Jump to content

Talk:Wales: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Bainseyy (talk | contribs)
69 edits
→National Anthem: new section
Bainseyy (talk | contribs)
69 edits
Line 132: Line 132:


I notice that in the infobox it says Land of my Fathers is the national anthem, but there is no official national anthem of Wales, as it is not a Sovereign country. LOMF is the de facto anthem. The other UK constituent country articles all say 'None (de jure)' before stating the de facto anthem(s), so this article should really keep with the pattern and say 'None (de jure) "Hen Wlad Fy Nhadua" (English: "Land of My Fathers")'. [[User:Bainseyy|Bainseyy]] ([[User talk:Bainseyy|talk]]) 01:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I notice that in the infobox it says Land of my Fathers is the national anthem, but there is no official national anthem of Wales, as it is not a Sovereign country. LOMF is the de facto anthem. The other UK constituent country articles all say 'None (de jure)' before stating the de facto anthem(s), so this article should really keep with the pattern and say 'None (de jure) "Hen Wlad Fy Nhadua" (English: "Land of My Fathers")'. [[User:Bainseyy|Bainseyy]] ([[User talk:Bainseyy|talk]]) 01:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

== Are welsh names needed? ==

In the infobox, a lot of names say what it is in English, then in Welsh. On the France article, the french translation is not given after all this (e.g. Denonym, Capital etc.), so why should the Welsh names be put next the the English in this article, even though only 20% of the welsh speak it anyway? [[User:Bainseyy|Bainseyy]] ([[User talk:Bainseyy|talk]]) 01:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:16, 7 March 2010

The issue whether Wales is a country or not has been repeatedly raised.
The result of all these debates is that Wales is indeed a country. This has been confirmed in formal mediation.

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 reliable sources can be found at Talk:Countries of the United Kingdom/refs.

"Celtic nation"

Matt Lewis has a problem with the reference to the "Celtic nations" in the lede. Over the past while the contention has led to some changes to the text which I feel are erroneous or otherwise inferior. Most recently, this has resulted in exchanging the phrase "one of the modern Celtic nations" for "one of the modern Celtic nations today". This change is not obviously different, and by no means is it any better. It implies, in a way that the previous version did not, that all Welsh are "modern Celts" and can speak a Celtic language, rather than simply belonging to one of the "Celtic nations", in which a Celtic tongue is or was spoken by members of that nation. At any rate I've reworded it somewhat to (hopefully) make it clearer why we're talking about this at all - namely that the modern Welsh nation traces its origins to the ancient Britons, from which group it evolved over the centuries. The preservation of the language is one of the key points of the modern Welsh national identity. Comments?--Cúchullain t/c 20:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One issue here is the Celtic League, however they are not the only ones to use the term. --Snowded TALK 20:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Preservation of our language? Give me a break. That would be laughable if it wasn't so painfully nonsense - the League of Celtic Nations indeed. This debate is in three places now, so I'm copying my reply to Dai Caregos from my Talk page here:

There is no similar link is on Scotland or Republic of Ireland and it is only still there on Wales out of sentiment. Aren't you bothered that Scotland and (even) Republic of Ireland are clearly better and more-professional articles?

WP:COMMONNAME refs of "Celtic nations" would be useless, and effectively 'synthesis', as they refer to 'Celtic' and 'nation' (small 'n') as two words! They do not refer to the 'League of Celtic Nations' idea of 'Celtic Nations' (ie including Cornwall and Brittany etc). I don't even see Celtic Nations as worthy of its own article - it should be under a section in Celts. I pipe-linked to Modern Celts as yet another soppy compromise, if you must know. That should be part of the same section in Celts too. I'm going all the way on this now with AfD's. I see nationalism rearing its ugly head. Out there? Good luck. On Wikipedia? No way. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would not regard the term "Celtic nations" as a term specifically tied to the Celtic League or even to nationalism necessarily, but as a simple description of those places where a Celtic language is spoken or was spoken into modern times. Again, linking "Modern Celts" doesn't offer any improvement over the other. We can of course discuss removing it, but that will require real discussion, not just reverting and shrill edit summaries. Additionally, I was not aware of some wider contention spanning several articles, nor did you previously point out any.--Cúchullain t/c 20:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this fixation with the Celtic League. The references for "Celtic nation" are the Welsh Assembly Government] and National Museum Cardiff. I haven't checked with the WP:RSN, but I feel pretty confident that either one of these would be sufficient to include the term in any article. btw "nation", in the article "Celtic nation" is lower case, if that helps. Daicaregos (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think some of the articles originated with Celtic League supporters and their material is used as a source on some of the articles You also have the "nationalist agenda" type response. Overall I think the term is valid, it is historical and not linked to the league. I am not sure it is appropriate for the lede however. --Snowded TALK 21:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To what degree are you not sure? Would you support removing it? Or linking just to Celts perhaps? You are bang-on about the Celtic League influence in the fork articles. Wikipedia is saturated with Celtic offshoots, like Celtic Revival etc. It all needs cleaning up, and Celts itself will be more of a 'looked after' article (it is a major one of course), so it needs to be done with methodically and with some care. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cuchullain has rejected the modern Celts pipe-link compromise and has moved the offending Celtic nations line so its two refs are now combined with a separate one on general Celtic history. I'm not happy with that at all, but I won't revert to a previous edit I can't support. He says in his edit note that I seem to be the only one with a problem, but other regular editors like Pondle and Snowded have expressed misgivings, and I always have done. I've stopped compromising on this matter any more - I want the article 'advance', per Scotland and the Republic of Ireland, which do not accept this politically-tainted '6/8 Celtic nations' idea cultural idea in the Intro OR in the main article. As Wales has its Eisteddfod, I'm happy with it somewhere in Wales, providing that it is done professionally (ie stemming from Celts), or at very least a professional Modern Celts) and without any WP:undue weight or implicit political bias.

In the Celtic nations article, Daicaragos has removed "The six territories recognised by the [[Celtic League (political organisation)|Celtic League]] and [[Celtic Congress]] as Celtic Nations.." and put in the Wales refs (one of them of course refers to "8 Celtic nations" not 6!) - but its not enough. Celtic nations and Modern Celts are forks of Celtic League (political organisation) and Celts (except Celts doesn't properly cover the info, which according to policy it should). I'll try and update the Celts article to include a proper contemporary section, and then will put Celtic nations up for AFD. We can work out how to link to a new section at Celts then, and where to do it from. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't see any discussion of this on this talk page, from you or anyone, for nearly a year. I think one can safely be forgiven for not following your discussions across other articles, when you never pointed them out. Additionally, I don't consider linking to "modern Celts" much of a compromise; as I said above I think it's not noticeably different, and probably even worse. How's this for a compromise: now that we have a link to the much more apt Britons (historical) article, we just remove "Celtic nations" from the intro? The lede now explains how the modern Welsh language and people evolved from the ancient British ethnic group. We can discuss Wales in the context of the five other regions where a Celtic tongue is spoken or was spoken until relatively recently in the body of the article. Okay?--Cúchullain t/c 13:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why does anyone need to "compromise" with the opinions of one editor? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i've no idea how to use this sandbox or whatever but wales isn't actually a country, its a principality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.112.39 (talk) 11:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read prior discussions and citation support at Countries of the United Kingdom --Snowded TALK 11:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a bunch of images but the edit was reverted. The images there are out of context and often not notable. The edit is consistant with wiki policy (see WP:IG) and WP:TRIVIA) Here is my reasoning on a per image basis:

These can probably stay, but should be integrated into the article text:

Nice scenery, but there is already a lot covered in the geology section. With the possible exception of a Brecon Beacons the rest really needs to go:

Places that I doubt are of national significance:

Noodle snacks (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be based in Oz, so you may not be aware of various cultural/historic influences which may justify the inclusion of images. Snowdon, Pistyll Rhaeadr, Wrexham Church, Gresford Bells, St Winifride's Well, Overton yew trees, and Llangollen Bridge are all included in the Seven Wonders of Wales, though all the images are already used in that article. The historic importance of the steel industry certainly justifies a mention. Is Burnie, Tasmania, the site of the National Library of Australia, like Aberystwyth has the NLW? The Eisteddfod is certainly a significant cultural institution, though that image is used elsewhere in the article. I can't conceive of an article on Wales that doesn't mention Caernarfon Castle - especially as the English royal government spent an entire year's revenue in building it. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 00:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My attempt to remove a few images has revealed some article shortcomings:
  • No mention of steel industry
  • No mention of Caernarfon castle
I don't propose the removal of the national library image, just Image:Cardigan bay.jpg which poorly illustrates Aberystwyth anyway. We don't need to include images for most of the seven wonders (see WP:SS) - Seven Wonders of Wales covers them. I would suggest swapping the Pistyll Rhaeadr with the cascade image and removing the cascade. I suspect that many of the landscapes could be removed from the gallery less controversially. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Caernarfon Castle is mentioned. It's in the third to last paragraph of the "Medieval Wales" section.

St. Giles, All Saints, and the Well, are also mentioned. -Rrius (talk) 04:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake - I'll put the Caernarfon castle there in context. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I sympathise with the idea of trimming the landscape images in the gallery, but I think it's important to have a fair representation of all parts of Wales. As for Port Talbot Steelworks: iron and steel was one of Wales' chief industries, and this particular plant was for a time the largest in Europe and the largest employment site in Wales. It is, to use a cliched phrase, an iconic image.--Pondle (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these images are not done justice in a random gallery at the bottom - we need to get them into the text, into context. Like the steelworks, for example. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 20:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One minor point: Do we really need the links to "country" and "population" in the opening paragraph? These are links to the generic terms (nothing specific to do with Wales). They seem to me extremely common terms which don't really need explanation/link to other pages (why not then also link the following terms: "east", "bilingual", "English" etc!). They add nothing and reduce readability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.204.108 (talk) 09:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linking country was part of the consensus achieved after many weeks of discussion on how to phrase the opening paragraph. The main reason for it being linked is that the article Country notes that a country is not necessarily a sovereign state - which would otherwise exclude Wales from that definition. So, all in all, it's best that the link to country stays. On your other point, I agree that as a common word there is no reason to link population, which I will remove. Any objections - please feel free to revert. Daicaregos (talk) 11:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, using the word country in this way, we really need to link to the article to explain it. But population should not be linked; good work, team.--Cúchullain t/c 13:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UK formation date

I would like some input at List of sovereign states by formation date where there is a disagreement over the UK formation date. It appears there are a couple of editors who believe the date should be 1689 and not 1707. Thanks. Jack forbes (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-welsh sentiment

0ne to start there was a vote and Cymru to be placed first was the clear Winner and nothing has been done about it also why does the oppening paragraph need any explination on English being the sole language of 80% of the population etc, it refers to the linguistic situation further down and this just makes Wales article look stupid and childish, and that is a fact wrong in itself where are your statistics? How is English the sole language when 23% speak Welsh and 27-30% understand spoken Welsh also what about other languages? immigrant languages European languages, this figure is completely incorrect and I don't see why there needs to be any reference to linguistics of Wales in the oppening paragraph, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamjones416 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National Anthem

I notice that in the infobox it says Land of my Fathers is the national anthem, but there is no official national anthem of Wales, as it is not a Sovereign country. LOMF is the de facto anthem. The other UK constituent country articles all say 'None (de jure)' before stating the de facto anthem(s), so this article should really keep with the pattern and say 'None (de jure) "Hen Wlad Fy Nhadua" (English: "Land of My Fathers")'. Bainseyy (talk) 01:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are welsh names needed?

In the infobox, a lot of names say what it is in English, then in Welsh. On the France article, the french translation is not given after all this (e.g. Denonym, Capital etc.), so why should the Welsh names be put next the the English in this article, even though only 20% of the welsh speak it anyway? Bainseyy (talk) 01:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wales&oldid=348212157"