref> Partly to address this concern the 2011 census offered a list of choices. It asked the question "How would you describe your national identity?" and underneath was a direction to "tick all that apply". 80% of the participants in Wales ticked one box, with 57.5 percent ticking 'Welsh' (65.9 percent in some combination), 11.2 percent ticking 'English' (13.8 percent in some combination), 0.5 percent ticking 'Scottish' (0.6 percent in some combination), 0.13 percent ticking 'Northern Irish' (0.15 percent in some combination), and 16.9 percent ticking 'British' (26 percent in some combination). 3.4 percent filled out 'Other', which included 0.4 instances that are the same as those above. The largest 'Other' was 'Irish', with 0.3 ticking 'Irish' (0.4 percent in some combination).<ref name="2011 identity">{{cite web|title=2011 Census: KS202EW National identity, unitary authorities in Wales (Excel sheet 126Kb) |page=3 |date=11 December 2012 |url=http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/key-statistics-for-unitary-authorities-in-wales/rft-table-ks202ew.xls |publisher=] |accessdate=28 September 2013}}</ref>

:Identity was also the theme of the following question, which asked "What is your ethnic group?" The most-chosen option was 'White: Welsh/English/Scottish/Northern Irish/British' at 93.2 percent, a fall from 96 percent for the equivalent option of 'British' in 2001.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.esds.ac.uk/government/themes/ethnicity/sb53-2004.pdf |title=A Statistical Focus on Ethnicity in Wales |publisher=National Assembly for Wales| page=1| year=2004 |accessdate=10 February 2012}}</ref> The next most-chosen option was 'Asian or Asian British' at 2.3 percent, followed by 'Mixed race' at 1 percent, 'Black or Black British' at 0.6 percent, and 'Irish' and 'Other' 0.5 percent each. The figure given for 'Total Black and minority ethnic' people was 4.4 percent, a significant rise from 2.1 percent in 2001.<ref name="ethnic group question">{{cite web | url=http://wales.gov.uk/docs/statistics/2012/121217sb1262012en.pdf | title="What is your ethnic group?" question from 2011 Census | publisher=Welsh Government | date=December 17, 2012 | accessdate=February 23, 2014}}</ref>

I Have to quickly go out quickly now, I do apologise. But Please read my work (it's always considered). Thanks. ] (]) 15:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

:We really shouldn't be interpreting the raw census results ourselves at all - we should be relying on secondary sources. is one such source - maybe not the best, but it covers the point. And we certainly should not be overstating the case made on one side or the other. I'd support removing the entire existing paragraph on national identity, and replacing it, thus:
:Existing paragraph:<blockquote>The 2011 census showed that 57.5% of Wales' population considered their national identity as wholly Welsh and another 8.3% considered themselves to be partly Welsh (Welsh and British were the most common combination). 34.1% had no Welsh identity. 16.9% considered themselves wholly British and another 9.4% considered themselves as partly British. 73.7% had no British identity. 11.2% considered themselves wholly English and another 2.6% considered themselves partly English.<ref name="2011 identity">{{cite web|title=2011 Census: KS202EW National identity, unitary authorities in Wales (Excel sheet 126Kb) |page=3 |date=11 December 2012 |url=http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/key-statistics-for-unitary-authorities-in-wales/rft-table-ks202ew.xls |publisher=] |accessdate=28 September 2013}}</ref> </blockquote>

:My suggestion:<blockquote>The 2011 census showed that 65.9% of Wales' population described their national identity as Welsh; 26.3% described it as British; 13.8% described it as English; and 4.3 described it as "other". The percentages total more than 100% because some residents declared more than one national identity.<ref name="ciemen">{{cite web|date=11 December 2012 |url=http://www.nationalia.info/en/news/1284 |publisher=CIEMEN |accessdate=23 February 2014}}</ref>
</blockquote>
:] (]) 15:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

::I'm glad you agree we shouldn't be interpreting the data at all, but for me it's got to be worth giving the actual question, and why not each statistic too? I actually fully-expected to find the section done that way. It's all useful stuff isn't it? We also absolutely need the ethnicity question, as it expands on the identity question. It's the best raw data (and reference, frankly) that there is: a census.

::I'd love to give my interpretation underneath it all(!), but I did only give a lot of facts. I know you find what I wrote somehow 'pointy' (was it the order of things?), but I really do try and be aware of that kind of thing. ''What do you think is actually pointy about it?'' Maybe we could address that in turn.

::Off the record, I think you can actually take something positive from my text whichever 'side' of the emotional dispute you are on: ie whether you'd rather see I'm-nothing-but-Welsh, or I'm-just-British or I'm British-too! If only you knew the hours I've spent here over the years - in my numerous article edits at least - to try and compromise with the emotional positions of others: and specifically not to make anything I write 'pointy'! I always want things to be balanced, objective and well-made. If there ''is'' anything 'directional' about it, it's just to convey meaning, and perhaps help other people from making the kind of interpretive mistakes that the writer of the dodgy text I highlighted above made. ie - give full-informative text that can stand the test of time.

::Re the sources, I'd agree the one you've found is not ideal. I must have spent an hour at least on that side last night. I think it just happens to be difficult in this particular area. A surprise perhaps, but that seems to be true. Good sources must be out there, but I think that sometimes people here do expect them to be close at hand - ie we take the internet for granted sometimes. In the absence of them - and we'd need a few interpretations to write 'balance' that/this sentences - I think it's even more useful just to give all the raw data, as I have done. And in a way that hopefully no one sees as 'pointy' obviously.

::By the way, I've thought the Wales article has been imperfectly-written in parts for more like 10 years, let alone 3! A lot of Misplaced Pages is still like that. If the offending parts here have indeed existed unchanged for 3 years, then for 3 years the article has been promulgating some highly-contentious and decidedly non-policy 'Original Research', albeit rather hidden-away in the demographics section. Perhaps it's no wonder that one or two non-Welsh (or non-Welsh residing) Wikipedians appear a bit confused about these issues. ] (]) 18:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't favour providing percentage figures that don't add up to 100% (excluding rounding), when they could and should. It leads to confusion. Anyway, we don't have to interpret the raw data. ONS have done that for us in : see KS202EW Percentages, Row 441 (Wales). That 34.1% of people living in Wales have no Welsh identity (column M), and 73.7% have no British identity (column X) is notable, accurate and informative, and can be cited. ] (]) 18:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

:::I admit that source is very pungent (far too much so from my point of view) but if you read the ''exact wording'' Dai, you'll see that they are referring to what people ''put'', not what they ''are''. I'm planning to ring them about it tomorrow (I want to see it made clearer), and I'll forecast right now that the reason I've just given is exactly what they'll say to cover themselves. From their point of view, the Welsh Government always had problems with the initial 1998 democratic mandate only being 25% of the total electorate (ie it was passed by 50% or a 50% turnout). In the mini referendum of 2011 even less people voted, so they immediately used this census to effectively bolster what democratic mandate they had - basically by stressing how Welsh everyone felt. In a way, one can hardly blame them. It's just politics essentially, but you have to really look at the wording. Like a lawyer might perhaps. ] (]) 21:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

:It is not the case that the figures "should" add up to 100% - in statistical terms it is perfectly reputable to note that, in cases where one more than option can be chosen, the figures will total more than 100%. My objection to spelling out all the permutations in detail is simply that it is unnecessary, and potentially confusing to itemise them all. We should keep it simple. It may at first glance ''seem'' noteworthy, for example, that 73.7% have no British identity - but is it, really, when the figure for the North East of England is 74.3%, for Merseyside 75.6%, and for England as a whole 70.7%? If the Wales figures are included, they should be compared with the figures for England, at least. But, if secondary sources which comment on the figures can't be found, it raises the question of how noteworthy they actually are. Rather than expanding the paragraph, I think a case can be made for removing it entirely - but, I would prefer simply to shorten it as I've suggested. ] (]) 19:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

::::I think that listing all the stats as I've done - with the combined votes in brackets, actually shows what you alluded to above regarding England, and the all other evidence regarding UK Britishness: ie that an impossibly-to-know number of people clearly found it sufficient to just tick one box. You look at the 'Northern Irish' stat especially (were most people would expect at least half to say 'British'), as you think: hmm, all these people are following the same pattern: maybe I shouldn't draw too many obvious conclusions? Basically, if we list all the stats, the reader can make up their own mind. I hope that doesn't sound too pointy: I just think by giving it all, people can then read what in it whatever they choose too. Beginning that 80% of people ticked one box is really useful in this regard. We are here to help people attain a balanced understanding of things after all. As there clearly exists a very large figure for people saying they are "Welsh": the 'national pride element' is self-explanatory and automatically covered I think. Most people in Wales clearly identify as being Welsh!

::::This discussion may be about the tension between 'pointiness' and the kind of elucidation that is necessary for balance and meaning. I've certainly found no way of shortening it all though: condensing this data seems to just retain the various problems over representation to me, so I favour the list. ] (]) 21:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

::"73.7 per cent had no British identity" sounds a very bold statement. Maybe the census figures just prove that some people like to tick more boxes than others. But then I'm always very ]. ] (])

::::Why? It only cost half a billion pounds, and only a little over 50% of people found it confusing in some way. Bargain.

::::(I think we all in Wales owe a lot to the 'Welsh not' by the way. Teachers of the time found that bilingual classroom were impossible to effectively teach and learn in, just as any teacher would today. It's often said to be a wicked 'English act', but essentially these British/Welsh people of the day (most of them Welsh, being in Wales) did it for our future. The teachers were largely Welsh, but naturally recognised the need for English language learning. It's just a shame that the Welsh language died-back so much out of school, at least in the more-populated south of the country. But that's life, and all reports show they just can't turn that around however much they now try - and they are spending a small fortune pursuing it in my view. I'm just-about old enough to remember the remnants of corporal punishment myself - that side of it pretty unpleasant I admit, but that was how they achieved those kind of disciplinary things in those days alas). English has given us the world, and we can't boast about most of our 'heroes' without it, that's for sure. ] (]) 21:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

:::This is an example of where we need to be very careful with words, to avoid the possibility of misleading readers. The census ''doesn't'' show that 73.7% "had no British identity". It shows the proportion of the total who did not tick the "British" box under the question on "National identity". That is, it shows the percentage who ''did not indicate'' a British identity, rather than the proportion who ''had no'' British identity. ] (]) 20:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
::::<small> "It's worse that that, he's ], Jim." ] (]) 20:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC) </small>

::::That is exactly my point. It's the same with the line that says "34.1% had no Welsh identity". Can we really say that about people who just put 'British'? As I remember writing in a pretty well-received UK-naming guideline about 7 years ago, UK identity has always been far too complicated to draw simple conclusions about anyone. ] (]) 21:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
:::::Matt, I remember your UK-naming guideline with unremitting fondness. But I refuse to fill in that damned census until they print it in ]. ] (]) 21:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC) </small>
:::::Well I doubt only 29.3% of English people support Murry. The question asked 'How would you describe your <u>national</u> identity?'. I would think many Brits would identify as 'British' likewise to 'European', or 'Welsh' likewise to 'Cardiffian', but not see that as there ''national'' identity. Sources use the phrase 'national identity' interchangeably with 'identity' which is misleading. I think stating '73.7% did not describe there national identity as British' or similar is clear. ''']''' (] &#124; ]) 23:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

::::::But technically saying you are Welsh ''is'' actually saying you are British isn't it? Most of the time I certainly don't see them as any different. I live in the modern world, not the iron age. I don't think you can extract any 'British only' identity out of this data at all. It's just a flaw within the question. I think that the people filling it in were just trying to be ''useful'' as much as anything. What ''use'' is it just providing British? Or even doing both? It's the mindset of someone filling a census (already slightly befuddled as people do hate forms don't they - apart from Wikipidians of course!). Welsh, English etc - these are enough to place and satisfy people, and it's what we are. It's like the thing was unintentionally playing with people's heads. Looking around for good sources I've seen some really unpleasant right wing websites making hay with these statistics ("we are English and X people aren't!!"): but it's just flawed data. As I've already said, I actually complained to the guy who picked it up (he had to come back twice for me and was just a touch nervous the second time as legally I had to do it), and over another couple of questions regarding mental illness too: it wasn't a great census it really wasn't.

::::::I think we are actually making the same mistakes the question-compilers made: trying to oversimplify something that can't be this oversimplified. With a little more attention to detail: ie not treating people as idiots, it can be done. Oversimplification to the point of atrophy is a classic form maker's fault. Sorry I'm full of anecdotes, but I was asked to fill in something called a 'carer's assessment form' not that long ago, and the ''very first'' question on it was (almost exactly something like) "do you consider yourself to be Welsh?". I found it so impossible to imagine what they could do with any actual answer I could supply that I genuinely refused to fill in the whole form (and they accepted that too, hopefully out of embarrassment). I didn't think of saying this to them at the time, but couldn't they get that from the census? I just don't get it: as I said to them too - a lot of this 'identity building' stuff does creep me out. You're lucky it's not the place for more stories I tell you.
::::::The 2011 census was so obviously flawed in this area I think it's crazy trying to re-phrase any of it at all. We don't need to. Just give the data in percentages and in the most readable way possible. Some of it is fairly useful data: but only as raw data, not in an attempted summary. I hope this doesn't become a giant debate because I don't really understand what the problem is. It's always seems to be a colossal effort to improve anything on the main Welsh articles. I really don't feel comfortable with the current misinformation still up: I know it's been there a long time, but I don't think it's healthy and it's pure 'OR'. Keeping the version that is clearly incorrect makes no sense to me at all: my effort wasn't that bad was it? I basically just noticed a fault in the article, and did the 'work load' to correct what needed to be done. It's not my entry into an art competition. It just needs tinkering at best, a couple more refs maybe. Anyway I'll try and adjust and revise it per suggestions tomorrow. ] (]) 00:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
:::::::The danger is that you will be wasting your time. There is no consensus here yet as to the ''direction'' any changes to the text should take. Some want that paragraph expanded (for clarification), others want it minimised (to avoid mystification and undue weight). Frankly, if the statistics are to be expanded, it should be at an article like ] - where there is already a section on ''Scottish'' identity, and which this article could then link to - rather than this one. ] (]) 08:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

::::::::These results are precisely the kind of statistics an encylopaedia should show in a country's demographics section. I take your point, however, that census respondents did not say they did not have any Welsh or British identity. I suggest: “34.1% stated no Welsh identity. 16.9% considered themselves wholly British and another 9.4% considered themselves as partly British. 73.7% stated no British identity.” ] (]) 10:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::Replace 'identity' with 'national identity' and that wording is okay. I would only describe my <u>national</u> identity as British, but I still identify as English fairly often. I simply don't think the English are a nation. ''']''' (] &#124; ]) 12:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

::::::::::I still prefer my wording (up above at 15:44, 23 February 2014). Dai's suggestion still contains some interpretation of the statistics - using words like "considered themselves" rather than "stated that", which could be misleading<s>, and also in inferring a negative from the residual figures - like "34.1% stated no Welsh identity" when what the figures show is that 65.9% stated a Welsh national identity</s>. I also still think, as I stated before, that some of the figures may be interpreted by readers as having more significance than they actually do, given the figures for other parts of the UK. I can see merit in putting a table in the ] article, linked from this article - which would provide some clarity. ] (]) 12:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::Rob: A lot of people do though. Most people just don't think about it on this level: that's a central reason this data came out like it did I think.

:::::::::Dai: regarding "34.1% stated no Welsh identity", why not just say 'ticked Welsh' like I did, after I helpfully said what the question was, and gave supplied the raw data as percentages? I don't think we should attempt to summarise at all, simply because it's an impossible thing to do accurately here. The word 'stated' sounds like those people actually ''meant'' to convey they had no Welsh identity at all, but we know that can not be the case the tune of over a third of Wales. As I've said, if I myself just ticked 'British' it would naturally include 'Welsh', just as putting 'Welsh' would naturally include 'British'. Unfortunately I can't actually remember which route I took now (I can think of four possible ones, including writing something in 'other'), other than to point the question out to the returning collector, as I said. It was only a couple of years ago, and I think the fact that I can't remember actually say quite a lot. I think I'll ask around out of interest - see who else isn't sure now what they specifically put.

:::::::::Gh: Regarding "wasting time", that is 90% of Misplaced Pages in controversial areas, isn't it? And surely the Wales article is indented to cover all the sub-article information at least to some degree. If this misleading 'OR' is repeated in those articles too, it needs to be addressed and corrected. I can't accept the current content to just remain the same that's for sure. Misplaced Pages's 'consensus' rule just doesn't work in the specific topic discussion pages of these particular areas. People have been saying it for years: Too many socks, too may same old faces, too many jaded ignorers, and too many people saying they just won't go near: four reasons that effectively kill the consensus rule. But it doesn't mean that those present can't still come to an agreement. Anyway: to summarise this particular data will always be Original Research (ie ] in my opinion. ] (]) 13:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::::That's not the point. The wording of the question was: 'How would you describe your <u>national</u> identity?'. Someone may identify as Cardiffian, Welsh, British and European, but only describe there national identity as 'British', 'Welsh' or both. From that question, you can't conclude that '34.1% stated no Welsh identity'.

:::::::::::To be clear on my position, I don't really think it's too important what terms we use ('ticked', 'described' or 'stated'), but my preference is 'described' as that's what the question states.
:::::::::::''']''' (] &#124; ]) 13:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Did they answer the question though? They ticked a box, they didn't "describe" anything. It's too far removed. It's just not logical to transfer the wording to this degree. We need one of those 'logicians' here. ] (]) 14:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

::::::::::::I stick to what I said earlier. Rather than placing ''any'' interpretation on the census results ourselves, we should rely on what secondary sources say. , I repeat, is a secondary source that summarises the information and appears to be as reliable as is necessary. We should use the text in that article (and any others that we can find) to present a summary here. Incidentally, I tried to prepare a summary table for the Britishness article, but have given up as the ONS tables are simply too complex to summarise effectively. ] (]) 14:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

::::::::::::::If we must use the raw sources, I suggest this:<blockquote>"In the 2011 census, 57.5% of Wales' population stated their sole national identity to be Welsh, and a further 7.1% stated it as both Welsh and British. The proportion giving their sole national identity as British was 16.9%, with 11.2% giving their sole national identity as English."</blockquote>] (]) 14:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::Either you haven't read a single word I've written or you are just winding me up. That is ALL interpretation to nth degree! You are being very close to the line with me right now. I'd strike that 7,000 from your watchlist at this minute and give this your full undivided attention if I were you. You can agree to this easily if you want, you just wont. You never, ever have with me. I think I just upset you at some point and that was it. Your premiss has ''always'' been that I'm biased, and it's ''always'' been the opposite. Can you imagine how it makes me feel? The belligerent on Wikpipedia hold 99% of its bleeding power. You should be wanting the article to enlighten and inform people: that should be a natural instinct for you, not appending your user page every 2 hours with your latest whatevers. Just give this some proper mental thought. ] (]) 15:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::This has nothing to do with you personally. I'm simply trying to come up with an improvement to the current wording, that summarises the census results without putting any slant whatsoever on them. So far I've made two specific proposals, ''either'' of which would in my view be an improvement on the current wording. ] (]) 15:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::But the changes you have made in your suggestions are negligible. This is exactly what I've been predicting lately about bringing suggestions to these particular articles' discussion pages. Your suggests are so similar to what we have they are both still totally slanted and entirely Original Research. Like the current text, they develop the context of sourced language where they shouldn't, and interpret when they have no right. Can't you see the inherent OR in interpreting this data? We actually have data we can simply present, and a complete mug (ie me) who has done all the in presenting it in a perfectly readable way. You immediately shat all over it completely, even (wrongly) suggesting I'd removed needed references. It was an utterly needless knee-jerk attack to a load of hard work, and you've followed it by completely digging your heels in. I did all that work for the one element of this encyclopedia that hardly anyone cares about: '''the reader'''. Whatever Misplaced Pages's confused policy might say about accuracy, the reader simply desires it, and as a direct consequence of that the reader becomes devalued ''by default''. Think about it - it's true. Perfect or not, for writing what I did I should have been congratulated, not pissed on. Just try and imagine reading it if an editor you really respected had written it. I think you'd be sending him a cake. ] (]) 18:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::I didn't "piss on" your suggestion - I reverted it because in my view it was worse than the previous wording, and then another editor agreed with me. It was verbose, gave the whole issue undue weight (you surely cannot deny that it has become your pet hobbyhorse - and that of ''no-one else here''), and parts of it were utterly incomprehensible to me and, I'm pretty sure, most readers. My intention is to ''remove'' any interpretation of the figures, not to add one. If it helps (I don't hold out much hope, but anyway...) I'd be happy to add to the front of my suggestion a slightly reworded version of your explanation, as follows:<blockquote>"The 2001 UK census was criticised in Wales for not offering 'Welsh' as an option to describe respondents' national identity.<ref name="Census row (2001)">{{cite web | url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2288147.stm | title=Census results 'defy tickbox row' | publisher=BBC Online | accessdate=February 23, 2014}}</ref> Partly to address this concern, the 2011 census asked the question "How would you describe your national identity?", with a list of options that included Welsh; respondents could check more than one option. The outcome was that 57.5% of Wales' population stated their sole national identity to be Welsh, and a further 7.1% stated it as both Welsh and British. The proportion giving their sole national identity as British was 16.9%, with 11.2% giving their sole national identity as English."</blockquote>] (]) 19:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::You didn't piss on my 'suggestion' (as you put it)?!! At the top of this section is where you , and it was a steamer. It was full of falsehoods and 100% designed to make everything I wrote look like ''total shit''. And you outrageously claimed that what already existed was much better, but I don't think you've even bothered to look properly even now. , and it's only slightly better since some of the usual post attempted-edit tinkering (made as much as anything to save some embarrassment). It was/still-is full of 2001 data and was not coherent: my reorganisation and additions simply made it make sense for readers. And you initially accepted that there was ], though all you've suggested since is almost identical OR!

:::::::::::::::::::::You just cynically removed a whole bunch of improvements. You wouldn't get away with that anywhere other than these second-tier UK/NATIONAL articles. The ridiculous rope around them has protected you for years. If you and a few other nationlists were area-banned for a year (gold heart, HK, RA - that would do it), UK articles would blossom into amongst the best on Misplaced Pages, if not ''the'' best. The whole miserable pallor around them would lift, and people would come in and do all kinds of good work. Britain is small enough and dedicated enough to make them superb. But this wholly-unrepresentational dislike of the UK itself has made them amongst the worst.

:::::::::::::::::::::There was nothing positive about what you wrote about my edit at all: it was totally knee-jerk and deliberately-unpleasant horseshit, and you've repeated the same provocative bollocks about it above even now. I find it arrogant and offensive. '''I have never ever shat on other people's copy. ''' '''Not once.''' I've always been ''proud'' of my own copy edits, and I've been complimented on them a number of times in the past. I don't spend the hours making them totally word-by-word perfect, as this is meant to be a joint effort (if some people would only allow it to be): I spend the time making them readable, fair and accurate: and most of all trying to consider the local positional brick-wallers like you. Whatever I compose with you in the neighbourhood is a painstaking attempt to ''work around'' your entrenched nationalist politics and unbending edit-protectional stance.

:::::::::::::::::::::But hey, at least your edit-note this time was a different approach to your usual provocative "removing POV"! It was lovely to see you actually take up my suggestion of saying "''take it to talk''" instead (hmmm). And now you suggest I am biased yet again, and all-alone alas too. Who was this 'other person' who you say agreed with your assessment? Rob?! Your 'revised' suggestion above, as you fully know, is simply patronising: you've simply included the question this time, and carried on with almost exactly the same entirely unhelpful, utterly needless, fully illogical and 'OR' interpretation. ] (]) 21:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::Well, I was just trying to help. But I don't see much point in continuing with this. If you find anyone to agree with your position, I'll rejoin the discussion. ] (]) 21:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::::No, because there's nowhere else to go right now is there? As predicted, you've offered 4 barely-differing versions of the existing non-policy text. It's such a waste of my time, but I'll see what I can do. ] (]) 21:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::I've started a new thread down below. Hopefully it will encourage other editors to express a view. ] (]) 22:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::. ''']''' (] &#124; ]) 16:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::No because there's nowhere else to go right now is there. It's entrenched, and over nothing but an obvious improvement. ] (]) 21:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::I find the style passive aggressive and always have. I think think with the right will we can all sort this out easily. ] (]) 18:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::I'd rather think of myself as calm and considered - or perhaps as the ] of WP. ] (]) 19:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::Small's the word. You've got your "sole" but you've got no soul. ] (]) 21:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::::::I haven't 'interpreted' anything: I avoided OR other than to point out he "80%" ticked one box. That's acceptable in my opinion, as it aids understanding. You've basically found a single source (from a website that promotes 'stateless nations') which happens to agree with Misplaced Pages's current 'OR'. Basically you are saying that using the source stops it being 'OR'! (I know you are stuck for sources, so was I ). But all my arguments remain, and there are simply too few sources available. This is 'source searching' area in which Misplaced Pages itself can get very dodgy in my opinion - I do hope we can avoid the "not about truth" territory. There is not better solution than to just provide the census data, framing it fairly in a balanced way. ] (]) 14:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

::::::::::::::I prefer Ghmyrtle suggestion. I don't think we should present raw data for readers to try to interpret, and I don't agree with your 'ticked box' not 'described' logic. If you tick a box that indicates you describe your national identity as X, then you are describing your national identity as that. By your logic, we shouldn't provide interpretations of any of the census data, which is absurd. ''']''' (] &#124; ]) 14:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::The question wasn't as simple as ticking a single box was it! Ghmyrtle uses words like "sole": nobody on the census has used it, and it doesn't logically stack up either. It's 'developing' something too. Thinking of that the ridiculous 'warning' you gave me on my talk page, I'm wondering now you just don't want a suggestion of mine making it to the article frankly. You've just simply ignored all my arguments. I vowed to myself once that I wouldn't be part of something like this again. Put it this way: what is ''worse'' about my suggestion? What we currently have clearly HAS to be changed. I have never ever in my all Misplaced Pages days argued against something like this, even if I did prefer the original. What is the point? Part of consensus is being able to listen and adapt, even if you do really think it's little of an improvement. But this is just pure entrenchment if you ask me. Don't you have anything else to do but dig your heals on a clearly useful change to Misplaced Pages? I've added to the encyclopedia. I've made it better. It's as clear as a ringing bell that's what I did (before you needlessly reverted and warned me). If you genuinely can't see that then you are just a hindrance here imo. ] (]) 15:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Matt, I doubt anybody's going to support wording that is confusing, and repeats to the reader how a multiple choice census question is answered. It's illogical.

And also, it's unionist like yourself make us all look like dickheads.
Regards, ''']''' (] &#124; ]) 22:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

:Unionist? Don't be such a damn fool. I am what I am - someone who exists. How many nationally-contented people outside of Misplaced Pages get referred to as "unionists" for God's sake? The UK is simply here - nobody has to apologise for it. If you see some wording that you find confusing, just <u>change it</u>. That's what you are here for isn't it? Don't throw the enitre baby out with the bathwater. It was a depressingly pointless warn/revert that you made of my edit it really was.

:And that's a complete misuse of the word "logic": I added illumination: people forget what this encyclopedia is supposed to be about. Readers. And readers are '''not''' gaping fools. The question is important here, as are the results. What ithere is actually illogical as things currently stand (on a number of levels) - what I did was bring in logic. ] (]) 22:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
===National identity section===

Matt's national identity paragraph intro, relating to the 2001 census problems, is interesting and notable, and should be included if a RS citation can be found. Having considered editor comments above (in particular, using ''described'' and ''stated'' in place of ''considered'', and adding ''national'' before ''identity''), I suggest this:

:The 2011 census showed that 57.5% of Wales' population described their national identity as wholly Welsh and another 8.3% as partly Welsh (Welsh and British were the most common combination). 34.1% stated no Welsh national identity. 16.9% described it as wholly British and another 9.4% as partly British. 73.7% stated no British national identity. 11.2% described their national identity as wholly English and another 2.6% as partly English.

Any further suggestions? ] (]) 09:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

:My latest suggestion is down below, where I'd hoped we could concentrate discussion. My comment on your suggestion is simply that it goes into unnecessary detail and is over-complicated. I also think the terminology could be more precise. They didn't "describe" their national identity as "wholly Welsh", for example - they simply ticked the Welsh box and no other, which in my view could be better described as "stated their sole national identity to be Welsh". ] (]) 09:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
::So it is. Sorry. I'd read some of that section and it didn't seem to have anything to do with this topic. These threads seem to become rather messy. May I ask editors not to alter their posts (other than for minor corrections, to spelling etc.) and to post them chronologically. At the very least, it requires them to be re-read. ] (]) 09:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

== Ticking all the non-boxes ==

"The census of 2001 was criticised by many in Wales for not offering 'Welsh' as an option to describe their national identity.<ref name="Census row (2001)">{{cite web | url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2288147.stm | title=Census results 'defy tickbox row' | publisher=BBC Online | accessdate=February 23, 2014}}</ref> Partly to address this concern the 2011 census offered a list of choices."
:I think this is a useful detail that could usefully be included. Or is it just fringe political trivial? ] (]) 18:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
::If it is to be used we should drop "by many", criticised is enough. Also it was criticised inside and outside Wales, as the 2001 Census gave options for Scottish and Irish, but not English and Welsh. There were campaigns to add English as much as the addition of Welsh. It may be enough to just state "in the 2011 Census the option for people to identify themselves as Welsh was added". ] (]) 18:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

:::I'm more than happy to drop words like "many" (though a ref could probably be found for that: I was a complainer myself at the time).

:::I think there is a real danger in trying to pare things down all the time, especially with identity statistics. I think what I eventually came up with was pretty-much what ''has'' to be given. I actually went though a lot of different routes. Aside from explaining itself (the best form of explanation I think), it's actually all useful information for readers of the Wales article.

:::PS should this be merged? ] (]) 18:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

::Do we have sources that say that the 2011 census form was changed "partly to address this concern"? We may do, but I haven't seen it. If we don't, we shouldn't say it (]). ] (]) 19:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
:::There's a mid-90's source which as I remember shows other reasons for developing 'identity' (it's a report on one of the pre-census question polls they made): not least the issue with "English" vs "Scottish" too, as someone already pointed out. I decided to keep the eventual text about Wales. It's unlikely the source uses those exact words, but I assumed that this conclusion can be logically drawn from it. I'll read it though to make sure. Alternatively it's an easy-enough sentence to adapt. ] (]) 20:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
::::I think you'd have to remember it with authors, publication and dates. ] (]) 20:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
:::::I'd run around Cardiff in my pants if I could get more sense into these areas. ] (]) 13:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
::::::<small>And I'd be very careful not to . ] (]) 20:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC) ]</small>
:::::::You don't expect this to go anywhere do you? Improving these articles is '''not''' allowed on Misplaced Pages. Ghmyrtle has 724, sorry 5 - sorry 726 articles to say otherwise. And he's block-free too! ] (]) 21:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
::::::::I think the criticism of the 2001 census for not offering 'Welsh' as an option to describe national identity is a very fair and relevant point that should be made. In fact, I'd see it as a definite improvement. (.. and I think Ghm's lukewarm approach has much to commend it - I've found myself in enough hot water to know). ] (]) 22:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::It's not lukewarm from where I'm standing. Either it's a really cold day or it's pretty damn steamy. Gh has already incorporated the obvious 2001 'missing-option' issue. Not even he could say 'no' to that one.] (]) 22:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::Yes, I think he's taken that one ]. ] (]) 22:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

==Demographics section, third paragraph (revisited)==
Trying to resolve the discussion above - views are welcome...
Current wording:<blockquote>The 2011 census showed that 57.5% of Wales' population considered their national identity as wholly Welsh and another 8.3% considered themselves to be partly Welsh (Welsh and British were the most common combination). 34.1% had no Welsh identity. 16.9% considered themselves wholly British and another 9.4% considered themselves as partly British. 73.7% had no British identity. 11.2% considered themselves wholly English and another 2.6% considered themselves partly English.<ref name="2011 identity">{{cite web|title=2011 Census: KS202EW National identity, unitary authorities in Wales (Excel sheet 126Kb) |page=3 |date=11 December 2012 |url=http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/key-statistics-for-unitary-authorities-in-wales/rft-table-ks202ew.xls |publisher=] |accessdate=28 September 2013}}</ref></blockquote>
Matt Lewis proposal:<blockquote>The census of 2001 was criticised by many in Wales for not offering 'Welsh' as an option to describe their national identity.<ref name="Census row (2001)">{{cite web | url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2288147.stm | title=Census results 'defy tickbox row' | publisher=BBC Online | accessdate=February 23, 2014}}</ref> Partly to address this concern the 2011 census offered a list of choices. It asked the question "How would you describe your national identity?" and underneath was a direction to "tick all that apply". 80% of the participants in Wales ticked one box, with 57.5% ticking 'Welsh' (65.9% in some combination), 11.2% ticking 'English' (13.8% in some combination), 0.5% ticking 'Scottish' (0.6% in some combination), 0.13% ticking 'Northern Irish' (0.15% in some combination), and 16.9% ticking 'British' (26% in some combination). 3.4% filled out 'Other', which included 0.4 instances that are the same as those above. The largest 'Other' was 'Irish', with 0.3 ticking 'Irish' (0.4% in some combination).<ref name="2011 identity">{{cite web|title=2011 Census: KS202EW National identity, unitary authorities in Wales (Excel sheet 126Kb) |page=3 |date=11 December 2012 |url=http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/key-statistics-for-unitary-authorities-in-wales/rft-table-ks202ew.xls |publisher=] |accessdate=28 September 2013}}</ref></blockquote>

::Identity was also the theme of the following question, which asked "What is your ethnic group?" The most-chosen option was 'White: Welsh / English / Scottish / Northern Irish / British' at 93.2%, a fall from 96% for the equivalent option of 'British' in 2001.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.esds.ac.uk/government/themes/ethnicity/sb53-2004.pdf |title=A Statistical Focus on Ethnicity in Wales |publisher=National Assembly for Wales| page=1| year=2004 |accessdate=10 February 2012}}</ref> The next most-chosen option was 'Asian or Asian British' at 2.3%, followed by 'Mixed race' at 1%, 'Black or Black British' at 0.6%, and 'Irish' and 'Other' 0.5% each. The figure given for 'Total Black and minority ethnic' people was 4.4%, a significant rise from 2.1% in 2001.<ref name="ethnic group question">{{cite web | url=http://wales.gov.uk/docs/statistics/2012/121217sb1262012en.pdf | title="What is your ethnic group?" question from 2011 Census | publisher=Welsh Government | date=December 17, 2012 | accessdate=February 23, 2014}}</ref>

::(information on racial groups, currently all over the place in the section, continued underneath: unifies the section.)

Ghmyrtle third proposal:<blockquote>The 2001 UK census was criticised in Wales for not offering 'Welsh' as an option to describe respondents' national identity.<ref name="Census row (2001)">{{cite web | url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2288147.stm | title=Census results 'defy tickbox row' | publisher=BBC Online | accessdate=February 23, 2014}}</ref> Partly to address this concern, the 2011 census asked the question "How would you describe your national identity?", with a list of options that included Welsh; respondents could check more than one option. The outcome was that 57.5% of Wales' population stated their sole national identity to be Welsh, and a further 7.1% stated it as both Welsh and British. The proportion giving their sole national identity as British was 16.9%, with 11.2% giving their sole national identity as English.<ref name="2011 identity">{{cite web|title=2011 Census: KS202EW National identity, unitary authorities in Wales (Excel sheet 126Kb) |page=3 |date=11 December 2012 |url=http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/key-statistics-for-unitary-authorities-in-wales/rft-table-ks202ew.xls |publisher=] |accessdate=28 September 2013}}</ref><ref></ref></blockquote>] (]) 22:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

:::Matt's proposal is laudably detailed, but I'd say Ghm's version was the more encyclopedic. ] (]) 22:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
{{hat|reason=Off-topic discussion}}
::::I'd say you are a troll of course. But only because that's what you are. ] (]) 22:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
:::::Thanks so much for your enlightening reply. Glad we've cleared that one up then. ] (]) 23:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
::::::Cleared what up? It becomes tedious son. It only goes so far. ] (]) 23:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
:::::::It seems that you have decided that, since I don't agree with you, my views are worthless. But I'm not sure why you decide to call me "son". ] (]) 23:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

::::::::Then let me enlighten you. It's a demeaning term for someone who litters the page with gnomic comments linking to cryptic images, then suddenly expects to be taken seriously. Or I ''assume'' that you did and do - who knows? Too much of it eventually becomes distracting and tedious anyway. That you might learn perhaps. (I'll leave out the 'son'). ] (]) 23:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::I'm sorry if you think my comments are gnomic and the images cryptic. But I'd rather not trade insults and demeaning terms, thanks. You seem to have very strong views on this subject and an admirable enthusiasm. Unfortunately, I don't think your proposed edits improve the article. Apart from the bit about the 2001 census nationality categories, which I personally thought was '''truely offensive'''. But then I don't expect you to take me seriously. ] (]) 08:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
{{hab}}
You are making me repeat all my arguments regarding the '''impossibility''' of interpreting this particular data, the '''non-policy''' use of Original Research '''(])''', the '''dearth''' of any really-suitable reliable sources to give a balanced this/that appraisal from, the 'developed' use of words from the census (too far removed in meaning), the '''logical fallacy''' that British and Welsh are somehow not mutually exclusive (ie for many - and '''legally''' too - they mean '''the same thing'''), the 'OR' use of "sole" etc (nobody 'stated' any such thing!). The fact that we KNOW that many of the results don't stand up to reality (you've simply ignored the worst offenders!), and that it's down to the way people respond to these kind of questions. I've given some great anecdotal examples above that a fitting for discussion pages in these circumstances per the rules of Misplaced Pages. Also, the flawed nature of the census (over 50% actually found it confusing), basic Misplaced Pages issues regarding chasing sources and '''enforcing interpretation''' rather than sticking with first-hand data that should speak for itself. We've found a classic example where the data '''has''' to stand up for itself. I did all the donkey work in presenting that in a way the '''aids the reader'''. This is ultimately about aiding the reader isn't it? Not considering them to be fools, and interpreting things for them.

It's also only part of the total changes I made in the edit. Completely ignored is the connect paragraph on 'ethnicity'. (in fact, I'll add that too it, as they it's all connected). Now added.

Constantly saying "no" to the arguments is so easy - having to repeat a group of sensible arguments endlessly is '''hard, hard work.''' ] (]) 22:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

NOTE- I've added the 'ethnicity' paragraph. It was connected, as If people see parts that they don't like they can always change them! ] (]) 23:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

NOTE- I've adapted all my percents per ghmyrtle's '%' format. I originally just copied the full-written existing "percent" format, and assumed that was the done thing here these days. Thanks for telling me people. ] (]) 23:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
:@Matt: Please don't interpose ''your'' comments here in the middle of ''my'' comments. It may confuse other readers. If you want to start a thread about your proposed paragraph on ethnicity, please start ''a new thread'' below, and remove your comments from the middle of my comments above. I haven't commented on your proposed ethnicity paragraph yet, because I felt it was necessary to resolve the "identity" paragraph first. ] (]) 08:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
::Sorry but I wrote it, and for me they are fully connected. I actually improved the whole section taking a few hours, and you removed it all in 1 second flat. One of the reasons for all the staccato prose and oddly-placed information in this section (and ones like it I'm sure) is surely because broader unifying work like mine never even gets properly considered these days, just automatically reverted. People are supposed to adapt improvements, not just remove them. ] (]) 12:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Daicaregos proposal:<blockquote>The 2001 UK census was criticised in Wales for not offering 'Welsh' as an option to describe respondents' national identity.<ref name="Census row (2001)">{{cite web | url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2288147.stm | title=Census results 'defy tickbox row' | publisher=BBC Online | accessdate=February 23, 2014}}</ref> Partly to address this concern, the 2011 census asked the question "How would you describe your national identity?". Respondents were instructed to "tick all that apply" from a list of options that included Welsh. The outcome was that 57.5% of Wales' population stated their sole national identity to be Welsh; a further 7.1% stated it as both Welsh and British. No Welsh national identity was stated by 34.1%. The proportion giving their sole national identity as British was 16.9%, and another 9.4% included British with another national identity. No British national identity was stated by 73.7%. 11.2% stated their sole national identity as English and another 2.6% included English with another national identity.<ref name="2011 identity">{{cite web|title=2011 Census: KS202EW National identity, unitary authorities in Wales (Excel sheet 126Kb) |page=3 |date=11 December 2012 |url=http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/key-statistics-for-unitary-authorities-in-wales/rft-table-ks202ew.xls |publisher=] |accessdate=28 September 2013}}</ref><ref></ref></blockquote>

Can we reach agreement on this paragraph first please, before moving on to the one on ethnicity. ] (]) 10:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
:I'm happy to support that - it's a big improvement on the current version. ] (]) 10:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

::The word "sole" is non-policy 'Original Reasearch." We all know that. We also know that around 90% of Wales actually see themselves as British, even much of the full Welsh-speaking community. We all know that well-over 2/3 of people in Wales do see themselves as Welsh! These figures say 34% of them don't, simply because some people just put 'British'! We can't remove some awkward interpretation (like that one) but keep the others! That's not right at all. There just isn't he schism in Wales all this interpretation suggests. That was down to the census question, and we all know it. So we only put what people ticked, and we let people make their own minds up. We cannot say people 'stated' "sole" anything, because they just didn't do or exactly put that.

::The census-makers were stuck between a rock and a hard place actually. They were obliged to add 'Welsh', but they didn't want to make it mini referendum. So it ended up being the kind of over-simplistic multiple answer question that everyone hates. They had issues too with sexuality (which they avoided in the end), other points of identity, and they messed up mental illness completely. The 2011 census was actually heavily criticised on a number of levels. The terms Welsh and British are both legally and culturally '''mutually inclusive''': so we can only supply the data that people put on a form, but cannot not state what they categorically ''are.'' I do KNOW that Misplaced Pages isn't about "truth", but we are also here to illuminate, and give the most-accurate and informative information possible. In this case it's got to be the raw date. I spent a lot of time thinking about this, and I believe that I've found the best way of presenting the data. I found what I did really useful.

::So the figures are also very useful imo, and the census spreadsheets doesn't present them anywhere nearly as well as I did in converting them to percentages (which is fully-acceptable on Misplaced Pages to aid understanding, and not Original Research at all). I found the results interesting. Why can't others be allowed to too? It's only a small paragraph. It does no harm at all, it only adds to the encyclopedia, and effectively enlightens. ] (]) 12:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
:::The word "sole" is not ]. It is a succinct and neutral expression of the fact that a certain proportion of respondents only (solely) ticked one box on the form. ] (]) 12:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
::::That's not how you or Dai express it though is it. You (and he) put "stated their sole national identity to be Welsh". We know that is not the case. What they ticked is one thing. And Welsh and British are mutually inclusive anyway. We cannot conclusively say that people 'stated' anything to be such. We can read from the very data that people took different routes. So we just put what they did, and we do not conclude that people stated they were only one thing or the other. It's an adaptation of meaning, and it's ].

::::It's actually a really good thing anyway just to give the raw percentages. Nobody is missing out on anything other than this dubious interpretation. ] (]) 13:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

:::::I'd be happy to change "stated" to "indicated", if it helps:<blockquote>The 2001 UK census was criticised in Wales for not offering 'Welsh' as an option to describe respondents' national identity.<ref name="Census row (2001)">{{cite web | url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2288147.stm | title=Census results 'defy tickbox row' | publisher=BBC Online | accessdate=February 23, 2014}}</ref> Partly to address this concern, the 2011 census asked the question "How would you describe your national identity?". Respondents were instructed to "tick all that apply" from a list of options that included Welsh. The outcome was that 57.5% of Wales' population indicated their sole national identity to be Welsh; a further 7.1% indicated it to be both Welsh and British. No Welsh national identity was indicated by 34.1%. The proportion giving their sole national identity as British was 16.9%, and another 9.4% included British with another national identity. No British national identity was indicated by 73.7%. 11.2% indicated their sole national identity as English and another 2.6% included English with another national identity.<ref name="2011 identity">{{cite web|title=2011 Census: KS202EW National identity, unitary authorities in Wales (Excel sheet 126Kb) |page=3 |date=11 December 2012 |url=http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/key-statistics-for-unitary-authorities-in-wales/rft-table-ks202ew.xls |publisher=] |accessdate=28 September 2013}}</ref><ref></ref></blockquote> ] (]) 13:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

:::::::''British'' and ''Welsh'' may be "mutually inclusive" in a legal sense, or in the way that they are defined by Misplaced Pages. But is that necessarily true in terms of an individual's self-perception? If it is, then why didn't all respondents who ticked one of those boxes also always tick the other? Just laziness? We can't go ticking boxes, in retrospect, without their permission, can we? Even if we pretend to know better about what these terms really mean. I wonder what proportion of Scottish people still think that ''British'' and ''Scottish'' are "mutually inclusive"? ] (]) 20:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

::::::Addressing the slight revision by ] above: one of the many problems is that it still leaves the ']' word "sole", and the new "indicate" starts to sound 'weasel-wordy'. It's simply because it's 'complex' data - or flawed data if you decide to interpret it in certain unintended ways. Summarising in this way just isn't possible with this data, not unless you are willing to write a whole critique of the process, including all the variations and criticisms, and then it just isn't a summary anymore. And somehow I don't think that would be found suitable here! This data can always be interpreted by politicians of course, but not by encyclopedia writers.

::::::Saying ''"No British national identity was indicated by 73.7%."'' is still ']', and the line reads a bit like those people are not British citizens too. It is a simple fact that the words 'Welsh' and 'British' are mutually inclusive: they are both legally and culturally the same thing to all/most/many of us. This literally-singular question was not intended to be an analysis of Britishness, and we can't act like it was. It was just a clumsily-realised answer to a complaint about the census before it. We know that more people than 73.7% in Wales see themselves as being Welsh and British. Whatever you feel about the "truth" motto, that really does need to be taken into account.

::::::''<u>''Why did they compose the question like this?''</u>''

::::::The census compilers actually went from one extreme to the other.

::::::In 2001 the census for England and Wales had us both as 'British', but a separate census in Scotland allowed for the option of 'Scottish'. People saw it as both silly and unfair and they complained.

::::::In 2011, while addressing the complaints, the census-makers gave us a 'simple' list, allowing people to tick as much as they want. They began by suggesting that you can only have one nationality in the UK (How would you describe your nationalit'''y'''?), but then allowed for more than one box to be ticked. The problems are to do with interpretation: they effectively presented a question where putting 'British' could (by certain people) be interpreted as not being 'Welsh' or 'English' at all. And where putting 'Welsh' or 'English' could be interpreted (by some people) as not being British by default. Did they actually mean to give an option of 'British' that didn't include Welsh or English? '''No.''' Did they mean to say that to be Welsh or English and still be British you have to put them both? '''No, absolutely not.''' Where they saying the Britain is not really a nation, but the others are. '''Of course not!'''

::::::It really is simple: They simply had to give what people are most likely to put. That meant putting British, Welsh, English etc and allowing them to say if they have two or more, as people often do in Britain: but not to the exclusion of everything else! And not with the focus exclusively on 'British' either. But that created an immediate analysis issues for those who wished to interpret the data more deeply than was intended. I think it could well explain why the compilers of 2001 decided not to go this way in 2001. In 2011 there ended up being a token dumbed-down question to appease all the many people who complained about the the issues with the census before. '''The biggest fault was in the actual question: how can you ask for "your nationality" then give the option of ticking more? After that they gave options that can mean the same thing both legally and culturally. It makes summarising the data in terms of what people "are" in any exclusive sense simply impossible to do.'''

::::::Ultimately, it could be argued that both of the censuses has issues in this area to some degree, and the much-maligned 2010 census cost Britain half a billion pounds all told. But they did say they were trying to make the whole census as simple as possible for all types of people to get through, and that isn't an easy thing to do for a census this inclusive and large. As it turned out, over 50% of us still found it confusing and hard to fill.

::::::A way of doing a genuine '''To what degree are you British?''' question is to offer a set of direct choices with single answers (along the lines of "I feel Welsh but not British." etc - there are a few ways of doing it). But that just wasn't their intention at all. The question just wasn't about studying 'Britishness', as the way they dealt with the following 'ethnicity' question clearly shows. It was just about being able to say 'Welsh' and 'English' etc, that was all the census question was about. ] (]) 21:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

:::::::'''Nationality <u>does not</u> mean the same thing as identity'''. I'm English, but I would not describe my nationality as English at all. British is my only nationality. There's no extent to nationality. You either think Wales is a nation or you don't. You either think the United Kingdom's a nation or you don't. Identity however is <u>completely different</u>. A Welsh person may not think the UK is a nation (hence no British nationality), but still identify as British. On the other end, a Welsh person may not identify as British at all, and feel no more related with England then with other European countries. Or they may be somewhere in-between. '''But nationality is completely black and white'''. And evidently from the census, you can have two nationalities, and go by the 'nations within a nation' idea. ''']''' (] &#124; ]) 22:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

::::::::I personally think that many if not most people in the UK are happy to see English and British etc as 'inner' and 'outer' nationalities: they can easily have two and yet still see them as the same as well. In the same way that England and the UK are both 'countries'. People can say "England is my country" and they can say "the UK is my country". So they can pick two, or one, or whatever they feel like when expressing it. But as they are mutually inclusive too, they only have to pick one to also pick the other. This explains why the data came out like it did. We can show what happened, but we can't make judgements (ie talk about "sole" nationality).

::::::::But whatever you see the permutations as, surely it's clear that we can't make an interpretive summary from this data? There are too many alternative readings. I spend a long time presenting it in a way that readers can simply peruse it for themselves. What Ghmyrtle has done below (within 30 mins of me writing the above), has to be most outrageous act of gamesmanship I've ever seen on Misplaced Pages. It's his choice - or nothing!! ] (]) 23:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::I'm perfectly happy for you to add your option as a third option, and see if it gets support. ] (]) 23:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::Me creating a new poll wouldn't be your decision even in part. You should have talked first about pitching your version against mine, not losing your patience and creating a poll on yours alone the moment I wrote the above. I may as well do it, but I won't be advertising it in Wikiproject Wales - I'll put it through an unbiased option-asking place. I keep forgetting where they are: I'll have to look at all of that side of things tonight. It's been a few years since I've worked here to that degree. I need to find the buried areas of foundational policy that support me too. It's stronger policy than the likes of 'truth', 'AGF' and 'consensus', it's just less disseminated and consequently harder to find. ] (]) 13:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::If the Gmh version gets enough support it will be added. There is nothing to stop you then presenting what you think is a further improvement and asking for a straw poll on that. ] (]) 22:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

::::::::::::Well you've found your level now haven't you. You forgot to put the '''will''' in bold Martin, and where's the exclamation mark at the end?

::::::::::::These kind of straw polls for are fo straw men I say. Back in the days when Misplaced Pages still made a little sense they used to frowned upon for this very kind of reason. They are supposed to gauge where people are in complex situations, not game the system and stymie debate. It's bullshit all the way. A normal editor would have just put his adjustments into the article - no one would have deleted it would they. Deletion only happens to balanced content in this place. I was the only person who wasn't capable of making a tiny-improvement edit like that, as I'd clearly stated that nothing but the plain stats can avoid 'OR'. What myrtle did in choosing to make his ridiculous one-sided poll instead was try and end the debate for good (he even said as much) and win that hallowed 'protectable consensus'. Just like I predicted he would. I've seen it done in these various pages what must be a hundred times. Like pretty-much everything else in here right now it's supposed to be against the rules. Whatever you think about me, I always know the sodding rules. And not least the two I far too often break: civility and AGF. These places just suck them right out of you. ] (]) 12:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::::::What exactly is "my level"? I'd suggest that your incessant and wholly unnecessary incivility is becoming disruptive. I think Ghmyrtle has gone out of his way to be fair and open in this debate, but you seem to want to constantly bring discussion onto a personal level. And what do you mean by "these places"? ] (]) 19:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

{{od}}
===]===
Interesting essay, but I don't think that further discussion is going to prove helpful. We must summarise the census results, not try to interpret them. I believe that the words "sole" and "indicate" are entirely neutral. A simple question: is the version below (B) ''an improvement on'' the current version (A), or not? If most editors think it is an improvement, it should go in.
Current wording (A):<blockquote>The 2011 census showed that 57.5% of Wales' population considered their national identity as wholly Welsh and another 8.3% considered themselves to be partly Welsh (Welsh and British were the most common combination). 34.1% had no Welsh identity. 16.9% considered themselves wholly British and another 9.4% considered themselves as partly British. 73.7% had no British identity. 11.2% considered themselves wholly English and another 2.6% considered themselves partly English.<ref name="2011 identity">{{cite web|title=2011 Census: KS202EW National identity, unitary authorities in Wales (Excel sheet 126Kb) |page=3 |date=11 December 2012 |url=http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/key-statistics-for-unitary-authorities-in-wales/rft-table-ks202ew.xls |publisher=] |accessdate=28 September 2013}}</ref></blockquote>
Latest proposal (B):<blockquote>The 2001 UK census was criticised in Wales for not offering 'Welsh' as an option to describe respondents' national identity.<ref name="Census row (2001)">{{cite web | url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2288147.stm | title=Census results 'defy tickbox row' | publisher=BBC Online | accessdate=February 23, 2014}}</ref> Partly to address this concern, the 2011 census asked the question "How would you describe your national identity?". Respondents were instructed to "tick all that apply" from a list of options that included Welsh. The outcome was that 57.5% of Wales' population indicated their sole national identity to be Welsh; a further 7.1% indicated it to be both Welsh and British. No Welsh national identity was indicated by 34.1%. The proportion giving their sole national identity as British was 16.9%, and another 9.4% included British with another national identity. No British national identity was indicated by 73.7%. 11.2% indicated their sole national identity as English and another 2.6% included English with another national identity.<ref name="2011 identity">{{cite web|title=2011 Census: KS202EW National identity, unitary authorities in Wales (Excel sheet 126Kb) |page=3 |date=11 December 2012 |url=http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/key-statistics-for-unitary-authorities-in-wales/rft-table-ks202ew.xls |publisher=] |accessdate=28 September 2013}}</ref><ref></ref></blockquote> ] (]) 21:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

{{Reflist-talk}}

*'''Support B''' ] (]) 21:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support B''' ] (]) 21:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support B''' ''']''' (] &#124; ]) 22:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support B''' (PS Would a formula along the lines of "The outcome was that 57.5% of Wales' population indicated their national identity to be Welsh, and gave no other indication of national identity." resolve the concern over "sole national identity"?) ] (]) 22:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
::At very least you have to remove the word "sole"! ] (]) 22:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support B''' ] (]) 22:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support B''' ] (]) 22:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
*'''NO to predicted nationalist gaming.''' <u>'''How can people "Support B" when there's only one fucking option!'''</u> Everyone agrees the current wording ('option A') has to be changed! I predicted this would happen. Run to Wikiproject Wales and get an immediate phoney consensus. I've had no say in it at all - ghmyrtle just took it all away. ''"but I don't think that further discussion is going to prove helpful"'' Who do you think you are, Jimbo Wales? Does this guy always get his own way on Misplaced Pages?? I made an edit, ghmytle removed it, and has now grown tired of discussing it. 'Enough is enough' he says. He gave people less than 30 flaming minutes to read and respond to my long comment above. I took longer to write it. There is no deadline here for God's sake. This is total gaming - he just does not want too many people involved. YOU DO NOT OWN WIKIPEDIA GHMYRTLE. DON'T YOU EVER GET THAT? People he respects (outside of Welsh nationalism) desperately need to tell him that. This "''it's going to be this or nothing''" quick 'straw poll' is just a '''clear abuse of the project'''. ] (]) 22:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
::You say: "Everyone agrees the current wording ('option A') has to be changed!". Do you think that option B is an improvement, or not? ] (]) 09:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

:::That's a very cynical way of looking at it don't you think? The 'policy' approach is to remove the offending part, then work on something that works. You approach is to keep the offending part in at all costs, and just water it down a little. If you poll the watered-down version against the original, then of course it's an improvement of sorts. It's just such a controlling and cynical way of accepting the smallest amount of change possible. The result is still non-policy text. ] (]) 13:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
::::"...of course it's an improvement of sorts...". So, that's 8-0 for making the change, which I'll now do. ] (]) 08:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support B''' {{mdash}} {{U|Matt Lewis|Matt}} Let's keep a lid on this: for you to post profanities and to *SHOUT* here does nothing but reduce your <s>credit.</s> credence. <strong>— &#124; ] &#124;<small>]</small>]&#124; —</strong> 10:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
::<small>Credibility? ] (]) 09:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)</small>
:::Being small again myrtle? The guy actually put "credit" for a pretty good reason. ] (]) 13:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
{{hat|reason= ] off-topic. ] (]) 19:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)}}
::This place shouldn't be anything about 'personal credit' at all, only policy and argument. That lazy focus and sometimes-reliance on phoney persona is party why Misplaced Pages can be as bad as it is. People become 'trusted favourites' on WP don't they, often through playing it like a game of diplomacy. The internet is just too vulnerable to look at it that way. Misplaced Pages channelled through personality is the foundation of cabals, and it's why so many poor-quality admin get voted in. I can leave Misplaced Pages for a year and guarantee the exact same spoilt person will revert an edit of mine almost as soon as I've put it up. I'd like to avoid these areas completely, but I tend to return after I bump into them in Reader's Life (ie a search engine) and I seen how bad they've got.

::I've had to constantly fight to even get this smallest of "enough is enough" improvements polled above. Can't you see how it's been a war of attrition? It's starts when a committed edit-protector like ghmyrtle attacks the initial new edit the way he did. Doing that is completely against policy, it's just not the part of policy people care about in here. People here care about consensus, AGF and 'truth' and that is it, because it's all they'll ever need to get what they want. It took about about 7 'revisions' from between them to come to the above, and it's still non-policy and original research because we obviously should not be summarising this data at all, just presenting it in the best way.

::Where is the duty of care? That sense of ''duty'' in dealing with sources is the least understood and most important part of Misplaced Pages. But it ''is'' there in policy, and it's mainly why we have discussion pages. There is nothing like that in these little smoke rooms, just a total commitment to entrenched identity politics.

::Misplaced Pages is by its nature actually quite a hard thing to compile a lot of the time, and possibly the biggest problem it faces is the Misplaced Pages Policy itself, and in particular they way it is actually summerised, and disseminated in broken-down chunks. It makes it all look too simple, and it's far too easy to wikilawyer and cherrypick with those 'chunks' as well. People conclude that they just have to create a 'consensus', so they build up credit with people and draw them all in when discussion isn't going their way. They realise that with the '3RR' rule the 'protected-edit' is king, so they can actually revert whatever they don't want to see. And bingo - that's all they need to do. Revert-protect-revert-protect-revert-drawconsensus-protect. There's no point AGF'ing with human nature in that area: if you they don't regulate this place properly that is what enough people will always do. When the powers-that-be cynically 'Ring-fence' an area they see is problematic, the cynically-biased 'revert-protect' cycle becomes so bad that most other people simply keep away. It's even 1RR in some of these areas too. It just leaves an over-confident group of people who have been given total control over years and years and years. ] (]) 13:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
:::]. ] (]) 15:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
::::Yeah right. How is your squirty little 'Matt Lewis diff collection' coming along, anyway? From what you've shown me already it's 'getting there' as they say. ] (]) 19:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

::::Actually, thanks for reminding me of that one - 'tldr'. It took me 3 minutes to steadily read out what I wrote above. In 'real life' human interaction that is no time at all. On Misplaced Pages it's considered a mortal sin. You see pages and pages of the same repeated little comments posted over days and archived over years. Millions of hours of wasted time - and that's all fine! 3 mins of text? "tldr".
{{hab}}

== Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2014 ==
{{edit semi-protected|<!-- Page to be edited -->|answered=yes}}
<!-- Begin request -->
'''Wales is not a state!'''
] (]) 19:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
<!-- End request -->
:That is true. The article does not claim that it is. But it is a ]. ] (]) 19:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
:It's not a ] either, <small> just for the ] <small>. ] (]) 21:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC) </small>

== Demographics section - ethnicity ==

Matt Lewis has proposed the inclusion of the following paragraph:<blockquote>Identity was also the theme of the following question, which asked "What is your ethnic group?" The most-chosen option was 'White: Welsh / English / Scottish / Northern Irish / British' at 93.2%, a fall from 96% for the equivalent option of 'British' in 2001.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.esds.ac.uk/government/themes/ethnicity/sb53-2004.pdf |title=A Statistical Focus on Ethnicity in Wales |publisher=National Assembly for Wales| page=1| year=2004 |accessdate=10 February 2012}}</ref> The next most-chosen option was 'Asian or Asian British' at 2.3%, followed by 'Mixed race' at 1%, 'Black or Black British' at 0.6%, and 'Irish' and 'Other' 0.5% each. The figure given for 'Total Black and minority ethnic' people was 4.4%, a significant rise from 2.1% in 2001.<ref name="ethnic group question">{{cite web | url=http://wales.gov.uk/docs/statistics/2012/121217sb1262012en.pdf | title="What is your ethnic group?" question from 2011 Census | publisher=Welsh Government | date=December 17, 2012 | accessdate=February 23, 2014}}</ref></blockquote> I support the inclusion of a paragraph on ethnicity, but would remove any link with "identity" and would greatly prefer the substance to be derived from secondary not primary sources. Any suggestions on wording? ] (]) 08:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

:Look myrtle, I followed the above paragraph with all the other information relating to ethnicity, which was all over the original section, and was mostly relating to the 2001 census too. It related to the preceding census question (17 and 18 I think) on national identity because of the way they were both presented and written. You are just trying to disconnect them.

:One of the reasons I found a demographics section that was incredibly disjointed is because some people just won't allow proper copy edit. It's like being forced to paint by numbers. You can't demand everything you see of individual importance to be dealt/protected bit by bit. You were supposed to ''improve'' upon my type of copy edit, not just remove it wholesale and control everything thereafter like this. You are only doing to protect the idea that "74 % of Welsh do not feel British". You know it's not right (though you are not Welsh and you don't not live here), but you just ''want'' it to be the case because you happen to want to break up the whole UK. Can you imagine an American doing what you do over some southern state in the US of A? Freedom of speech OK, but he'd have a bloody FBI file on him too.


{{section sizes}}
:As I said I would, I've been asking around about the census, and guess what? A) No one can remember exactly what they put (whether ticking one or two boxes, or even which 'one' in some cases), and B) '''people are BLOODY SHOCKED with what Misplaced Pages has been saying about them <s>the past couple of years</s> (5 months): that "74 percent have no British identity"'''. Of course they are unhappy. Forgot what you want them to feel - what do you ''expect'' them to feel? It's totally developed ] and a complete devolution of responsibility in terms of the finer as aspects of policy. In terms of encyclopedia writing you have been crude to the extreme. You should personally hang your head in shame. It's been a total scandal, and it's been on your diligent watch myrtle. You've got no right to be the boss of anything here.


== Dispute over the Definition of Country vs State by Nation of Usage ==
:And something else - people out there ''still'' don't realise that ''anyone'' can edit this place (ie regardless whether they could do it or would want to it, they just don't realise they can). That gives editors here both enormous power and huge responsibility. Fortunately (though regrettably) Misplaced Pages still has a bad name in the UK for providing false information. Your edits regarding Wales in this area do nothing to change that widely-held public opinion at all. ] (]) 13:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
{{archive top|status = Closed
|result = Nominator states the issue is resolved. ] (]) 13:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)}}
<s> This sites lock prevents the correction in the intro that falsely states Wales is a country. Wales is not a country by international definition. In order to be a country, a nation needs to be independent, which Wales is not. Wales is a nation and a state. The belief that Wales is a country is derived from mulitple decades of British propaganda and misinformation for manipulative purposes.If truthfulness is the intention of wikipedia then the statement "is a country" should at least be replaced with "Wales is a federal state of the UK in which the UK considers to be a country". </s> ] (]) 00:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC) Whole paragraph struck through as it is inappropriate. The issue is the historical dispute over the definition of country which varies by country. ] (]) 19:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


:Thank you for your opinion ..... I suggest you review ]. If there are academic sources currently refuting this please bring them forth. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 01:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
::RE: my striked-out text. Who told me that this text had been up for years? Daiacaregos last September! It's been up almost exactly 5 months. That's 5 months too long - but at least it's not 2 years. I feel some genuine relief about that at least. A number of people started this debate arguing in support of the ] of one of the most tendentious editors on Misplaced Pages. Well done all. ] (]) 19:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
:The UK is not a federation, so that's even more inaccurate. ''']]''' 11:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
:::"Your edits regarding Wales in this area do nothing to change that widely-held public opinion at all." - to whom are you addressing this accusation? And you say you've been "asking around about the census" that sounds a bit like ], doesn't it? ] (]) 20:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
::@], you’re not supposed to re-write your post if people have replied to it, now our responses make no sense. See ] ''']]''' 14:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
::::No, that's a complete misunderstanding of policy. It's only 'OR' if it's in the article. Debate is what often-complex discusion pages are about. Consensus is supposed to come via debate, not dubious straw polls. That is policy. You just can't stick that BS on a human being using discussion. You think you are a rebel but you showing yourself to be like a robot. It's frightening what can happen to human soul here. ] (]) 21:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
:::Noted and understood, no malicious intent nor intent to cause confusion/break rules, will not happen again. ] (]) 14:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::I have no wish to be told, by you or any other editor, that I'm "a rebel" or "a robot", thanks. If I want any advice about the whereabouts of my soul, I think I'd be well advised to go elsewhere. But that's all utterly irrelevant to the subject under discussion here. A straw poll can be a very simple and quick way of illustrating consensus. ] (]) 22:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
:::It's hard to understand why anyone thought the text had been up "for years", when the census results were only published a few months ago. But anyway... can we move on yet? Please?? ] (]) 20:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC) ::::I have reverted the initial comment. As stated, the replies make no sense if you've changed the initial message. You may strike through a message if you wish to retract it. You are also welcome to add a new comment below. ] (]) 14:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
:Your suggested replacement sentence is not grammatically correct, i.e. does not make sense. ] (]) 11:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC) p.s. where is your "international definition" of a country? Thanks.
::::No, because it's still OR all the way through. The article can't say things like "No Welsh national identity was indicated by 34.1%". It is saying there is no Welsh in British! It's all cobblers and there is no reference for it. It's pure Misplaced Pages Original Research, snuck in by Dai last September, and kept by you above. I think I might have found a style compromise though. ] (]) 21:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
:Wales is not a state. It is a country. ] (]) 12:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::The words "No Welsh identity", attached to the figure of 34.1%, are taken directly, verbatim, unaltered, from the relevant ONS table. We must not seek to put a gloss on that. But, anyway, this thread was supposed to be about ethnicity, not identity. I'll restart it below. ] (]) 22:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
::::::Yes and it's a column heading that's a reading of the census data. You then develop that into new sentences that create problems of their own. It's a total development of meaning. You can't do it. The columns cannot make the inferences that you and Dai have done. And you know your conclusions are not representative too, that's what gets me. ] (]) 22:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
:::::::It is not a "reading" or a "development" of the census data - it is a neutral expression of the summary census data, using identical words to those published by ONS. ] (]) 23:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
{{ec}} Adding the census results to the article is hardly it being 'snuck in'. They are from (see KS202EW Percentages, Row 441 (Wales).) and are not in the least contentious. The ONS were responsible for the census and provide its definitive results. Any editor may challenge that they are a reliable source in this context, by querying the citation at the RS notice board. If you choose not to do so, Matt, then you must accept their figures. Now, please stop this. Stop attacking other editors. Stop writing reams of off-topic and/or original research. And stop changing your posts after the event. ] (]) 22:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
:Changing what posts? You can cut accusations like that out. Do you mean correcting typos etc! You edit in one single area on Misplaced Pages: Welsh nationalism. You have used developed column headings into new meanings using Original Research. You not may be bright enough to see it perhaps, but it's what you have done. It's a needless and fully-misleading (we all know that) interpretation too, but that doesn't bother you because it's what you want to see. A Wales that looks like few people are British in it. ] (]) 22:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
::Changing posts like , where you have provided an edit summary implying amendments to spelling errors, but you also added further sentences. The 2011 census results in September were cited. The cited reference used the words “No Welsh identity” and “No British identity” for the statistics I quoted. I realise I “not may be bright enough {{sic}}”, but I fail to see how that could be original research. I repeat, you are welcome to request guidance at the RS/N if you doubt a citation is suitable for a given context. If you choose not to do so, you must accept their figures. ] (]) 00:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
:::Edit summary ''what''? Per what that admin told you the other day (when you started actually replacing/reverting that kind of thing done by me), you really ought to read up on what you can or can't allow other editors to do. You'll never have ''that'' level of control anywhere on Misplaced Pages Dai, even here in Wales talk. Sometimes you are completely at odds with some very basic rules, you really are. A specific issue with something that I wrote is a different thing of course. ] (]) 01:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


The unsigned post disappeared in reference to the above statement. I will paraphrase what I remember being stated. I hope to see the pictures of the old textbooks referenced that validate the definition change] (]) 14:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC):
== Demographics section - ethnicity (2)==
To repeat:
Matt Lewis has proposed the inclusion of the following paragraph:<blockquote>Identity was also the theme of the following question, which asked "What is your ethnic group?" The most-chosen option was 'White: Welsh / English / Scottish / Northern Irish / British' at 93.2%, a fall from 96% for the equivalent option of 'British' in 2001.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.esds.ac.uk/government/themes/ethnicity/sb53-2004.pdf |title=A Statistical Focus on Ethnicity in Wales |publisher=National Assembly for Wales| page=1| year=2004 |accessdate=10 February 2012}}</ref> The next most-chosen option was 'Asian or Asian British' at 2.3%, followed by 'Mixed race' at 1%, 'Black or Black British' at 0.6%, and 'Irish' and 'Other' 0.5% each. The figure given for 'Total Black and minority ethnic' people was 4.4%, a significant rise from 2.1% in 2001.<ref name="ethnic group question">{{cite web | url=http://wales.gov.uk/docs/statistics/2012/121217sb1262012en.pdf | title="What is your ethnic group?" question from 2011 Census | publisher=Welsh Government | date=December 17, 2012 | accessdate=February 23, 2014}}</ref></blockquote> I support the inclusion of a paragraph on ethnicity, but would remove any link with "identity" and would greatly prefer the substance to be derived from secondary not primary sources. Any suggestions on wording? ] (]) 22:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


The historical definition of Country and the modern definition of Country are two different definitions in some respective countries. Historically, many countries required the definition of Country to require independence until the UK definition became the prevalent. The UK definition was adopted by the UN and eventually globalized. The UN definition of State and Country are identical, there is no difference in definition. ] (]) 14:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
:Look, I told you the first time this was connected to a particular preceding paragraph on the national identity results. It's intended to directly follow it, and following this parag is the unified mess of all the currently hanging parts on race etc. You can't split everything into controllable 'themes', that's no one can make a decent copy edit, and various stuff is floating everywhere. They were following questions on the census, and the census people clearly had them linked. They reveal a lot about the preceding question.


:All uncited. Misplaced Pages uses the definition commonly used in sources, not the “most correct definition” according to yourself and according to some organisation.
:To repeat: stop controlling everything in here for God's sake. It's my text. You just expect me to repeat everything I said above. ] (]) 22:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
:Wales is commonly described as a country, so it should be. It currently links to ] not ] accepting it is a unique status. ''']]''' 14:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
::So... you are disagreeing with your own proposed paragraph? Or do you want to rewrite it so that it fits better with the preceding paragraph? In any case, your view that there is some unidentified connection between national identity and ethnicity is ] for which you have provided no justification - other than your own personal opinion that because one question followed the other in the census they are in some unspecified way "connected". Implying a connection that does not exist is ], which is equally disallowed. If it helps, it's clear, so far as I'm concerned, that when we agree a paragraph on ethnicity it will immediately follow the paragraph on national identity. But your statement that "Identity was also the theme of the following question..." is unjustified and false - except in so far as identity ''can be'' an element of ethnicity, which anyone understanding the concept of ethnicity will understand. Are you trying to claim that the census asked "the wrong questions"? - if so, that's again irrelevant. ] (]) 22:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
:If you want sources then please take a look at the UN definition at: https://unterm.un.org/unterm2/en/ and also take a look at the wikipedia article on "Country" as it outlines the disputes in definitions with clear sources as well as the current prevalent definition. This a talk article, not the actual wikipedia article.... The discussion on definitions is appropriate for reference here as there has been some dispute on the classification of Wales, the work material should be placed in the wiki article on countries.] (]) 14:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


Historical Definition Used by some countries:
:::e/c on your edit (sorry I'm having a break in a sec).. You put my paragraph up, what are you talking about? Read the this particular census question, and how it describes British as mutually inclusive with Welsh etc. (The irony is that you want to call Welsh people an indigenous "ethnic group" in the intro of Welsh people.). You just don't want to accept that British are seen as the same thing in the census (just like 2001), as it rubs against your desire to inform the word that people who are British somehow can't be Welsh etc unless they 'say so'. You are wrong. The census simply asked "how would you describe your national identity?". It's asking ideally for a single answer, which is what 80% gave. They don't care if if people say British or Welsh: they mean the same. Haven't you go it yet? It was just giving people all of the options they asked for after 2001. They had to let people put more than one, as some people have to. As far as the census is concerned British IS Welsh! As a nationality and an ethnicity - everything. Maybe you can't fully see it yet, but you really are reading things in the identity part that are just not there. You've completely misunderstood the whole thing myrtle. These census questions were not designed to be interpreted like you want to interpret them. It was NOT a poll on national division within British identity (or gauging Britishness in any way), and it was '''never intended to be anything such'''. It's just a dumbed-down census that most people hated filling in. Are you going to create a THIRD talk section now with my text? ] (]) 23:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
1) Country - An Independent State with the ability to enter foreign treaties and agreements on its own.
::::Is there anyone here who hasn't "completely misunderstood the whole thing" apart from you? ] (]) 23:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
2) State - A Nation with its own government with clearly defined borders.
3) Nation - A cultural and geographic group of people with the same identity. No self governance
::@] - most of your post is incomprehensible, made more so by your choosing to re-write part of the conversation. But the essentials haven't changed since the start. Multiple sources reference Wales as a country. Therefore, so do we. If you have Reliable Sources that don't, and Misplaced Pages isn't one, then bring them here and we can have a look. Until then, you're just repeating your opinion. ] (]) 14:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
::The UK is not the only state to have multiple constituent countries. ] (]) 15:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}
== Dispute over the Definition of Country ==
{{archive top|status=closed|result=Nominator recognises this is off topic for this page, stating "Topic resolved. The inconsistent definition issue and what requirements must be met to be a Country in the English language is more appropriate for the WIKI article on Country.] (]) 13:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)".}}


:::::A few big fishies, an extremely small pond. I'd love to hear you say you disagree with the above - about what they intended the nationality to question to be. Just so I have it on record. I fully expect to have you buzzing around my ears for the rest of my Misplaced Pages life btw. ] (]) 23:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC) Topic resolved. The inconsistent definition issue and what requirements must be met to be a Country in the English language is more appropriate for the WIKI article on Country.] (]) 13:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::Are ] supposed to buzz? ] (]) 23:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


There is a dispute over the global english language definition of Country. In the UK, by its current national definition, asserts Wales is a country. However, by some definitions, including but not limited to, the United States definition for its 50 member states which are all nations with their own government (like Wales) it is required to be independent to be determined a country. The inconsistent definition of Country goes into more detail in the wikipedia article on Country (where it is appropriately discussed) with multiple supporting sources in differing directions on the requirements of the definition.
:::::@Matt: Please. We are not talking here about "national identity". We are talking about ethnicity. They are different concepts. You seem to be trying to mush them up in a way that suits your opinion, when the census ''explicitly'' kept them separate, and what we are trying to do is to report its findings in a neutral way. As Martin implies, it seems that you're saying that everyone except you is out of step with reality. Sorry, but no-one else sees it that way. ] (]) 23:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


The dispute over whether Wales is defined as a country, appears to upset Welsh people substantially as it is taken as a negative to their national identity. .
:::::::NO. THIS IS MY APPROPRIATED TEXT HERE. <u>THE CENSUS EXPLICITLY KEPT THEM BOTH TOGETHER.</u> YOU HAVE COMPLETELY MISUNDERSTOOD THE CENSUS QUESTION ON 'IDENTITY'. AND YOU CANNOT SPEAK FOR ANYONE ELSE EITHER. And my both know why Marin is still here.


However, the definition used by the British does call into question the following:
:::::::The first question essentially asks; Are you of British nationality or not? (which is a bit different to a passport holder). 91% in Wales were. It just asked it in the way we asked them to ask us. It essentially means the same as it did in 2001. The next asks us if we of British 'ethnically' or not? ] (]) 23:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
1) Why did earlier colonies with local governments/parliaments similar to Wales under the British Empire referred to as Colonies instead of Countries?
2) Countries that are a republic of States like the United States of America with State governments (parliaments/congress/senate), that cannot be dissolved by the Federal Government at will, like the Welsh Government can be, and are each a separate Nation are deemed States not Countries. Which shows extreme inconsistency in the global application of the word and definition of Country.


In order to be globally accurate, it is advised that simply referencing Wales as just "Country" is inappropriate as it assumes the UK definition is valid over all other commonly used definitions, including by countries with English speakers that substantially outnumber the UK population. Rather to be true and correct, it should be stated clearly as "Dependent Country", or "Non-Sovereign Country" when referenced to accurately reflect the status instead of just Country. ] (]) 20:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::"The first question essentially asks; Are you of British nationality or not?" Absolutely, 100%, categorically, wrong - it did nothing of the sort. "The next asks us if we of British 'ethnically' or not?" Equally, absolutely, categorically, 100%, wrong - it did nothing of the sort. ] (]) 00:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)4


:{{tqb|However, by some definitions, including but not limited to, the United States definition for its 50 member states which are all nations with their own government (like Wales)}}No, you are still confused. The United States is a federation of 50 states. States, yes (for some value of "state"), but not nations. {{tqb|... the Republic for which it stands, '''one nation''', indivisible, with liberty and justice for all}} - emphasis mine. The confusion here is your own. It is not a confusion on this page. ] (]) 20:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::If you are going to say "100% NO" - can you at last quote the full thing? I added "(which is a bit different to a passport holder)". But we do disagree with each other 100%, and on the ethnicity question 100% too. I am of course talking about their intentions: what they were trying to get from us. You just seem to be dead set on making it seem like they were surreptitiously testing our Britishness - they were doing ''nothing of the kind''. British is a default on the census all the way. You've put a whole swagbag load of meaning into this thing that just absolutely was not intended to be there. That's why when you interpret the figures through your lens they completely go against the public grain. Same with England too, unsurprisingly. And the Northern Ireland figures from the Wales/English census too. None of the results hold up to your skewered interpretation. ] (]) 01:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
::What is wrong with you? Did you seriously try to quote a recital for a flag (also a propaganda source) of a specific country as a source of valid reference? Are your going to use the same to validate the indivisibility of the United States? or how about the Existence of God Which is also validated in its pledge of allegiance? Or how about all the slaves that were in the country, were they getting justice and liberty for all? The pledge in fact has roots back to the US Civil war, in which the southern states asserted in their right to succeed from the USA, they argued they were 11 separate countries which "duly" had the right succeed and form a confederation (like the European Union). After all, states like Texas and the original 13 colonies were all Countries (also in a confederacy) before joining the United States. The US definition of country internally denies a state as a country unless they have independence, therefore if independence is disputed they are still not a country which is one of the reasons that justified the refusal of the United States to allow the southern states from leaving. ] (]) 22:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::@Matt - How can you possibly suggest that ''"I am of course talking about their intentions: what they were trying to get from us."'' - and then say that it is ''other editors'' who are trying to put a slant on the figures? It's baffling. We have no interest in, or knowledge of, the ''intentions'' of ONS. We are here to report the census results, as unadorned as possible, using prose. ] (]) 08:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
:::Well then I expect you can provide sources that back up your curious assertion that each state in the US is a nation. But not here. We are now in NOTFORUM territory. ] (]) 22:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC).
===Alternative proposed wording of new paragraph on ethnicity===
::::Easy, I attached one of 1,000's of available references not to mention the various Native American Nations as well are nations, all of which have their own flags, governments, and constitutions ] (]) 00:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
<blockquote>The 2011 census showed Wales to be less ethnically diverse than any region of England.<ref></ref> Of the Wales population, 93.2% classed themselves as White British (including Welsh, English, Scottish or Northern Irish), with 2.4% as "Other White" (including Irish), 2.2% as Asian (including Asian British), 1% as Mixed, and 0.6% as Black (African, Caribbean, or Black British). The lowest proportion of White British (80.3%) was in Cardiff.</blockquote> ] (]) 23:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
:::::You think the USA is made up of Native American Nations? wow. ] (]) 08:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::Apparently you have reading comprehension issues. There are multiple US Native American Nations within the USA along with the USA states. How about you read the reference link first, before you speak. I would also not advise you say what you just said to any of the 100's of recognized Native American Nations in the US, complete with their own territories, governments, treaties, and police forces. ] (]) 12:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::So, ], says: "{{tq|The federal government signed treaties at a government-to-government level until the '']'' ended recognition of independent Native nations, and started treating them as "domestic dependent nations" subject to applicable federal laws.}} But they take no part in the democratic process of the modern United States of America. The USA is made up of States, not countries. There's a clue in the name. ] (]) 13:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::The definition of Country in the UK is the same definition of state in the USA. Native Americans can and do vote and take process in the USA. I really wish you would read the articles fully.... ] (]) 13:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::They vote as individuals, in one of the recognised Sates, not as citizens of Native American Nations. I really wish you would stop spouting utter nonsense. ] (]) 13:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::They vote as citizens of their state true (As UK would define as country). ] (]) 13:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
:I think your use of that one source is a little overly selective. Perhaps you could explain what you mean by "cannot be dissolved by the Federal Government at will, '''like the Welsh Government can be'''"? ] (]) 20:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
::What I mean is this effectively, and more accurately: . I would need to review rights and procedures, but the UK parliament could pass legislation on the devolved matters to the local Welsh government superseding their authority. Nothing precludes them from also electing to dissolve/remove the referendums on devolution through new vote/referendum. ] (]) 22:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
:::What you are perhaps alluding to is the fact that the UK is a quasi federal ''unitary'' state. Whereas the US is a federation of states - albeit an apparently indivisible federation. None of this is relevant to the definition of a country. On that, you have some reading to do. ] (]) 22:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
::::What I am alluding to is a US state cannot be dissolved by the federal power as one of its irrevocable powers other than through sedition as it is a Nation State, and unlike Wales. However, it cannot leave the Union, so in those respects one could argue Wales is a country as it has the right to be sovereign if it so chooses, which a US state cannot. ] (]) 00:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
:::Yes, you "would need to review rights and procedures". Can I suggest you take a nice long break from this discussion, and possibly from Misplaced Pages in general, to do just that. ] (]) 08:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
:This pointless timesink is going nowhere. There’s really no discussion to be had until the editor who wants a change puts forward a range of RS that deny Wales is a country. They haven’t to date. Until they do, I’d suggest we focus on more productive areas. ] (]) 22:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
::I am not asking that Wales be changed to state not a country. I am asking that, it is stated in the intro, as in my proposal above, that the Wales description should explicitly state "Dependent Country", or "Non-Sovereign Country" to clarify that as stated, with multiple sources in the respective WIKI article on the subject matter (I can copy paste over?), that the definition of country varies by country. In the UK, by UK definition, Wales is a country. By other countries definitions it is not, as the definition requires independence for them to be. ] (]) 00:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
:::The definition isn't by country, the different definitions exist everywhere. All of the synonyms here, state, nation, country, have developed a mishmash of overlapping and redundant meanings. If that is to change it needs to happen in the wider English world, not Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 01:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
::::I have considered your words and you are right. Pants vs Trousers mean two very different things by where you are in the world and if we can't agree on what to call what covers our butts, how would we agree on the definition of something like Country. Also everything I have researched in the matter aligns to what you just said. This response resolves the topic. ] (]) 13:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::], is this another of your multiple IP addresses? ] (]) 13:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
::::Based upon your response, I am deleting this article. I think it is apparent the definition of state, nation, and country are too inconsistent and it is not an appropriate article for Wales, but for english terminology and the Misplaced Pages section on Country. I think I ended up just hurting peoples nationalistic feelings unintentionally. ] (]) 13:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::You're "deleting the article"?? I'm not sure that's a very wise course of action. ] (]) 13:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
:::], do your "arguments" also apply equally to England? I don't see you campaigning quite so strongly over at ]. ] (]) 08:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
::::Yes it applies to all 4. The UK definition of country is radically different than other countries. The UK definition of country is the same as state in most of the world. The UK definition of state is the same as province/territory. The UN defines state the same way the UK defines country.... ] (]) 12:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::I think we've all heard enough. The contents of your user page suggests you are ] to collaborate. I propose that this entire thread is hatted. ] (]) 13:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::Agreed. ] ] 13:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::No I am not, I already said the topic is resolved. Martinevans123 just keeps saying incorrect things that are readily disprovable and extending the conversation into other bizarre topics unrelated. The issue is inconsistency in the English language on the definitions of state, nation country, and therefore not appropriate for modification in this article. ] (]) 13:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Where have I "extended the conversation into other bizarre topics unrelated"? Kindly provide the diffs. ] (]) 13:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::That is not true at all. I am here to collaborate fully, and I have never once done anything negative to a Misplaced Pages article. Your feelings are hurt and so you keep making false allegations against me. I am not trying to hurt your feelings. ] (]) 13:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}


== Constituent country ==
:'''Ghmyrtle is the best!''' I agree with everything he does and says. Especially on him continuing to 'propose' an isolated part of my recent edit on my behalf, and then pitching his own version against it! Having a "straw poll" on something supposedly-different that hasn't even been properly discussed yet is just not policy regarding straw polls.. ] (]) 23:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


I personally think the first line "Wales is a country that is part of the United Kingdom." should be changed to "Wales is a constituent country that is part of the United Kingdom". I understand that a constituent country is just a type of country, although when someone hears the word country they wouldn't think of a constituent country. I do think that the first line of the article is linked well considering "country" leads to the actual page of the constituent countries that make up the United Kingdom, although I think it'd be better to call Wales a constituent country, as not only is it more specific but it is also the correct name that it should be given.
::I don't follow that. But, as a serious point, there is general recognition that matters like ethnicity are extremely complex, difficult to summarise statistically, and easily open to misinterpretation. That is why we ''must'' simply summarise what ONS have said - they are the experts in categorising responses, not us, and we must not be drawn into the trap of trying to place any interpretations on the figures beyond what they (or other reliable sources) offer. ] (]) 00:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


Wales shouldn't be called just a country, as it is already part of a country (United Kingdom). To any typical person it wouldn't make much sense for four countries to be part of one country, that'd more be a continent.
:::I just don't understand the faith you have in your summaries. Can't you see what a nightmare they can be? Admittedly it's easier to do here than the nationality section above it (where it's logically impossible to conclude some of what you have), but what can actually be misunderstood from my attempt? (I did mean to remove the "significantly" at the end by the way - it's not needed). I deliberately did it the way I presented the nationality section above.. they flowed, and the use of "British:" in the ethnicity question highlighted the intentions of the census compilers. Namely that British is the inclusive default, and the other nationalities are just intended to be variations on saying it: nothing more.


It doesn't hurt anyone to call it a constituent country as it doesn't change the meaning of the first line, nor does it change the truth, rather, it's even more correct, stating the type of country Wales actually is.
::: Also, you really need to read up on straw polls. You've abused just about all the etiquette there is surrounding them. ] (]) 01:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


Wordings like these tend to lead people to mistakes, causing many people to just call nations such as Wales "a country inside a country" without actually knowing the difference between the status of Wales and the status of another country such as Russia. They are not the same thing, so they shouldn't be called the same thing. (Note: I am copy and pasting this across the talk pages of all the constituent countries that make up the United Kingdom to try and get it changed)
::::Matt, you have already gone over the boundary line on ], please stop making the personal comments and accusations and focus on content proposals. ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 05:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


Thank you, ] (]) 16:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::I ''am'' focusing on the content though, aren't I? The other comments come when I'm cynically dismissed and made to repeat things over and over. If you look right up to the top, it started badly and went on from there. Look, I know you are another Welsh nationalist (not a slur - it's just what you are), but what do ''you'' think the census national identity question was about? Do you think it was testing our sense of Britishness too? No weaseling around it please: you know what I'm asking. I'd love to have your position on record. ] (]) 23:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


:See ] most sources don't describe it as a "constituent country" but just as "country". The link used to ] can hopefully explain the difference. ''']]''' 16:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
::::Matt, this is what I find baffling about your strange approach on this page. You say: "I deliberately did it the way I presented the nationality section above.. they flowed, and the use of "British:" in the ethnicity question highlighted the intentions of the census compilers. Namely that British is the inclusive default, and the other nationalities are just intended to be variations on saying it: nothing more." Where is the secondary source to support your interpretation of "the intentions of the census compilers". You can't use a primary source to base an edit on the "intentions" behind that primary source. Ghmyrtle's proposal appears to me, and apparently everyone else on this page, appears to be a simple reportage of the primary source per ]. So, do you have a secondary source that describes the intentions of the census compilers in the way you suggest. If not, there really is no point in this going any further. ] (]) 07:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
::I suppose that's fair enough, thank you for showing it. ] (]) 16:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
:Or see the lengthy debate above! We really don't need to re-litigate this. ] (]) 16:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)


== Prince of Wales ==
:::::Are you really saying that you think the census compilers intended British and Welsh etc to be mutually exclusive in the identity section? I'd like it on record please. It is blatantly obvious they were providing a list of different ways to express the same thing: British (with Irish and an 'other' section). It what people like me asked for: not a mini referendum on UK devolution! They just wanted to compare British national identity to British citizenship, just as they did in 2001. Is wasn't a surreptitious test on our level of Britishness! They would have A) never have remotely done that this way and B) never have done that at all in a census!!!!


:::::Look at how they expressed this particular question on 'ethnicity' (which I simply presented to the reader to see btw - but of course is removed in ghmyrtle's version, as is everything he doesn't want to see). ] (]) 23:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC) Should we add the title of Prince preceding the First Minister to show the ceremonial head of Wales, the Prince of Wales, in the infobox? ] (]) 08:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::I've no idea what they intended and even if I had an idea, my opinion of what they intended is of no relevance or interest to Misplaced Pages. The same applies to your opinion.] (]) 23:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


:Not sure ] would consider herself a prince. The ] is someone entirely different. ] (]) 08:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::You have no idea? Well I suppose that says something. But I have to say this: Discussion and article-space have very different rules. It's like when someone called my 'anecdotal' comment above 'Original Research'. Saying that doesn't work on discussion space, not regarding general debate. Here, you are allowed to argue in a normal way to aid understanding of the matter in hand and benefit the encyclopedia. I know my temper get's frayed here, but that's what I've been doing time and time again with my customary patience. Unfortunately people never see that amazing patience because I always lose my rag at various points - which naturally makes me appear ''im''patient. It always astounds me whenever I come back here - the various interpretations of the rules I learnt 8 years ago. Look at Ghmyrtle on Straw polls: he's clearly never understood them properly in all his years on Misplaced Pages.
::Morgan is a ]?
::If adding "]: ]. Probably not, the Prince isn't involved in the administration of (specifically) Wales like the King is, as the title (like William's many others) are merely symbolic. ''']]''' 08:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Yes, she was '''gazetted'''! But probably not needed in the infobox. ] (]) 08:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::::On the PoW question, not Morgan's barony, no. He has absolutely no constitutional role in Welsh governance, and I don’t know what is meant by the “ceremonial head”? Charles does have a role, as monarch, and is there as such. ] (]) 11:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)


== History Section ==
:::::::Basically I offered a version which avoided all the OR issues, so I had to argue a case to include it. And that meant debate over what the census question was actually about. I had to explain how the then-current text (and ghmyrtle's slightly adapted suggestion) had a number of things wrong with it. I spent a lot of time coming up with something that was avoided the various issues, and simply argued that we should pick the one that doesn't have all the non-policy issues. I mean, you saw the problem with the word "sole" straight away, and it's still in there. It's simply because a group of people feel they are not obliged to listen to me, and only want a version up that misleads those who are unfortunate enough to read it. I even adapted mine yesterday to fit the style of myrtles. I showed it him on my talk page, and he just blew his nose at it. He can't tell me what's wrong with it, he just doesn't want let go of the misleading one he prefers. There's no point bringing it here again, it's just a waste of time. I have to find somewhere else to take it, like I do for my change at Welsh People. Getting balanced stuff in here regarding 'identity' is a nightmare. But this is a huge encyclopedia, so this is all pending folks. ] (]) 00:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
TL;DR: This version pertains . Scroll to the History section. I am asking for feedback on this version.
:::::::::You are indeed wasting your time. You're arguing against simple reporting of a primary source and replacing it with your interpretation of that source, without the support of a secondary source for that interpretation. Because that's against policy, it's not going to happen.


We had a discussion all the way back in April 2023 about the history section on this page that has become overlong and bloated. The issue is that there has been a high degree of ] copy and pasting of history between various Welsh history articles. We duplicate the same things over and over (but sometimes subtly changed in contradictory ways) but we have a framework of history articles that is actually very good, and would allow us to do this better through parent and child articles.
::::::::::What is interpretation from me? I ''removed'' that in my edit. My arguments are not going to go into article! Did you actually read up on my suggestion or did you just come in and vote? (the 'straw poll' canvasing nightmare). I removed the interpretation that was re-contextualised from a column heading! Instead I just presented the raw data as individual percentages, so readers can make up their own minds. I've since even adapted to the other style.


The structure is as follows:
::::::::::People here just ''demand'' a line that states that "74%" of Welsh do not feel British in some way. The spreadsheet columns did not say that: they are cold and comparative by nature and interpret nothing. They compare what boxes people ticked, and use the given term: "national identity". There is nothing to say we need provide the negative slant of "not British" anyway, and certainly not use terms like "sole identity". That's simply not logical when we know that British etc includes Welsh be default (and vice versa too). You saw the issue with "sole" yourself.
*]
**]
*#]
*#]
*#]
*#]
*##]
*##]
*##]
*#]
*#]
*#]
*#]


So ] expands ] and ] expands the history page and so on. Each links to the respective child articles, and all that is required in the parent articles is a suitable summary at ''that level''. So someone coming to the Wales article only needs a very general overview of the history, because if the history is what they really want to delve into, they can follow the links.
::::::::::I've just provided some needed discussion on what the census people clearly intended - ie to be in-clusive not ex-clusive with these British options, and I'll get it in writing if I have to. Or even better, get them to stick it up on the web somewhere: ie 'prove the negative' for the sake of Misplaced Pages. I've had to discuss that, as some people in here are clouded enough in here to be confused about it. I think it's important to understand what we are all doing here (although that never been part of Misplaced Pages policy I'd agree). Nationalism ''does'' cloud the mind I'm afraid. There's a lot of politics in here decausa. That's not AGF I'd agree, but it is true. Most people who frequent these discussions want to break up the UK, most people in Wales don't. It's easy to prove as people have at various times made their feelings clear. Hardly any of us in Wales want to leave the UK, and that's why it's so upsetting here ultimately. The vast majority of Welsh people are Welsh and British, and we can (and do) tick either one in expressing that. Giving us that option in 2011 was all the whole thing was ever about. ] (]) 14:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


Add to that the fact that this Good Article is getting bloated and overlong, and that is the context in which I set out to write a summary of the history with a 1000 word limit (we agreed 500 words was too short).
] (]) 08:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
:I haven't seen any objection to my suggested paragraph, so I've added it. ] (]) 20:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


I am not quick! But I have just made a demonstration edit of my second proposed version of this in this version of the page . I immediately self reverted this rather large deletion and replacement so I can get some feedback. There is no intention that these 1000 words be set in stone as the final word on the matter. The question is whether we agree it is good enough now to effect the changeover and then normal editing may proceed to further enhance the piece. Thanks. ] (]) 12:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
::Apart from the one I've always made: that when you get your own text in you will cite the 'polled consensus' and will henceforth not allow it to be changed. It's part of the overall position protecting, mainly for the 'national identity' paragraph above this one. All your reverts in this area from now on will say "see consensus". ] (]) 23:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
:I think it's very good, reads well and is pitched at the right level - actually it's captured at a level that you rarely see get right in country articles. I do have some question marks over the odd sentence here and there. But that's detail. All in all a big improvement. ] (]) 21:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Matt Lewis, if you feel you can offer an improved paragraph, present it here and ask other editors, not just Ghmyrtle, if they agree. ] (]) 23:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
::::You are a bossy little thing aren't you. It's destination is somewhere else I'm afraid. I already know exactly what you are going to do to it. I just put it by myrtle because he was already on my talk. Of course I immediately wished I didn't bother. ] (]) 00:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC) ::Second the above. It's an excellent summation. Many thanks indeed. My "vote" would be to make the switch, and then editors can come in with amendments/additions/citations etc., hopefully avoiding the tendency to bloat that we've seen before. ] (]) 06:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:::It's impressive. Procedurally, looking at the framework of history articles, a lot of the information and sources currently at ] are not at ]. A bit of merging down may help the neglected history article. However, Sirfurboy, your new version seems to be a rewrite from at least some new sources. Was that due to ease, or was it due to dismissing some of the current sources/text as poor? If so that would help us learn what not to merge. ] (]) 07:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I was making a suggestion about how you might proceed without insulting anyone. Oh well. Perhaps you'd like to tell me what I'm going to do to it... or else just do it yourself and save me the bother. Thanks. ] (]) 13:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
::::Thanks all.
::::::That doesn't actually make sense. Since I've asked you as strongly as I can to have minimal contact with me (ie as least as possible) and to stop continuing to attempt to wind me up? What would you do? I don't know, the mind boggles. ] (]) 13:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
::::*DeCausa, yes, certainly very happy to see changes made to the text as appropriate. Indeed, I can already see a few missing wikilinks and perhaps occasional recasting required!
:::::::You didn't ask me to "have minimal contact" with you - you called me "a bossy little thing". Then you said "I already know exactly what you are going to do to it." ] (]) 13:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
::::*CMD, yes, merging down would be in order. Certainly there is no intention that any information be lost - just that it be placed at the right level. Regarding the sources, I wrote the text and then sourced it. Often I referred to books I have available, and there is no prejudice against any of the other book authors. All look good. Sources I do think we should avoid are things like BBC history (e.g. this one ). We use these a lot, it seems. The BBC history pages are very good, but they are tertiary sources with incumbent issues of using such. This magazine is good, but we can do better than relying on their summary, so I prefer books to magazines and websites (which are also often tertiary). And, of course, papers in the Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion are both old and often primary sources. I avoided those. Not sure if there were any other primary sources, but a history at this level should not require any. {{pb}}Thanks again. I'll wait just a little longer in case anyone raises an objection, and then will make the change.
::::] (]) 12:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::If the issue with the current text is sources not being optimal rather than sources being genuinely poor, that sounds like something that should be refined through more detailed editing and a merge down should be fine. Perhaps hold off updating until the existing text is merged down, I may have some time this weekend. ] (]) 13:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Yes, okay. I'll wait for that. Should be able to help too. Thanks. ] (]) 13:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I think all the content from here at History of Wales. While there was some overlap and clearly previously copied text one way or the other, I would say the majority covered completely different topics, suggesting the editing of the two has been mostly unrelated and that the merge was sorely needed. Hopefully a shift to summary style here helps consolidate further edits into the main article.{{pb}}I did assume for the copying that both were well-sourced with proper text-source integrity. Having read through both, I do doubt that is true (maintenance another challenge of the very long section that is currently here), but I'm pretty confident the problem was not exacerbated by the shift/merges, and only might have come up in a couple of times from the Early Middle Ages: 383–1000 subsection (which was Post-Roman here) to the Late middle ages: 1283–1542 subsection. There were a couple of points where the text seemed to at least in parts contradict in a way that the current text could not be merged, for those I copied the text here over as hidden messages. ] (]) 17:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Many thanks for carrying out that work, and all the time you spent on it. There is more to do on History of Wales, as you point out, but that preserves and merges the content. I'll now go ahead and change over to the new version here. ] (]) 10:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::And done. The change has temporarily created 3 citation errors, but Anomiebot should come along and fix those shortly. ] (]) 11:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 11:07, 15 December 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wales article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
Good articleWales has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 2, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
December 1, 2010Good article nomineeListed
November 22, 2011Good article reassessmentKept
April 29, 2020Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article
This  level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconWales Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCelts Top‑importance
WikiProject iconWales is within the scope of WikiProject Celts, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the ancient Celts and the modern day Celtic nations. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks or take part in the discussion. Please Join, Create, and Assess.CeltsWikipedia:WikiProject CeltsTemplate:WikiProject CeltsCelts
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconUnited Kingdom Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconUK geography Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCountries
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry
WikiProject Countries to-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconAnthropology: Oral tradition
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
???This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is supported by Oral tradition taskforce.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
The issue of whether Wales is a country or not has been repeatedly raised. The consensus of those discussions is that Wales is indeed a country. The discussion is summarised in this archive here. Further information on the countries within the UK can be found at Countries of the United Kingdom, and a table of reliable sources can be found at Talk:Countries of the United Kingdom/refs.
Section sizes
Section size for Wales (40 sections)
Section name Byte
count		 Section
total
(Top) 12,203 12,203
Etymology 3,903 3,903
History 14,145 14,145
Government and politics 4,639 15,200
Devolved Government 3,720 3,720
Law 6,841 6,841
Geography and natural history 9,891 21,868
Geology 2,096 2,096
Climate 4,067 4,067
Flora and fauna 5,814 5,814
Economy 16,347 16,347
Transport 45 6,957
Main roads 1,371 1,371
Rail 3,867 3,867
Air and ferries 1,674 1,674
Education 5,023 5,023
Healthcare 4,168 4,168
Demography 47 23,111
Population history 8,631 8,631
Language 4,992 4,992
Religion 5,436 5,436
Ethnicity 2,286 2,286
National identity 1,719 1,719
Culture 684 56,828
Mythology 3,270 3,270
Literature 5,468 5,468
Museums and libraries 1,078 1,078
Visual arts 7,138 7,138
National symbols and identity 11,396 11,396
Sport 9,209 9,209
Media 9,471 9,471
Cuisine 1,435 1,435
Performing arts 23 7,679
Music and festivals 4,029 4,029
Drama 2,125 2,125
Dance 1,502 1,502
See also 87 87
Notes 26 26
References 1,078 1,078
External links 1,701 1,701
Total 182,645 182,645

Dispute over the Definition of Country vs State by Nation of Usage

CLOSED Nominator states the issue is resolved. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This sites lock prevents the correction in the intro that falsely states Wales is a country. Wales is not a country by international definition. In order to be a country, a nation needs to be independent, which Wales is not. Wales is a nation and a state. The belief that Wales is a country is derived from mulitple decades of British propaganda and misinformation for manipulative purposes.If truthfulness is the intention of wikipedia then the statement "is a country" should at least be replaced with "Wales is a federal state of the UK in which the UK considers to be a country". Edwiki2005 (talk) 00:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC) Whole paragraph struck through as it is inappropriate. The issue is the historical dispute over the definition of country which varies by country. Edwiki2005 (talk) 19:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion ..... I suggest you review Talk:Countries of the United Kingdom/refs. If there are academic sources currently refuting this please bring them forth. Moxy🍁 01:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
The UK is not a federation, so that's even more inaccurate. DankJae 11:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
@Edwiki2005, you’re not supposed to re-write your post if people have replied to it, now our responses make no sense. See WP:REDACTED DankJae 14:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Noted and understood, no malicious intent nor intent to cause confusion/break rules, will not happen again. Edwiki2005 (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
I have reverted the initial comment. As stated, the replies make no sense if you've changed the initial message. You may strike through a message if you wish to retract it. You are also welcome to add a new comment below. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Your suggested replacement sentence is not grammatically correct, i.e. does not make sense. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC) p.s. where is your "international definition" of a country? Thanks.
Wales is not a state. It is a country. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

The unsigned post disappeared in reference to the above statement. I will paraphrase what I remember being stated. I hope to see the pictures of the old textbooks referenced that validate the definition changeEdwiki2005 (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC):

The historical definition of Country and the modern definition of Country are two different definitions in some respective countries. Historically, many countries required the definition of Country to require independence until the UK definition became the prevalent. The UK definition was adopted by the UN and eventually globalized. The UN definition of State and Country are identical, there is no difference in definition. Edwiki2005 (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

All uncited. Misplaced Pages uses the definition commonly used in sources, not the “most correct definition” according to yourself and according to some organisation.
Wales is commonly described as a country, so it should be. It currently links to Countries of the United Kingdom not Country accepting it is a unique status. DankJae 14:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
If you want sources then please take a look at the UN definition at: https://unterm.un.org/unterm2/en/ and also take a look at the wikipedia article on "Country" as it outlines the disputes in definitions with clear sources as well as the current prevalent definition. This a talk article, not the actual wikipedia article.... The discussion on definitions is appropriate for reference here as there has been some dispute on the classification of Wales, the work material should be placed in the wiki article on countries.Edwiki2005 (talk) 14:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Historical Definition Used by some countries: 1) Country - An Independent State with the ability to enter foreign treaties and agreements on its own. 2) State - A Nation with its own government with clearly defined borders. 3) Nation - A cultural and geographic group of people with the same identity. No self governance

@Edwiki2005 - most of your post is incomprehensible, made more so by your choosing to re-write part of the conversation. But the essentials haven't changed since the start. Multiple sources reference Wales as a country. Therefore, so do we. If you have Reliable Sources that don't, and Misplaced Pages isn't one, then bring them here and we can have a look. Until then, you're just repeating your opinion. KJP1 (talk) 14:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
The UK is not the only state to have multiple constituent countries. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dispute over the Definition of Country

CLOSED Nominator recognises this is off topic for this page, stating "Topic resolved. The inconsistent definition issue and what requirements must be met to be a Country in the English language is more appropriate for the WIKI article on Country.Edwiki2005 (talk) 13:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)".

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Topic resolved. The inconsistent definition issue and what requirements must be met to be a Country in the English language is more appropriate for the WIKI article on Country.Edwiki2005 (talk) 13:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

There is a dispute over the global english language definition of Country. In the UK, by its current national definition, asserts Wales is a country. However, by some definitions, including but not limited to, the United States definition for its 50 member states which are all nations with their own government (like Wales) it is required to be independent to be determined a country. The inconsistent definition of Country goes into more detail in the wikipedia article on Country (where it is appropriately discussed) with multiple supporting sources in differing directions on the requirements of the definition.

The dispute over whether Wales is defined as a country, appears to upset Welsh people substantially as it is taken as a negative to their national identity. .

However, the definition used by the British does call into question the following: 1) Why did earlier colonies with local governments/parliaments similar to Wales under the British Empire referred to as Colonies instead of Countries? 2) Countries that are a republic of States like the United States of America with State governments (parliaments/congress/senate), that cannot be dissolved by the Federal Government at will, like the Welsh Government can be, and are each a separate Nation are deemed States not Countries. Which shows extreme inconsistency in the global application of the word and definition of Country.

In order to be globally accurate, it is advised that simply referencing Wales as just "Country" is inappropriate as it assumes the UK definition is valid over all other commonly used definitions, including by countries with English speakers that substantially outnumber the UK population. Rather to be true and correct, it should be stated clearly as "Dependent Country", or "Non-Sovereign Country" when referenced to accurately reflect the status instead of just Country. Edwiki2005 (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

However, by some definitions, including but not limited to, the United States definition for its 50 member states which are all nations with their own government (like Wales)

No, you are still confused. The United States is a federation of 50 states. States, yes (for some value of "state"), but not nations.

... the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all

- emphasis mine. The confusion here is your own. It is not a confusion on this page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
What is wrong with you? Did you seriously try to quote a recital for a flag (also a propaganda source) of a specific country as a source of valid reference? Are your going to use the same to validate the indivisibility of the United States? or how about the Existence of God Which is also validated in its pledge of allegiance? Or how about all the slaves that were in the country, were they getting justice and liberty for all? The pledge in fact has roots back to the US Civil war, in which the southern states asserted in their right to succeed from the USA, they argued they were 11 separate countries which "duly" had the right succeed and form a confederation (like the European Union). After all, states like Texas and the original 13 colonies were all Countries (also in a confederacy) before joining the United States. The US definition of country internally denies a state as a country unless they have independence, therefore if independence is disputed they are still not a country which is one of the reasons that justified the refusal of the United States to allow the southern states from leaving. Edwiki2005 (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Well then I expect you can provide sources that back up your curious assertion that each state in the US is a nation. But not here. We are now in NOTFORUM territory. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC).
Easy, I attached one of 1,000's of available references not to mention the various Native American Nations as well are nations, all of which have their own flags, governments, and constitutions Edwiki2005 (talk) 00:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
You think the USA is made up of Native American Nations? wow. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Apparently you have reading comprehension issues. There are multiple US Native American Nations within the USA along with the USA states. How about you read the reference link first, before you speak. I would also not advise you say what you just said to any of the 100's of recognized Native American Nations in the US, complete with their own territories, governments, treaties, and police forces. Edwiki2005 (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
So, Native Americans in the United States, says: "The federal government signed treaties at a government-to-government level until the Indian Appropriations Act of 1871 ended recognition of independent Native nations, and started treating them as "domestic dependent nations" subject to applicable federal laws. But they take no part in the democratic process of the modern United States of America. The USA is made up of States, not countries. There's a clue in the name. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
The definition of Country in the UK is the same definition of state in the USA. Native Americans can and do vote and take process in the USA. I really wish you would read the articles fully.... Edwiki2005 (talk) 13:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
They vote as individuals, in one of the recognised Sates, not as citizens of Native American Nations. I really wish you would stop spouting utter nonsense. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
They vote as citizens of their state true (As UK would define as country). Edwiki2005 (talk) 13:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
I think your use of that one source is a little overly selective. Perhaps you could explain what you mean by "cannot be dissolved by the Federal Government at will, like the Welsh Government can be"? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
What I mean is this effectively, and more accurately: . I would need to review rights and procedures, but the UK parliament could pass legislation on the devolved matters to the local Welsh government superseding their authority. Nothing precludes them from also electing to dissolve/remove the referendums on devolution through new vote/referendum. Edwiki2005 (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
What you are perhaps alluding to is the fact that the UK is a quasi federal unitary state. Whereas the US is a federation of states - albeit an apparently indivisible federation. None of this is relevant to the definition of a country. On that, you have some reading to do. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
What I am alluding to is a US state cannot be dissolved by the federal power as one of its irrevocable powers other than through sedition as it is a Nation State, and unlike Wales. However, it cannot leave the Union, so in those respects one could argue Wales is a country as it has the right to be sovereign if it so chooses, which a US state cannot. Edwiki2005 (talk) 00:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, you "would need to review rights and procedures". Can I suggest you take a nice long break from this discussion, and possibly from Misplaced Pages in general, to do just that. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
This pointless timesink is going nowhere. There’s really no discussion to be had until the editor who wants a change puts forward a range of RS that deny Wales is a country. They haven’t to date. Until they do, I’d suggest we focus on more productive areas. KJP1 (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
I am not asking that Wales be changed to state not a country. I am asking that, it is stated in the intro, as in my proposal above, that the Wales description should explicitly state "Dependent Country", or "Non-Sovereign Country" to clarify that as stated, with multiple sources in the respective WIKI article on the subject matter (I can copy paste over?), that the definition of country varies by country. In the UK, by UK definition, Wales is a country. By other countries definitions it is not, as the definition requires independence for them to be. Edwiki2005 (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
The definition isn't by country, the different definitions exist everywhere. All of the synonyms here, state, nation, country, have developed a mishmash of overlapping and redundant meanings. If that is to change it needs to happen in the wider English world, not Misplaced Pages. CMD (talk) 01:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
I have considered your words and you are right. Pants vs Trousers mean two very different things by where you are in the world and if we can't agree on what to call what covers our butts, how would we agree on the definition of something like Country. Also everything I have researched in the matter aligns to what you just said. This response resolves the topic. Edwiki2005 (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Edwiki2005, is this another of your multiple IP addresses? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Based upon your response, I am deleting this article. I think it is apparent the definition of state, nation, and country are too inconsistent and it is not an appropriate article for Wales, but for english terminology and the Misplaced Pages section on Country. I think I ended up just hurting peoples nationalistic feelings unintentionally. Edwiki2005 (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
You're "deleting the article"?? I'm not sure that's a very wise course of action. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Edwiki2005, do your "arguments" also apply equally to England? I don't see you campaigning quite so strongly over at Talk:England. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes it applies to all 4. The UK definition of country is radically different than other countries. The UK definition of country is the same as state in most of the world. The UK definition of state is the same as province/territory. The UN defines state the same way the UK defines country.... Edwiki2005 (talk) 12:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
I think we've all heard enough. The contents of your user page suggests you are WP:NOTHERE to collaborate. I propose that this entire thread is hatted. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. Tony Holkham (Talk) 13:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
No I am not, I already said the topic is resolved. Martinevans123 just keeps saying incorrect things that are readily disprovable and extending the conversation into other bizarre topics unrelated. The issue is inconsistency in the English language on the definitions of state, nation country, and therefore not appropriate for modification in this article. Edwiki2005 (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Where have I "extended the conversation into other bizarre topics unrelated"? Kindly provide the diffs. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
That is not true at all. I am here to collaborate fully, and I have never once done anything negative to a Misplaced Pages article. Your feelings are hurt and so you keep making false allegations against me. I am not trying to hurt your feelings. Edwiki2005 (talk) 13:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Constituent country

I personally think the first line "Wales is a country that is part of the United Kingdom." should be changed to "Wales is a constituent country that is part of the United Kingdom". I understand that a constituent country is just a type of country, although when someone hears the word country they wouldn't think of a constituent country. I do think that the first line of the article is linked well considering "country" leads to the actual page of the constituent countries that make up the United Kingdom, although I think it'd be better to call Wales a constituent country, as not only is it more specific but it is also the correct name that it should be given.

Wales shouldn't be called just a country, as it is already part of a country (United Kingdom). To any typical person it wouldn't make much sense for four countries to be part of one country, that'd more be a continent.

It doesn't hurt anyone to call it a constituent country as it doesn't change the meaning of the first line, nor does it change the truth, rather, it's even more correct, stating the type of country Wales actually is.

Wordings like these tend to lead people to mistakes, causing many people to just call nations such as Wales "a country inside a country" without actually knowing the difference between the status of Wales and the status of another country such as Russia. They are not the same thing, so they shouldn't be called the same thing. (Note: I am copy and pasting this across the talk pages of all the constituent countries that make up the United Kingdom to try and get it changed)

Thank you, Setergh (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

See Talk:Countries of the United Kingdom/refs most sources don't describe it as a "constituent country" but just as "country". The link used to Countries of the United Kingdom can hopefully explain the difference. DankJae 16:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
I suppose that's fair enough, thank you for showing it. Setergh (talk) 16:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Or see the lengthy debate above! We really don't need to re-litigate this. KJP1 (talk) 16:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Prince of Wales

Should we add the title of Prince preceding the First Minister to show the ceremonial head of Wales, the Prince of Wales, in the infobox? GucciNuzayer (talk) 08:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Not sure Eluned Morgan would consider herself a prince. The Prince of Wales is someone entirely different. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Morgan is a Baroness?
If adding "Prince of Wales: William. Probably not, the Prince isn't involved in the administration of (specifically) Wales like the King is, as the title (like William's many others) are merely symbolic. DankJae 08:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes, she was gazetted! But probably not needed in the infobox. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
On the PoW question, not Morgan's barony, no. He has absolutely no constitutional role in Welsh governance, and I don’t know what is meant by the “ceremonial head”? Charles does have a role, as monarch, and is there as such. KJP1 (talk) 11:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

History Section

TL;DR: This version pertains . Scroll to the History section. I am asking for feedback on this version.

We had a discussion all the way back in April 2023 about the history section on this page that has become overlong and bloated. The issue is that there has been a high degree of WP:COPYWITHIN copy and pasting of history between various Welsh history articles. We duplicate the same things over and over (but sometimes subtly changed in contradictory ways) but we have a framework of history articles that is actually very good, and would allow us to do this better through parent and child articles.

The structure is as follows:

So History of Wales expands Wales and Prehistoric Wales expands the history page and so on. Each links to the respective child articles, and all that is required in the parent articles is a suitable summary at that level. So someone coming to the Wales article only needs a very general overview of the history, because if the history is what they really want to delve into, they can follow the links.

Add to that the fact that this Good Article is getting bloated and overlong, and that is the context in which I set out to write a summary of the history with a 1000 word limit (we agreed 500 words was too short).

I am not quick! But I have just made a demonstration edit of my second proposed version of this in this version of the page . I immediately self reverted this rather large deletion and replacement so I can get some feedback. There is no intention that these 1000 words be set in stone as the final word on the matter. The question is whether we agree it is good enough now to effect the changeover and then normal editing may proceed to further enhance the piece. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it's very good, reads well and is pitched at the right level - actually it's captured at a level that you rarely see get right in country articles. I do have some question marks over the odd sentence here and there. But that's detail. All in all a big improvement. DeCausa (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Second the above. It's an excellent summation. Many thanks indeed. My "vote" would be to make the switch, and then editors can come in with amendments/additions/citations etc., hopefully avoiding the tendency to bloat that we've seen before. KJP1 (talk) 06:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
It's impressive. Procedurally, looking at the framework of history articles, a lot of the information and sources currently at Wales#History are not at History of Wales. A bit of merging down may help the neglected history article. However, Sirfurboy, your new version seems to be a rewrite from at least some new sources. Was that due to ease, or was it due to dismissing some of the current sources/text as poor? If so that would help us learn what not to merge. CMD (talk) 07:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks all.
  • DeCausa, yes, certainly very happy to see changes made to the text as appropriate. Indeed, I can already see a few missing wikilinks and perhaps occasional recasting required!
  • CMD, yes, merging down would be in order. Certainly there is no intention that any information be lost - just that it be placed at the right level. Regarding the sources, I wrote the text and then sourced it. Often I referred to books I have available, and there is no prejudice against any of the other book authors. All look good. Sources I do think we should avoid are things like BBC history (e.g. this one ). We use these a lot, it seems. The BBC history pages are very good, but they are tertiary sources with incumbent issues of using such. This magazine is good, but we can do better than relying on their summary, so I prefer books to magazines and websites (which are also often tertiary). And, of course, papers in the Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion are both old and often primary sources. I avoided those. Not sure if there were any other primary sources, but a history at this level should not require any. Thanks again. I'll wait just a little longer in case anyone raises an objection, and then will make the change.
Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
If the issue with the current text is sources not being optimal rather than sources being genuinely poor, that sounds like something that should be refined through more detailed editing and a merge down should be fine. Perhaps hold off updating until the existing text is merged down, I may have some time this weekend. CMD (talk) 13:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, okay. I'll wait for that. Should be able to help too. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
I think all the content from here is now present at History of Wales. While there was some overlap and clearly previously copied text one way or the other, I would say the majority covered completely different topics, suggesting the editing of the two has been mostly unrelated and that the merge was sorely needed. Hopefully a shift to summary style here helps consolidate further edits into the main article.I did assume for the copying that both were well-sourced with proper text-source integrity. Having read through both, I do doubt that is true (maintenance another challenge of the very long section that is currently here), but I'm pretty confident the problem was not exacerbated by the shift/merges, and only might have come up in a couple of times from the Early Middle Ages: 383–1000 subsection (which was Post-Roman here) to the Late middle ages: 1283–1542 subsection. There were a couple of points where the text seemed to at least in parts contradict in a way that the current text could not be merged, for those I copied the text here over as hidden messages. CMD (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Many thanks for carrying out that work, and all the time you spent on it. There is more to do on History of Wales, as you point out, but that preserves and merges the content. I'll now go ahead and change over to the new version here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
And done. The change has temporarily created 3 citation errors, but Anomiebot should come along and fix those shortly. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories: