Talk:Wales

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

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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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

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. [1].

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. [2] 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 [3] 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: [4]. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 [5]. 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.[6] 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:

• Wales
  • History of Wales
  1. Archaeology of Wales
  2. Prehistoric Wales
  3. Wales in the Roman era
  4. Wales in the Middle Ages
     1. Wales in the Early Middle Ages
     2. Wales in the High Middle Ages
     3. Wales in the Late Middle Ages
  5. Industrial Revolution in Wales
  6. Economic history of Wales
  7. Modern history of Wales
  8. Wales in the World Wars

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 [7]. 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 [8]). 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 [9] 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)