Talk:Wales

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wales article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Wales is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.


This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II.
Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived. An archive index is available here.
Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7


Contents

[edit] Country

I have noticed that the English and Scottish articles state in the opening paragraph that they are countries rather than constituent countries. I believe to be consistant we have to change the Wales article to reflect that consistancy, ie: country.Would there be any agreement on this proposal? --Jack forbes (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed --Snowded (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

FFS guys! Are you trying to give me a coronary? I've never been a fan of cross-article consistency (if something works, it works) - and with respect, I find both England and Scotland two of the more bland country Introductions, as I've said before. Why the change? Is it about NI? In my opinion that is clearly a created country (they even planted people in it) - but for Christ's sake lets not argue that here. If you want to do it, do it - sometime's it's best to be bold.
I have to say I favour the full-length UK title in these country articles: we are one of the few places that it makes sense to have it. Are you thinking of:
"Wales (Welsh: Cymru;[1] pronounced /ˈkəmrɨ/ (help·info)) is a country of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"?
If it a nationalist push then I'm not into that - Wikipedia is simply not a manifesto as far as I'm concerned. If you just wanted the words "one of the four countries" out, why not just say:
"'Wales (Welsh: Cymru;[2] pronounced /ˈkəmrɨ/ (help·info)) is a constituent country of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"?
It is the most useful in encyclopaedic terms to clarify immediately what Wales' link to the UK is - ie that of a "country within a country" (as the PM's site says) - or a 'constituent country'. I favour using it.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm a little surprised you think that way, it's nothing to do whether someone is a nationalist or not. During the constituency debate you were arguing with statements like " I know Wales is a country, I live here ". Note you never used the term constituent country, It does'nt quite roll off the tongue, does it? The PMs site never mentions the word constituency country. It goes on simply to say the UK is made up of four countries. As Snowded says below, the article makes it perfectly clear were Wales is in relation to the UK. PS, I'm still trying to figure out were N Ireland figures in this proposal, could you tell me? --Jack forbes (talk) 11:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to work out why you suddenly want to change the first line after what we've just been through! Is Wales not a constituent country? - I don't get it, Jack - I'm just looking for a reason for change. We've had nothing but disputes lately and I can't see any good reason to do this.--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Matt, the dispute that occurred, was, I think you will agree nonsense, we all know Wales is a country. My point is when you I or anyone else refer to Wales we refer to it as a country, not a constituent country. I understand you may be sick of the disputes that have gone on recently but I do feel quite strongly that Wales should be referred to as a country in the opening paragraph. This may not work, but perhaps piping country to constituent country as in country might do? --Jack forbes (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


User:Matt I completely agree with you. Honest.WikipÉIRE\(caint) 00:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Consistency is not an absolute, but it is important. I really don't see why this is a problem, the relationship of Wales to the UK overall is clear in the article. I suppose that getting Matt and Wikipeire to agree could be counted as progress, but my vote stays with the simple form. --Snowded (talk) 05:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I can't work you out re him at all! Can you explain why the current 'constituent country' is not good, and why 'country' is superior? If you have a decent argument I'll go with it - I cannot see any reason for change at all.--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Not sure why there is an issue to be honest. We all had a fight on the "constituent country" page against attempts to say that Wales was not a country. In the context of a page with that title (assuming that page has any utility) the phrase constituent country has meaning. On the Wales page itself the constitutional reference is clear and the word country is far clearer and simpler. Its not something I feel is a life and death issue, but I would argue (i) its simpler and no meaning is lost in the article as a whole and (ii) if Scotland and England use country I think Wales should as well. However I don't want you (Matt) to have a heart attack. Not sure about Wikipeire though  :-) --Snowded (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I feel as though my reasoning for wanting this change has been put into question. I will drop this proposal and leave the Wales page to those who take a temper tantrum and say they will die if anything is changed he does'nt approve of! --Jack forbes (talk) 15:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Can I just make this point? Why is there a simple English form of Wikipedia? This new proposed introduction removes a lot of accuracy and detail and could be seen as 'dumbing it down'. Just because its simpler it doesn't mean its better. Quite the opposite in fact.WikipÉire ♣ 08:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The fact that country is being rejected here, is sorta expected. However, I need some smelling salts for what's happening at England and Northern Ireland. What I expected to happen at those articles, isn't occuring, - go figure. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page823.asp I cant see how people can argue with that, if the UK parliament defines it that way, on equal terms for all four countries of the UK.. then I think wikipedia should reflect the same.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazlink (talk • contribs) 19:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
ok, heres me discussing it a bit more, Scotland and England use this reason http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page823.asp to define themselves as countries, and Wales is listed equally among them. They use it to define themselves as countries quite rightly because it is the UK parliament it is the ruling body over England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Its a kingdom, of four united countries, and the united kingdom parliament says so... Gazlink (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I think we need to settle this (seeing the reversal on the main page. From what I can see the clear majority here is for country? Can we have a simple agree/disagree list below? --Snowded (talk) 19:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Clear majority? I count 3:3 in votes. Gazlink, Snowded, Jack forbes vrs GoodDay, Matt Lewis and myself. I'm sure everyone's sick of all the debates and there's clearly no consensus we should just leave it the way it is. It is a fine term and its clearer.WikipÉire ♣ 19:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
OK lets see what people think, that is you and I so far lets have the other opinions and forgive me for being slightly suspicious given your earlier attempts along with a now banned sock puppet to get rid of any reference to country. --Snowded (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
As I've said recently in my Talk, this is not something I'm intending to make an edit-exchange on either way. I dont see anything wrong with constituent country (it strikes me that it has its obvious uses in explaining the 'UK' to readers). I've always argued on WP against using consistency as the main argument for something (especially as people can go from article to article building it!) - I probably got suspicious of a bit of nationalism having fairly recently been on the British Isles talk so much (and I don't think, given all the history, facts and backgrounds here, I can be called OTT for being a little suspicious!) At the end of the day, it makes little odds to me either way: obviously I don't want the article locked or warred on again, though! I think we really need a period of productive edits (like the EU one below). I don't want to be seen as tantrumming, or trying to lead the show - I was just hoping for a period of stability and we got straight into 'country' again!--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I go along with Snowded. We should have a simple agree/disagree list. Just like to add, I apologise to Matt if I sounded a bit short with him, but you have to trust me that any changes I propose are not influenced by feelings of nationalism. Every one has a bad day(and I had one!). --Jack forbes (talk) 13:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
We all have bad days. It doesn't really matter to me what anyone feels politically (we all have our views) - but I do believe an article always has its own correct encyclopedic balance - sometimes it suits us, sometimes not. Sorry if I didn't AGF.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Resolve Constituent Country or Country

  • Option 1 Country
  1. Snowded
  2. Jack forbes
  3. Welshleprechaun


  • Option 2 Constituent Country
  1. GoodDay
  2. Wikipéire
  3. Signsolid —Preceding comment was added at 23:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  4. Kman543210


  • Option 3 Country within a country [1]

"Wales is a country within the United Kingdom...."

  1. MickMacNee (talk) 23:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Even thought we can discount Wikipéire I think it would be fair to say that it is best left as Constituent country, that will also resolve issues in England and prevent GoodDay bursting out in tears  :-) --Snowded (talk) 03:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I am voting to keep it as "constituent country." I said the same in the discussion on the England talk page that I don't consider it a country for many reasons, but "constituent" is pretty well explained, as well as I realize the country can be a broad term. You can find legitimate sources to back up all points of view because it's just arguing semantics. Personally, I think it can be misleading or confusing to just have the sentence say "Wales is a country" with saying "within the UK". Kman543210 (talk) 04:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RIP Constituent country

Sniff sniff, it appears this term is being rejected. GoodDay (talk) 23:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Just found another intesting reliable source about this: [2]. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  16:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Just noting that I've been made aware of this part of the discussion page, but think I'll abstain. I have no strong preference for either term (at this stage!). --Jza84 |  Talk  00:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm abstaining too. I prefer "constituent country" of the two (I don't see anything wrong with it, and it has a useful explanatory element that "country" doesn't have) - but it's not something I would want to get in an edit exchange over, and I feel a bit awkward adding my name to a list about this. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed change to the line on Europe

I've been having a discussion with Matt Lewis about how we can improve the sentence on Wales' post-devolution links with the EU. Regular editors will know that I think the present text may be a bit misleading, for all the reasons I listed in those two discussions. Ideally, I wouldn't mention the EU in the Intro, but hey, Wikipedia is all about compromise and consensus. So as a courtesy to the regulars, here's my suggestion - change:

This clarifies things using a rephrasing of text used by WAG itself in its response to the EU budget review.[3] Any objections? Pondle (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

None. You've removed the misleading bit and clarified it well.WikipÉire ♣ 10:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Come on, clarified what? If you remove the original intention how can a totally new line clarify it (ie what is "it"? - the original line wasn't inteneded to be about Foreign policy as such, and trade is now removed completely. Sorry I didn't reply in my talk Pondle I've just been busy. With respect I don't think it reads well - and what about the Welsh Assembly EU office? The new line does not really show the poitive development since the Welsh Office days - which was the first lines intention. I think the format needs to be 'while...but'. I'm removing the new line (I genuinely don't like it). Perhaps we can try and get it right off the main page. I don't think it reads like an intro line with terms like "reserved matter" - it's more for the politics section like you say. I'll try and look at it again over the weekend. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry you don't like the line, it's accurate (check out the link I provided) and I thought it was quite succinct. The WAG Brussels office seems like relatively small beer to me - it doesn't get much profile on the WAG's own webpages about the EU.[4] I'm happy to tack it on the sentence, as long as there's a recognition of the political and legal fact that the Welsh relationship with the EU is not independent.[5]
I didn't understand the reference to trade, the associated ref led to a news item about the Amazon investment at Jersey Marine (which I presume is serving the UK domestic market, but was probably supported by ESF - a different issue in its own right). Shouldn't a line on trade be linked to some kind of wider statement about the economy of Wales? Pondle (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The new words are accurate and should be there, but Matt is also correct and WAG has extended its direct contacts with the EU (as have Scotland and others). The same is true of other EU regions such as Catalonia. I suggest we combine the two as they do not contradict each other. One is a constitutional statement, the other is a statement of practice. I am concerned with much of the recent debate on these pages that there seems to be an ideological position to restrict as far as possible any statements that imply any independence (with a small i) regardless of the facts. Some of that seems to be motivated by creating precedents over Northern Ireland/The Six Counties however the pages on Wales and Scotland are not the place to resolve those. --Snowded (talk) 06:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Snowded, I think we all believe compromise is possible. They key thing is working out what we want to say, and why we're trying to say it.
I'm honestly not interested in POV, either unionist or nationalist. I simply want the present reality to be described as accurately & objectively as possible, without value judgements or undue weight given to particular aspects of it (which itself can support subtle POV).
I was worried about the use of the term "independent ties" - independence is a loaded word, open to interpretation and mis-interpretation (what was it Humpty Dumpty said to Alice, "whenever I use a word it means exactly what I choose it to mean, nothing more and nothing less"!) While WAG has undoubtedly increased its direct links to Brussels post-devolution, the UK is a unitary entity in the EU decision-making bodies and adopts a single negotiating position on EU policy questions, such as the future of Structural Funds[6]
I think we will be on safe territory if we try to use, as far as possible, words that WAG itself has used to describe its relationship with/representation in the EU. Check out the Word document here[7]Pondle (talk) 11:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
How about "direct ties" and avoid the independent word? No political overtones and an accurate description. We could also use "making direct submissions on budgetary matters" which would match the web site your quoted. --Snowded (talk) 12:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy with "direct links/ties" but I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the budget review submission - the paper I linked to is a consultation response to the European Commission, WAG submits similar consultation responses to other bodies (mainly to reviews and reports by the UK Government, public enquiries and bodies like the Sustainable Development Commission). The EU Budget itself (as distinct from the long-term Budget Review in my link) is drafted by the Commission then decided on by the EU Council, which refers it onto the European Parliament and then back to the Council. At least that's what I *think* happens!Pondle (talk) 10:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Looks like we close to an agreement - Matt, are you happy with this? --Snowded (talk) 10:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
"Direct" instead of "independent" is fine - misunderstanding that word was clearly the main problem. We can always look at it further after the change. As it's late I'll do it now. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I modified your change to the article to say "direct" rather than "independent", assume you intended that, but editing late at night is never easy! --Snowded (talk) 23:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - I meant to use "ties" and "links" - I probably did it to the diff I took if from. It's late, like you say. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I made a few minor additions to clarify - I don't believe they effect the meaning of the sentence. I'm happy to discuss further revisions next time I'm able to edit. While we're at it, do we have to mention "closer links with business"? I know that WAG has its Business Partnership Council[8] and the Government of Wales Act mandates them to consult with business (and other stakeholders), but in reality, business bodies don't like much of WAG's policy agenda, especially their position on Private Finance Initiative, Public-private partnership and markets in public service provision generally [9]Pondle (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The "international bodies" has gone. The EU was originally one example of it. I'll make a slight adjustment. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I've tried this:
"Today, Wales continues to share political and legal structures to varying degrees with the United Kingdom, while now maintaining more direct ties with various international bodies and the business world.[3][4] The Assembly Government has also increased its direct links with the European Union, although foreign policy remains the reserved responsibility of the UK Government.[5][6]"
I'll look for another "international bodies" link to give it weight. I'll find another positive business ref too. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Business issues / Amazon ref in the Intro

What's the purpose of the Amazon reference here? We've had other big inward investments before and after devolution - Ford, Sony, LG. I'm not sure what it does to explain 'closer ties to the business world'. If the investment was supported by ESF, well they were managed by the Welsh Office before devolution - there's been little change in that sense.[10]

I'm generally nervous of making too much of the Assembly's links with business. If you had no knowledge of Wales and read this sentence so early in the article, you might start to think that Wales was some kind of bastion of free market neoliberalism. But in reality, 3 of the 4 major parties in the Assembly opposed public service reform, the Private Finance Initiative and Public-private partnerships in Wales.[11] Pondle (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

(It currently says "more direct ties" - 'closer' was removed)
An immediate connection between 'business' and 'free market neoliberalism' is not something I personally make - but I have been a businessman while remaining a socialist too. I haven't had much time today but I will look for some better refs. The Amazon ref mentions the WAG being involved in bringing them over - and it's no small deal. I don't mind carrying on until the line (and article) is at its best at all - but I don't personally think that people will be seeing Wales as an EU member state, or a capitalist haven, just from reading these lines mentioning the EU and business! I also think the WAG (which I voted for) after a shaky start has been coming good. Re those policies - Wales was always left wing. For me, "more direct links" is just an obvious fact with the WAG - and it's what devolution is all about. I'm not trying to exaggerate anything. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
To be honest Matt, I don't really know what you're trying to say with your line 'more direct ties' with the business world - are you talking about the Assembly's policy stance on economic development? [12] Business support policy specifically?[13] The 'business scheme' that is part of the Government of Wales Act?[14] Or something else entirely? And are you really sure that any of these are notable enough for the Intro?
Re: Amazon, yes, it's a sizable project, but there's nothing unique about it. Attracting inward investors has been a major part of economic development policy in Wales since the 1970s! All the Assembly's functions in this regard were previously carried out by the Welsh Office and the Welsh Development Agency, and there is also a UK-wide agency which markets the UK overseas and seeks to attract foreign investment - UK Trade & Investment[15] Pondle (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Pondle, sorry I've been waylaid. I was in town yesterday in Cardiff and walked through the central development: it must be close to doubling the size in terms of shopping, which is sizable anyway as I'm sure you know. It will certainly be one of the very top shopping cities in the UK (and Europe, outside of the major capitals) when it is done. In terms of office space and large companies, the train ride from Queen street to Central is like one I took through the London docks development in the 90's - the buildings of the last decade have literally been built around the track. And we have our own large 'Bay' development of course (where the Assembly resides), and all the business estates around the suburbs (the once-smallish one where I grew up in Llanishen now has shopping with it and all manner of large companies). And that's just Cardiff. Newport looked a lot stronger when I was up there last. It would be interesting to what see the Swansea centre looks like these days. I just think a line explaining all this is needed.
The current line is 'general' I admit - but it just strikes me that "more direct ties/links" is the case with all these matters: perhaps we just need a the right group of examples. Some of those links you have given could be used, as could the WEFO one. I'll look at improving the links today - maybe the text if I can think of something better. The Amazon example probably won't been needed if enough acronyms are in line. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Matt, Cardiff (and more recently Swansea and Newport) are amongst many British cities that have experienced regeneration and renewed population growth over the last few years - see for example DCLG's State of the English Cities report.[16][17] The main reason for this has been the positive macroeconomic environment (i.e. the 'nice decade' of non-inflationary constant expansion) and a booming property market.)[18][19]
Undoubtedly WAG - and before them, the Welsh Office, WDA, and Cardiff Bay Development Corporation played a big role in urban renewal in Wales. However, most of the recent developments in Cardiff city centre have been market-led rather than driven by the public sector. For example, 'St David's 2' is a joint development between Land Securities and Capital Shopping Centres. Even the Marina Tower in Swansea (a city where commercial office development is uneconomic without public sector support) is a purely private sector scheme. Pondle (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I go with that to a point, but you must have an existing 'climate' (as well as a future one to build into for 'countdown 2009' etc) - I'm sure Cardiff has certainly exceeded most (if not all) other UK cities over recent years. Markets don't just build anywhere. I couldn't personally divide the two factors, though I'm sure they can be separated. The extension connecting Bute Street and St Mary Street where they moved the Bute statue too, and the Dutch bank ING built an large block - those type of space-creating developments surely needed decisions (in quantity and weight) that the Welsh Office and council will have found less easy to make than the WAG has.
I'm putting the new refs up (you have found some excellent ones) - what do you think? Remember the phrase says "more direct links" (not necessarily 'better' links): so if inward funding now goes through the Welsh Assembly Gov instead of the Welsh Office (say through WEFO), and the WAG is more 'direct' than the WO (surely the case - however the actual extent of it) - then the phrase fits in a funding capacity. If WAG is involved in a deal such as Amazon (as Rhodri Morgan essentially boasts)- even if it may have been through the WO before - the phrase fits in that capacity too. Certainly the Assembly government has more prestige, money and manpower than the WO to deal with, well, everything. Who knows what guarantees they offer too.--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
In terms of 'guarantees' they can offer to investors, the Assembly Governent is constrained by the same state aid rules as its predecessors.[20] Also remember that macroeconomic issues - fiscal and economic policy, trade & industry, employment law, social security, immigration etc. are reserved matters.
Re: the WAG finding it 'easier' to facilitate inward investment - I think that's highly debatable. The CBI argued that the abolition of the WDA was likely to slow decision-making (the UK Civil Service tends to be very bureaucratic and process-oriented).[21] Former WDA staff have criticised the running of the post-merger economic development department.[22]
Yes Cardiff is a relatively prosperous city, although Wales as a whole is at the bottom of the average earnings table. See the GVA per head comparisons here.[23] A recent article in The Economist said we'd grown more slowly than any other UK region over the past decade![24]
Something tells me you're not a huge fan, Pondle! Even Cardiff has always been low wage compared to England (don't I know it). I think the sentence is ok now: we could argue over 'good or bad' (and show criticisms) all day: but clearly there are "more direct links/ties" since devolution (and the WAG isn't a choice that's on offer - its embedded and not going anywhere, lets face it).--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I would say keep those criticisms in the relevant section. The Intro doesn't say "the WAG is perfect!" - it just briefly mentions "more direct ties" with international bodies and business. And we have the EU on another line so we can mention "reserved matters". It's hardly a Saatchi and Saatchi advert for the WAG!--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Matt, I'm not trying to use the article to express a value judgement - though (like everyone) I have my own inherent biases. I guess the essence of my argument is that I believe that WAG's statutory duty to consult the business community where the exercise of the Assembly functions impacts on the interests of business is a little too specific/obscure for the Intro. Personally, I would like the intro to be as brief and succinct as possible, expanding on points of detail elsewhere in the article. However, if the majority of other editors like the present text then it's not a point I'll push ad infinitum. I'm a reasonable guy! Pondle (talk) 10:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree we all have underlying opinions - we stick around particular articles precisely because of an interest that invariably involves opinions. I think we've done pretty well on this part of the Intro. Wales can confuse people 'politically' there is no doubt about that, be we've made things pretty clear without wasting too much space at all. We've given a reasonable idea of what Wales can/does and cannot/doesn't do. Re-reading the Intro, I think it gives a fair overall appraisal of Wales, though still needs work in parts of course. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anthem officiality

Certainly Wales has no national anthem by royal decree or any act of government (as far as I'm aware), but then nor does the United Kingdom as a whole. Should "God save the Queen" be marked as unofficial on the UK page? Or what does it mean for an anthem to be official? garik (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you prefer de facto instead of unofficial?WikipÉire ♣ 16:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Garik brings a good point about God save the Queen being official. How is an anthem made official? More to the point, why don't we leave it without any additional comment because there's no comment stating that an anthem is official on any other country page. Seems like another attempt to patronise Wales. Welshleprechaun (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Please assume good faith. It is about getting a neutral point of view. It is there because it says about the anthem on its own article page. Though it has no official or legal status, Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau is recognised and used as an anthem at both national and local events in Wales That has to be acknowledged. Either unofficial or de facto should be mentioned. If you want to edit the UK page thats your own matter.WikipÉire ♣ 17:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Who says it has to be acknowledged? You? or someone more official? An anthem is an anthem Welshleprechaun (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
It's called a neutral point of view. Its a pillar of wikipedia. People's opinion on things does not override fact. Wanting to ignore a fact is pov.WikipÉire ♣ 17:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I see no problem with saying "de facto"; but it does look as if the same should be added to the United Kingdom page. Before anyone goes ahead and does that, however, does anyone know if there is any official difference in status between God Save the Queen and Hen Wlad fy Nhadau (independent of the difference in status between the UK and Wales)? garik (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
There are no official anthems in the UK. [25] [26]. It's tradition more than anything, so the answer to your question would be, there is no official difference in status as neither are official. Jack forbes (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The United Kingdom's anthem is God Save the Queen; that covers the entire sovereign state (thus including Wales). GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
God Save The Queen isn't official either! Its the defacto anthem of the uk. I'm sure GSTQ is not the anthem of the nation of Wales. For example when they're playing rugby or football gstq isn't played. That makes whatever is played the de facto anthem of the nation. So whats there is correct.WikipÉire ♣ 21:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Holy smokers, if ever there was a sovereign state with multiple identities? the UK is it. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
We seem to be having exactly the same discussion here at Scotland.--Cameron (T|C) 20:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Official Welsh Government bodies refer to Hen Wlad fy Nhadau as "the Welsh National Anthem" here, here, and here. Seems conclusive to me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It being the anthem isn't it doubt, its whether its official or not. Due to lack of legislation and law about this it saying de facto is correct.WikipÉire ♣ 21:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Quite, but "official" is not necessarily the same as "the UK Government says...". What the Welsh Assembly Government says is (at least) equally "official" on a matter such as this. And I think some other editors do show a certain amount of doubt on the question of whether it is the anthem... Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
If you could find a source from the Welsh assembly that confirms it as official I would agree with you. Jack forbes (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I find it increasingly difficult to accept Wikipeire's edits as good faith, there seems to be an agenda here of some type. Not many countries have a law to state what their national anthem is. If it is sung at all sporting events, the opening of WAG etc. then it is the national anthem. It is hypocritical to amend it here, and not do the same for God Save the Queen. Putting in "official" or "unofficial" is unnecessary. The info box simply states what the national anthem is. I cannot believe we are having to deal with this degree of pettiness on this page. --Snowded (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree trying to making it factually correct and have a NPOV is an agenda. It doesn't say official/unofficial. If it is sung at all sporting events, the opening of WAG etc. then it is the national anthem. Exactly the de facto national anthem!!! Thats what it means!WikipÉire ♣ 09:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Incredibly Wikipiere has amended the UK page to add in "de facto" so the charge of hypocrisy is reduced, but we are now in Alice in Wonderland territory. Can we deal with this quickly? We have as a result of Wikipiere and a sock puppet wasted a huge amount of time on issues of language (the removal of official/unofficial was accepted there by the way), country and now anthem and motto. This is not about a neutral point of view, any more than the other debates were. Its either pedantry, ego,perversity or a political agenda, none of it is about fact. --Snowded (talk) 01:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
That is diagraceful. That is unbelivably uncivil. Hmm. Hopefully for your sake an admin isn't looking at those comments. By the way I didn't make that edit! [27]WikipÉire ♣ 09:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I think my comments were mild by your standards. Sorry I consider your acts here to be petty vandalism - and the latest in a set of such changes. I am very happy for an admin to check back through the history --Snowded (talk) 11:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
One potential misunderstanding here is that the constitution and legal practice in the UK is not solely confined to statute. Precedence and practice are recognised by the courts. God Save the Queen, first performed in the 18thC has never been subject to legislation, but it does not need to be within the British legal system. It is performed in front of the Monarch and on all state occasions, it is the National Anthem of the United Kingdom. The Welsh national anthem starts in the late 19thC and is similarly established by precedent. Further evidence of the role of convention is given at National anthem which states "An anthem can become a country's national anthem by a provision in the country's constitution, by a law enacted by its legislature or simply by tradition" --Snowded (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
And that's the exact meaning of de facto! What are you trying to debate here?WikipÉire ♣ 09:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Could we all please calm down? First of all, it was me, not Wikipéire, who changed "unofficial" to "de facto". And I'm no sock puppet — even if my feet do smell a bit. Anyway, I certainly don't always agree with Wikipéire. That said, it certainly seems that all the national anthems used in the United Kingdom are established de facto rather than de jure. This seems to me to be an interesting fact, which does nothing to diminish their status. If anything, it enhances their status: it implies that they're more grass-roots, rather than being imposed on the nation by government fiat. Well, that might be an over-Romantic interpretation, but you get the idea! The point is that there's very little to debate here. The only question is whether it's worth mentioning the fact in the infobox. It seems it me that it is: first, it's an interesting fact that some people might not know; second, the United Kingdom infobox includes the same point about the English language. Writing "(de facto)" doesn't take up much space and tells the reader something they might not have known previously. That's my take anyway. garik (talk) 10:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want to go through every page and change all national anthems which are not established by law to "de factor" then you might have a case. However it is a fact that most national anthems are established by tradition, in the case of Wales over 100 years. To say that "qualified by tradition" is the same thing as de facto is to mangle the meaning of language. It shows gross ignorance of the precedent basis of British Law. For the moment I think there is a clear position in fact. If people think that defacto should be added then they should debate and agree that on the {{National anthem]] page and create a common agreement. For the moment it is petty minded to make Wales an exception. --Snowded (talk) 10:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I certainly agree that Wales should not be an exception. I made exactly that point at the top of this section. But I'm afraid I disagree that this does show gross ignorance of the precedent basis of British law (we should really say English law — modern Welsh law being based on that, as distinct from Scots law). The national anthems of Britain have not been established, as far as I know (and I'm open to being corrected) by judicial precedent. There is certainly an analogy to be made, but the situation is slightly different. And I also disagree that to say that the anthems are established de facto is "to mangle the meaning of language". Wikipedia may not be the most reliable source, but its definition of de facto seems pretty good to me, and the status of the national anthems of Britain (as well as those of many other countries) seems to fall under that definition. But I see no problem with raising the question on the national anthem page. I, for one, would be interested to know what countries have their anthems specified in law. As you imply, it's not a matter of great import: it boils down essentially to whether we want to include a small bit of information or leave it out. I find such information interesting. Many clearly don't! garik (talk) 11:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I am happy to agree with you that it is English Law. I will also freely confess that my initial irritation with this was the use of "unofficial" on top of similar attempts the designate the Welsh Language as "unofficial" and to describe a country as an "area". That is to say I was reacting to a stream of edits which to my mind sought to denigrate Wales, its people and culture. De facto is more innocuous but I think unnecessary. If it was to be adopted consistently there would be a lot of investigation needed on each country page. However at the moment Wales and the United Kingdom are now exceptions, despite many other countries having official anthems that have not been established by legislation. In these circumstances the proper procedure would be to debate it o the talk page of National anthem and in the mean time revert Wales and United Kingdom back to their state of a few months ago before all this (the anthem is just the latest episode of a saga) began pending resolution on National anthem --Snowded (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Where are you getting this despite many other countries having official anthems that have not been established by legislation. The one example you me was Sweden. And even that's infobox mentions thats it not the official anthem. Wales is not in some minority displaying de facto. It is seen in infoboxes everywhere!WikipÉire ♣ 12:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Funny how none of these countries' national anthems show any sign of being official or de facto, neither on the country page nor the anthem page:

...I could go on. Although it is mentioned that South Korea's Aegukga isn't legally recognised, there's no notation on the country page. Other anthems which are official have no notation on their respective country's page, which they should if you want non-official anthems (or anthem - just Wales', as seems to be Wikipéire's agenda) to be displayed as de facto, otherwise you are giving Undue Weight. Welshleprechaun (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC

I agree, Wales seems to have singled out over the last month for a series of these edits. Starting with the insertion of comments like "unofficial". The real place for this discussion is elsewhere. National anthem in effect states that anthems can be established by law (common when a new state is set up such as Italy) or by tradition (the UK, Wales etc). If Wikipiere wants to have that changed then (I hesitate to suggest this) he should edit that page and engage in the discussion. The conclusion there can then be implemented on other pages including this one. In the meantime, under no circumstances should "unofficial" be allowed back in and the use of "defacto" is at least dubious. For the moment Wales seems to have been picked off for some reason to make a point. --Snowded (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like you could do with playing one of these Snowded.WikipÉire ♣ 20:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Too true, playing the violin would introduce peace and harmony after the cacophony of a Gen Y Indie Rock fan --Snowded (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Intervention

Has any requested administrator intervention either for the anthem dispute? Welshleprechaun (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Do we need one on the way the Wales page is being used systematically for what appear other agendas? --Snowded (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] de facto again

The word had been removed from the United Kingdom page and I think we need consistency. I would propose removing it, for the reasons stated above. As it wasn't just our dearly departed second sock puppet who supported the change I am asking here first for opinions. --Snowded (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I supported our dearly departed sock puppet, but if you want to remove it I'm not too bothered. Jack forbes (talk) 23:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Nor am I. I have to say the issue isn't going to keep me up at night. garik (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Get rid of it. It's annoying all of us Welshleprechaun (talk) 18:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Literature

Its a bit of a disgrace that we have nothing here, given the richness of the tradition. How about a brainstorm here? It would be nice for this page to be occupied with improving the article rather than defence against the dark arts sock puppets such as He who shall not be named. I'll start in a partial date order, please add in the list add comment here --Snowded (talk) 02:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The Welsh Academy encyclopedia has a very long article on this, as you might expect. They start off with the early Welsh verse of Taliesin and Aneirin, talk about 9th and 10th century saga poetry, William Morgan's translation of the Bible and a whole range of 18th, 19th and 20th century authors. Don't forget the article on Anglo-Welsh literature either.Pondle (talk) 11:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

We have a List of Welsh writers, which I have added as a See link for under Literature. It is very incomplete. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Welsh_novelists seems to be more complete. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I have proposed moving "Welsh Literature" to "Literature in Wales", as the article is about Welsh and English language literature, not just Welsh language as it seems to suggest. The Introductions was confusing (the content is clearly all Welsh-language literature) - I've now proposed making Welsh Literature a disambiguation page to Welsh-language literature and Anglo-Welsh literature (which as Pondle says, already exists, though is very small.) --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Provisional list of welsh authors