Wikipedia

Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 21

< Talk:United Kingdom
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Daicaregos in topic Literature
Archive 15 ← Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 → Archive 25

Language - specific proposal

Latest comment: 13 years ago47 comments8 people in discussion

This is all consuming too much time. I want to make a specific proposal and I have done my best to be as neutral as possible in the wording. The proposal is that we post the following question to whichever forum looks after country templates.

A question has arisen in respect of which languages should be shown in the information box of a country article. In the case of the UK Welsh is or will shortly be de jure an official language in Wales which is a constituent country of the UK. English, Welsh and Scots Gaelic are printed on UK passports (see here for UK Passport Office statement on Welsh). English is de facto the official language of the UK as a whole and de jure an official language in Wales. Other languages also have varying forms of official and unofficial use (Scots, Irish etc.).

There are two questions

  1. If a language is official in a part of a country, is it legitimate to translate the country name in the information box?
  1. Independently of this, is it appropriate to list the translation of the country name in all languages with some status in a drop down box within the information box.

I suggest that this or some variation be posted and that we leave it to uninvolved editors to resolve. If any one wants to see the arguments they can look at the page. It might be an idea to give a diff to an example of each to help people.

This is a policy issue, so lets move it there and all agree to abide by what comes back. --Snowded TALK 06:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments on proposal

I suggest the sentence "Welsh and Scots Gaelic are printed on passports." be amended to "English, Welsh and Scots Gaelic are printed on UK passports." Daicaregos (talk) 08:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

included --Snowded TALK 18:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The wording of the questions seem accurate. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Other comments

Just one request (also I wont be reverting again), please leave the infobox heading as it was before November 17, 2010. If changes are adopted for infobox headings of all (independant) countries? then obviously, I can't stop it. GoodDay (talk) 06:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Its under discussion GoodDay, as James say above the status quo is the position without the drop down box, but with Welsh. If you want to restore that fine. Otherwise please wait for agreement. --Snowded TALK 06:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I suppose, the outsiders should see up front, what's been disputed. GoodDay (talk) 07:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Proposal above is to post examples with the question --Snowded TALK 07:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand, but it'll be clearer to me, when others post. GoodDay (talk) 07:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I think the core debate is about the legal status or official status of Welsh in the UK. Eg, is that official status confined to Wales or does it apply to the whole UK? The debates about other languages just add a layer of unnecessary confusion and a bogus sense of "compromise". So yes, I propose we take it back to the original debate, eg, Welsh only. I would prefer personally that we take it back to English only, but I can see we're going to get nowhere until we get this officiality question resolved. So done. Please leave it as that for now everyone. Thanks. 10:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Interestingly James, I think the issue is the conditions for inclusion of an official language translation in the information box. I've been trying to make this point for some days now. As far as I am concerned the debate has clarified over the last few days and I went back to some of the original comments in particular this from Ghymrtle right at the start: "Welsh is an official language in part of the UK - [2]. (And, btw, Wales is not a "subnation", it is a nation.) It should be within the infobox". I've been arguing a similar position; if Welsh is an official language in Wales then it is an official language in the UK and should be in the information box. Hence it is a matter of policy and my wording in the above proposal. --Snowded TALK 10:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that seems to be a slightly different way of wording the same point - I am in agreement that the issue is how we decide what official language means when we display the country name translation in one in the infobox header. I attempt to summarise the areas of agreement below, please correct/comment where you wish to:
(1) Wales is official in Wales. (or will be shortly)
(2) Infobox headers for national articles show one or more translations of the host Wikipedia language state name in the appropriate list of official languages for that state.
(3) English is used here because we are in en-WP.
And areas of disagreement:
(1) Welsh is or is not official for the UK because or derived from its status as official in Wales.
(2) English may or may not be official in the UK. Somewhat ill-defined apparently by the government, law, etc.
(3) Languages that are official in a major element of a state such as a constituent country are de-facto official in the whole of that state.
Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
OK I think we are getting somewhere. I agree on the areas of agreement. On the areas of disagreement I am not sure if these are relevant to the information box. There is a big difference between my statement that Wales is an official language in the UK and yours that Wales is an official language for the UK" I am arguing the first not the second. I don't think there is any disagreement on your point 2 and 3 is a variation of 1. My position is that an official language in the state should appear in the information box. That I accept is a policy issue, its not one of fact and the various precedents are mixed (as they always are for the UK given its pretty unique status. God help us if we had held onto Calais. --Snowded TALK 11:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Three comments (1)"In the case of the UK Welsh is de jure an official language in Wales which is a constituent country of the UK." I dispute that Welsh is de jure an official language in Wales until the Welsh Language Measure 2010 comes into force. I suggest: "In the case of the UK, there are differing views over whether Welsh is an official language in Wales. It can, however, at least be said that it has aspects of a de facto official language in Wales, for example its use in Welsh courts". Or James’s suggestion of or "soon will be" is added. (2) I don't know the relevance of the statement that "Welsh and Scots Gaelic are printed on passports", but if it is included it should go on to say "although the UK Passport Agency has stated that Welsh is not an official language and there is no legal obligation for them to include either language in the passport". (3) I think there must be some parameter around ‘other languages’ in the second question. (should it include Italian?)No idea what though DeCausa (talk) 11:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Has anything to do with the "official status" of Welsh changed in the Act since BBC Wales published this FAQ on the subject? [1] I think I may have been mistaken above in suggesting that Welsh as an official language now in Wales is not in dispute. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Despite what has been said by those that claim Welsh is an official language, it is actually clear that, as of today, it is not. The wording I suggested above is actually 'generous' towards those that want to think of it as an official language.DeCausa (talk) 11:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
(ec)The main difference between the original act and the current one is that the first focuses on government and the court, the current moves to private sector such as utilities etc. It also seeks to establish unambiguously that Welsh is official (which is not the same thing as saying it is was not made official within the original act). In any event the 2010 act will come into effect shortly so its a slightly academic point although I am happy to amend the wording there to reflect the fact that any ambiguity will shortly be removed. On the passport issue can we have the diff for that quote DeCausa?
James I think the important thing to move this forward is my response to your "disagreements" as I think therein lie the sources of the problem --Snowded TALK 11:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Not yet, at least, not until this is clearer. It isn't academic at all and you appear to not be depicting the situation accurately above Snowded. The BBC FAQ states "the Welsh Language Society and other campaigners would like to see the measure amended in certain key areas. Firstly, they want Welsh speakers to be given rights to use the language in everyday life. Second, they want to see an unqualified statement that Welsh is an official language in Wales. Both have been the subject of intensive lobbying and even direct action in recent months, but it looks as if the assembly government has resisted their demands" - this is pretty clear that Welsh is actually not official and if so, the case is an extremely simple one and we can at once remove it from both this article and Wales as per established precedent in WP for national articles infoboxes, as changing that precedent is for another forum. What is the evidence that contradicts this? I have just checked multiple quality news sources and they all agree that this is a source of difficulty for the WLS. Why would the Welsh Language Society be up in arms that the Act does not make Welsh official if it does? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
It also says that it wants to remove any ambiguity James (the same article). The real issue for the campaigners (and the BBC is reporting the position of a campaigning body not making a statement itself) is to extend the right to use Welsh beyond Government to private industry and to increase the enforcement thereof along with other provisions (hence the unqualified statement). You might also note that the new act removes any ambiguity over the legal status of English, so if you want to delete Welsh ..... So it can be said that the official position of Welsh & ENglish before the introduction of the new act had ambiguities which will be removed as soon as the New Act gets Royal approval. Now would you please address my points in respect of disagreements --Snowded TALK 12:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
(e/c) James - I think you should check carefully the dates and times of your different sources, as there were changes to the legislation at the last minute which went much of the way (not all the way) towards meeting the demands you mention. The up-to-date position is as reported here and here. The BBC FAQ here was last edited several hours before the debate, and so does not reflect the position after the debate. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I suppose you would have to ask them. The Welsh Assembly Government's website notes on the 'Legislation' page of their 'Welsh language' section here: "The Welsh Language (Wales) Measure was approved by the National Assembly on 7 December 2010. The Measure fulfils the commitments in the 'One Wales' document by: Confirming Welsh and English as official languages; ..." It seems fairly explicit to me. If you doubt it is a reliable source we could take it to WP:RS/N. Daicaregos (talk) 12:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

No, that's fine, thanks for the link to the Welsh Government, I accept that of course as a conclusive source, couldn't find that when I searched their site. Snowded, on your point about English being removed, I already said above several times that I don't believe (and more importantly neither do lots of sources) that English has official status in the UK. But wierdly, judging from the above source, it does now in Wales! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Welsh should be kept with the minority regional languages, as quite simply that is what it is. Mabuska (talk) 12:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

On Snowded's query above, "in the UK" and "for the UK", my position is that it doesn't matter either way. I don't believe that because a language is official in one part of a state it makes it official for that state. As regards "in that state", I don't believe the infobox for the state article should carry something that is "in" an element of that state. The position is not precedented well however, so yes, we should seek external assistance to clarify. Which is the best forum for that, Project Countries? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
That or the talk page of the template or both. I suggest we spend a day or so agreeing the question and then post it. The point is that the case for inclusion is being made on the basis of "in" not "for" --Snowded TALK 13:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

As requested by Snowded here is the Passport Agency Source which confirms that they state that Welsh is not an official language. The document is issued to satisfy that agency's legal obligations under the Welsh Language Act. The most that can be said for the Act is that it confers de facto official status. By definition, it didn't confer de jure official status since no provision of it declares Welsh to be an official language within Wales. DeCausa (talk) 13:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Its a useful document DeCausa. I would be happy to change the sentence to say "The UK Passport authority gives equal status to English and Welsh" and reference the document for people to read. --Snowded TALK 13:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Of course, few would read it if that is how it is presented (and by the way, I have linked this before). The sentence in the document which is relevant to the debate is: "Welsh is not recognised as an official language". So clearly this is what should be stated, and is the context for these languages appearing on the Passport. DeCausa (talk) 14:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Those words need to be read in context, viz: Para. 5.23: "The UK passport will only contain details in English in line with the relevant EC Resolution. Only the official languages of the European Union (i.e. the languages in which the treaties were signed) are included in passports; this is common practice amongst member States, and Welsh is not recognised as an official language. However, this matter is under review by UKPS and the Welsh Language Board..." (my emphasis). So, it is specifically referring to the EU's official languages, at the time at which the Passport Service document was prepared, which seems to have been around 2000 (as it refers in the future tense to events in 2001). Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
That's circular. They have to be official in the member state to be official in the EU: here's the current state of play and Welsh is still not official: http://ec.europa.eu/education/languages/languages-of-europe/doc135_en.htm DeCausa (talk) 14:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Its not remotely circular, it would have to be official in a member state to be official in the EU, but that does not mean that all official languages in a member state are official in the EU. So a null state in the EU does not show a null state in the UK --Snowded TALK 15:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I am puzzled about what the legislation really means in practise as it [2] seems to just hark back to the 1993 Act, which does not make Welsh "official" as such, plus it adds the Commissioner and some other points. It uses the phrase "makes further provision about the official status of the Welsh language in Wales" but I can't help wondering if it isn't all just delicate legal manouevering to avoid calling a spade. It will be interesting to see what the courts make of all this. I suppose we must accept the Welsh government's statement that all this makes it official, given that they are the basic source for officialness, but in reality... another matter. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think so: the Welsh government (as all governments are) essentially 'political' - with a particular POV. Personally I would give the BBC more credibility. DeCausa (talk) 14:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I think technically that the royal assent makes it the position of the sovereign. However when people start to argue that the media have more authority that properly constituted government one has to wonder what will come next. --Snowded TALK 15:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
As I mentioned before, I've found no sources that back Welsh as an official language covering Scotland, England & Northern Ireland. This argument that in Wales equates to in/of th UK is a flawed argument. Just because a mixed coloured chair has a purple leg, doesn't mean it's a purple chair. GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree with that, clearly the United Kingdom is not Wales. It contains Wales, but that does not make all things Welsh apply to the United Kingdom as a whole. There seems to be doubt that Welsh is even official in Wales, but whether it is or not, makes no difference to what is official for the United Kingdom. This is actually a childishly simple point. Robert Burns is the national poet of Scotland. He is not the national poet of the United Kingdom. He is not even "a" national poet of the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has no national poet as such (other than arguably poet laureates) and similarly, it has no official language. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, shall we add the First Minister of Wales, to the UK infobox, under the British Prime Minister? Afterall the FM is governing Wales, which is within the UK. GoodDay (talk) 14:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
The issue is if welsh should be in the information box given its official status within the UK. That can be justified on its status in Wales alone per the initial comment from Ghymrtle when this all started which I endorsed. Now I accept that is a policy issue. However you guys seem to be fighting off multiple straw men --Snowded TALK 15:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
We just trying to understand how you get in Wales equates in the UK? By your reasoning, the FM of Wales should be included in the UK infobox, below the British Prime Minister, 'cuz Wales is within the UK. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I refer you to my above statement --Snowded TALK 15:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Which are misleading. You said above "if Welsh is an official language in Wales then it is an official language in the UK and should be in the information box". Er. Why. Especially given that in general you prefer that Wales be seen as a seperate country. Clearly, Wales is a distinct legal entity now with it's own laws, some of which do not apply to the UK as a whole. Are you in all seriousness arguing that every law passed in Wales and Scotland for Wales and Scotland now apply to the UK as a whole? ROTFL. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Why would I argue that every law passed in Wales applies to the UK James? All I have argued is that the status of welsh justifies it being in the information box of the UK article on Wikipedia. You see to be elevating that into some wider claim. I think this as a matter of policy for the community as a whole hence the proposal above. I also made that proposal to try and defuse needless tension. My views (or your views for that matter) on Welsh independence have no place here and are nothing to do with the question. --Snowded TALK 15:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
What aspect of the "status of Welsh" as you put it justifies it being in the infobox for the UK as an official language of the UK? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
The fact that it is an official language within the UK James. The fact the various legal obligations are in the main confined to Wales makes it a difficult question in which there are different perspectives. I respect yours even if I disagree with it. In addition there are no clear precedents so given that we can't agree it here we should go to the wider community and get policy determined. I'm happy to abide by that decision. My proposal above is to agree a form of words here (which may take a day or so) then post the question and stay the hell out of it while other editors take a wider view on the issue. Here its stalemate and the AGF levels are dropping with every comment on personal motivations and nonsensical edit summary. --Snowded TALK 15:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I feel that this discussion is going nowhere; people are repeating the same thing over and over again. I know Wikipedia doesn't get consensus by voting, but voting is a perfectly fine way to see how many people are on each side of this issue. We can then get a clearer view of where everyone's position is. I suggest we hold a vote, not to determine consensus but to aide in getting further in this discussion, or we can just keep repeating ourselves again. Nations United (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

A vote would be helpful as I was seeking to avoid wasting people's time on something that is basically very simple. You keep coming back to it being (as you say above) "official within the UK". But it isn't. It's official within Wales. I am not at all certain why such a truly simple point is even worthy of wider debate. Do you really want to take this elsewhere? I think we can predict the results.... that is unless the waters are muddied with further attempts to widen the argument away from this very basic point, which I am glad we have now come to. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
A head count wouldn't hurt. GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The greatest Welsh poet ever?

Latest comment: 13 years ago20 comments5 people in discussion

I'm looking for a little help from my Welsh colleagues (or any poetry lovers). There is a citation tag for the statement "The greatest Welsh poet of all time is generally held to be Dafydd ap Gwilym". The only source I could find for that type of wording is this one [3]. I'm not so sure that would be good enough and would hate to delete the sentence or part of without more input. Perhaps others have sources that would assert the truth of this statement? Thanks. Fred DeSoya (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I wondered about that one - surely it's Dylan Thomas? BTW, on the Y Goddodin / Arthur thing, do you think it should say "may" be the first Fred - a lot of scholarly debate about the age, meaning, structure, authenticity of YG amongst scholars and the earliest Arthurian reference is heavily disputed. Just a thought. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
If we say it "may be" we would have to explain why there is doubt. We could always expand it to explain the scholarly debate adding a reference for it. Alternatively, the statement could be deleted. What do you think? Fred DeSoya (talk) 22:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I kind of like the vagueness of "may be", it leaves it open to the reader to explore the link. Hard to synopsise such complex literatary/cultural/historical scholarships in any sentence, but nice to not have it too emphatic whilst in there? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with vagueness. I can be as vague as the next person. "May be" it is then. I'll let you do the honours James. <:) Fred DeSoya (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
He's the British poet, who inspired Bob Dylan's professional name. Wowsers. GoodDay (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
. GoodDay please stop playing silly games. To respond to the question, writing in English Dylan has the greatest reputation with the general public, but there would be a strong argument for R S Thomas. In Welsh you have have to go for one of the winners of the Chair, and I think there is some material on that. Dai would know better than I. I don't think a Waterstone's blurb is authoritative although in that period we have the Poets of the Gentry and the Poets of the Princes so that is another distinction. Overall I am very dubious about any claim to be the greatest in any artistic field. Better to replace it with the names of well known poets, establish the differences between the mediaeval period and modern, between the Welsh tradition (and its unique forms) and the anglo-welsh poets. --Snowded TALK 21:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not playing games. Robert Zimmerman created his stage name Bob Dylan as a tribute to Dylan Thomas. GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
That wasn't the point of concern; maybe I should have said "silly pedantic"--Snowded TALK 21:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
It's true, Zimmerman liked Thomas' poetry. GoodDay (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I would say that was the sensible way to go Snowded. It would need someone with a better knowledge of Welsh poetry than I have to write it up. Meanwhile, I'll delete the sentence. Thanks. Fred DeSoya (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
It is a bold statement and is certainly subject to opinion. These two refs would be sufficient for the statement. However, in 100 Welsh Heroes he came behind Dylan Thomas and R.S. Thomas. Even the secretary of the Dafydd ap Gwilym Centre Society said here "He was one of the greatest Welsh poets ever and one of the most important poets in Europe of his time." - one of … . Perhaps it could be phrased differently. Daicaregos (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Ah! You have me in two minds now. Should I replace the statement I deleted earlier, using your two sources or phrase it differently to say "one of"? Would you mind if I left it to a Welshman to decide and edit it? Fred DeSoya (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
You don't have to be Welsh to edit Welsh-related items Fred - in fact, on the whole, non-involved edits are more likely to be objective. Objectivity would also suggest that perhaps the secretary of the Dafydd ap Gwilym Centre Society might not be the most objective possible source on his (Dafydd's) importance in the scheme of things. This being the english WP, it seems likely that it's Dylan T's Rage Rage Against the Dying of the Light that wins out, at least in modern times and I'm sure a zillion sources could be readily located to rave about his importance. I tend to agree with Snowded though that ranking of cultural figures such as poets isn't a great cyclopedic concept, although we often see Top 50 type refs in such articles. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I understand that James but in a show of magnificent magnanimity I had decided to leave the decision to someone with a little more knowledge of Welsh poetry. <:) You are right of course. It does not necessarily have to be a Welsh person. Fred DeSoya (talk) 10:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Even though we would all agree, of course, that English is the best language in the world, I disagree with the opinion stated above; that "this being the english WP … " a poet writing in English is therefore better than a poet writing in any other language. However, may I suggest something like: "Wales' most celebrated medieval poet, Dafydd ap Gwilym (fl 1320-1370), composed Welsh language poetry on themes including nature, religion and, especially, love. He is widely regarded as one of the greatest European poets of his age." BBC ref, Academi ref, guide ref, Rachel Bromwich ref. Daicaregos (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
That appears to be a misconstruction of my point. I didn't say or mean the part you wrote about poets writing in English being better than poets writing in other languages - an obviously childish view if it were held - the point I was making is that as is this is English WP, Dylan Thomas will be better known to a mainly English-speaking audience. I'm sure that must be right. How many outside the narrow circle of medievalists and Welsh scholars have even heard of Gwilym? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 01:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
First off, I won't be falling into any trap. A great poet is a great poet no matter what language they write in. Secondly, at the risk of just agreeing with everyone all the time, (you'll maybe find out in time that's not really me), I would say you have enough good sources to include your suggestion. Do you think Dylan Thomas deserves a little spiel of a similar nature? Fred DeSoya (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Sure :) I'll look into it, unless anyone else would like to have a crack? Daicaregos (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Can you use this? "The best-known of the Anglo-Welsh poets are both Thomases. Dylan Thomas became famous on both sides of the Atlantic in the mid 20th century. The Swansea writer is remembered for his poetry – his "Do not go gentle into that good night; Rage, rage against the dying of the light." is one of the most quoted couplets of English language verse – and for his 'play for voices'; Under Milk Wood. R. S. Thomas , the influential Church in Wales 'poet-priest' and Welsh nationalist, was nominated for the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1996." Visit Wales ref, BBC ref, DT Centre ref, 100 Welsh Heroes refNew Quay ref, Guardian obit ref Daicaregos (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Colloquial names for the UK

Latest comment: 13 years ago20 comments11 people in discussion

Great Britain is technically not a colloquial name for the United Kingdom, as Great Britain does not include Northern Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.146.96 (talk) 11:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but I can't find anything in the article that says that "Great Britain" can be used as a colloquial name for the UK so I'm not sure what the problem is? Cordless Larry (talk) 11:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
It us used colloquially/informally (although not mentioned in the article) but it doesnt mean it has to be technically correct to be used. MilborneOne (talk) 11:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
It should stay unmentioned in the article, in my view. "Britain" is the whole UK, "Great Britain" is only the mainland. I haven't heard "Great Britain" used to mean the UK as a whole, but if it is, it's wrong. -- Alarics (talk) 12:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
As I said it doesnt have to be correct, a bit like the Netherlands is often called Holland which really is just one part of the Netherlands. Informal language is just that it doesnt have to be correct to be used. MilborneOne (talk) 12:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I think the unregistered user must have meant "commonly" and not "colloqial" and "Britain" not "Great Britain" - at least the only place where this seems to crop up is the opening sentence where those words are used. I suppose if one were being pedantic one could say spomething like Britain was "commonly but, strictly, incorrectly used". DeCausa (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I usually only ever hear Americans regarding to the whole of the Uk as either Britain or Great Britain. I find it more funny when they refer to the UK simply as England. Mabuska (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I think the best example I can think of where Great Britain is used for the whole of the UK is in the Olympics. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Note that in Terminology of the British Isles, it currently says "The "Ireland" Olympic team represents the whole island of Ireland, a geographical entity[citation needed]. Athletes from Northern Ireland have by virtue of their double nationality the choice of participating in either the "Great Britain" team or the "Ireland" team.[citation needed]" Is this true? I thought Ireland was Republic of Ireland for the Olympics and "Great Britain" was UK? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I think it's that way in the Olympics. GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
it says pretty much the same thing in Ireland at the Olympics with a citation i.e. it's not a Republic-only team, but for the whole island. But the Team GB website says it is the team for GB and NI. They seem to be rival claims in the traditional way -and the IOC went for the quiet life of recognising both DeCausa (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
....This seems to explain it. Looks like the IOC recognised NI was part of the Ireland Team but in 2004, Team GB unilaterally formally extended itself to NI (albeit NI British citizens always could have joined Team GB). That's why it's "GB" and not "UK" (pre-2004 anyway) DeCausa (talk) 00:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Useful refs for the Terminology page which needed citing. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Throughout the world the United Kingdom is commonly referred to as "England" (sic), both in the English language and in countless other languages. In fact, calling the state "England" is probably a lot more common than calling it "Britain", Great Britain", "the UK" or "the United Kingdom", at least until the last 20 years or so. Matthew Parris has an interesting artice in the Christmas edition of The Spectator, descibing how his grandparents used to refer to the UK as "England". As did (arguably) Churchill, eg. in his famous quote:

Here's a bit of that Parris article:

It is truly astonishing that Wikipedia does not dare state the blindingly obvious: that the terms "UK" and "United Kingdom" are neologisms to most ordinary folk. Until recently, only official sources used the correct terminology. --Mais oui! (talk) 08:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to quote from WP:UCN on why we should not plop England in there as a terminology; "ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more common." The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
That is a complete red herring. I am not proposing that the name of the article be changed. I am simply saying that we ought to mention that it is common usage to say 'England' when the speaker actually means the UK. Especially in former days, when usage of "UK" or "United Kingdom" was actually very unusual. When "ambiguous or inaccurate names" are actually common, then Wikipedia ought to concisely explain that fact. Otherwise, we are acting like ostriches with their heads in the sand, which is hardly a good viewpoint for encyclopedists. --Mais oui! (talk) 09:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
It is indeed the case that people don't often say "UK" in ordinary conversation, but that is not true of "Britain", which means the whole of the UK and which used to be the normal thing to say in careful or "correct", i.e. relatively educated, speech. Some people in so-called England, but I think more particularly in southern and midland England, have always said "England" without being clear whether they mean "England" or Britain (or Great Britain, which is not the same thing as Britain), but this has always been recognised as wrong usage. (Except that in a legal context "English law" actually means "England and Wales law".) Matthew Parris (brought up in Africa and educated at Cambridge and in America) fails to see that there isn't really any meaningful entity that can be unambiguously called "England", except to mean "that part of the UK that is not Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland". In this he is typical of many members of the metropolitan elite who think of themselves as "Englishmen". I grew up in Yorkshire and we never talked about England, only Britain. I think the main reason why people talk about England more now is the craze for football, plus Scottish and Welsh devolution, which has accentuated the notion of those two territories as somewhat separate entities and thus leaves an undevolved "England" by default. Anyway, why are we discussing this here? It has nothing to do with the United Kingdom article. This thread was originally about "Britain" vs. "Great Britain". I hope nobody is suggesting changing the article lead, which is correct as it now stands. -- Alarics (talk) 09:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I think the question is whether the article on Terminology of the British Isles should be flagged up more clearly in a link from this article. And, incidentally, I agree with many of the points made by Alarics. Apart from (sometimes) supporting the same football team, people in, say, Devon, Essex and Yorkshire have little in common with each other except that they would (mostly) not define themselves as Scottish or Welsh. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Good analysis from Alarics. You raise an interesting point Mais Oui about neologism - I do slightly agree that "UK" is a modernism - I looked back at my 1930 copy of Whitakers Almananac this morning - whilst "UK" is in there, it generally talks about Britain and Great Britain. I would slightly question though that Churchill did not know of what he spoke. I think to Churchill's class and generation, it was simply that England was the important thing. I don't think they didn't understand that Wales, Scotland and (as they then called it) Ulster were not part of some "England-concept" - they just regarded them as slightly marginal appendages, containing useful resources, soldiers and workers as well as (in Scotland) some nice shooting. One thinks of Neville Chamberlain's declaration of war broadcast which makes it clear that it is "Britain" that is "at war with Germany". Churchill not always the best spokesman for what was linguistically believed widely at the time in geographic England. I do think though that putting aside the differences we now fully grasp between "UK", "Britain", "England", etc, Mais Oui has a point and it might be worth briefly mentioning that UK was not in wide usage until fairly recently. Might be hard to source this properly though. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


CoE, it may say GBR at the Olympics but it does stand for Great Britain and Northern Ireland. They may simply say Great Britain in commentating but thats just shorthand. Mabuska (talk) 11:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Latest comment: 13 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

I'd like to wish all those who contribute to this article a Happy New Year when it comes. Fred DeSoya (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Also from me. Despite things sometimes being a bit bad-tempered around here sometimes, I'm sure we all get a buzz out of contributing to such an important (heavily visited) Wikipedia article and enjoy trying to make it work. Hope you all have a great 2011 and may it please please be better than the last one! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

From me aswell. Hopefully I'll meet my future wife in 2011, 'cuz lonliness is everything it's cracked up to be. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Cough* Against talk page rules...goes to delete........Nah, I'll let you have your fun. Keep up, you know, the work --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe editors of each background could give us a Happy New Year in each language. Welsh first of course, since that's Official. :-) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Official in Wales, not across the UK. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I started this section wishing everyone a Happy New Year and you finish it by trying to wind certain people up? Give it a rest please. Fred DeSoya (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, thought I was being funny. GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I sincerely mean the bit about having New Year greetings in each language - it would be great if people have a minute. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Never mind GoodDay, chin up, if you didn't spend so much time in this madhouse you might might meet Mrs GoodDay and have lot's of little GoodDays, just like Shrek ;-) --- Bill Reid | (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
James, can't wait for the Welsh so in Scottish Gaelic, Blianadh Bha Ur to all. --Bill Reid | (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Blwyddyn Newydd Dda, oddi wrth Daicaregos (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Welsh (part II)

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

What's the latest on those proposed 2 questions, concerning the infobox heading? GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

James and I are exploring a possible compromise, but the last two days have seen other priorities but Wikipedia. --Snowded TALK 04:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Informal Vote: Official Status of Welsh

Latest comment: 13 years ago106 comments19 people in discussion

As per discussion above, please express your opinions below. I will mention this informal vote on a few related talk pages, not as a forum shop, but because I suspect quite a number of editors would be interested and not all regularly check in here.

Proposition: That Welsh, now having official status in Wales, is therefore an official language in the UK and following from this, that the infobox for United Kingdom should display the Welsh translation of United Kingdom (Teyrnas Unedig Prydain Fawr a Gogledd Iwerddon) underneath the header, in the way that other national articles do when an official language alternate is given. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Support

As far as I'm aware , in Wales they use Welsh on the roadsigns as well as English which must show something for officiality as well as that Act of Parliament of Welsh Language Act 1967 that seceeded Wales from England gave Welsh language more officiality in UK law and then followed up by the Welsh Language Act 1993 which gave Welsh equal public use with English. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Why in your view does that then extend to the whole of the UK C of E? Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Because (last time I checked) Wales was part of the UK and even though it may only be spoken officially in that country, it's still offically recognised by Westminister (as shown by them allowing members to swear their oath of allegience in Welsh. It's a lot similar to Canada and Quebec, French is only used in that state but it is still recognised as an offical language. another example of this is the Maori Language in New Zealand. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
The same is true of the Cornish language. AJRG (talk) 20:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't know the position in New Zealand, but that is certainly not the position in Canada. French and English are legislatively national official languages for the whole of Canada, not just Quebec. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Exactly, it's the same with the UK, Welsh has equal standing publicly with English in the Uk despite only being used in Wales. Last time I checked there was no need for the state of British Columbia to stick French on their road signs like they do in Quebec. As for the position in New Zealand, Maori is so equal that Aotearoa is recognised as equal name for NZ (not to mention the 1st verse of God Defend New Zealand is in Maori.) The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
It isn't the same at all and you are entirely mistaken about the comparison between Canada and the UK. Canada is officially bilingual. The whole nation is legislatively bilingual. Here, only Wales is. It is even doubtful that English is an official language for the UK or England. They are not the same. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
On the basis of the wording - "That Welsh, now having official status in Wales, is therefore an official language in the UK" - it is clearly the case that Welsh is an official language in the UK. The question posed by Jamesinderbyshire to The C of E. God Save The Queen! - "Why in your view does that then extend to the whole of the UK? - does not follow from the wording of the proposition. Welsh can be an official language "in the UK" without extending "to the whole of the UK". Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I am trying to seek elucidation of the arguments. If, as you say, it doesn't extend to the whole of the UK, why in your view should the infobox for United Kingdom display it as an official language of the UK? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Jamesinderbyshire. Could it be that you have asked the wrong question? You seem to be confusing two questions: 'is Welsh an official language of the UK' is a different question from the one you asked, which was 'is Welsh an official language in the UK'. My answers, by the way, would be 'no' to the first question since there are no official languages of the UK, and 'yes' to the second question since Welsh is clearly an official language within the UK. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Different ways of phrasing it, but the proposition is "that Welsh, now having official status in Wales, is therefore an official language in the UK", so your answer is in fact Oppose. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Although he things it should be in the information box. Do you now see my point about agreeing phrasing of questions which does not bias the outcome James. --Snowded TALK 07:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
There isn't an "outcome" for this - it's a free discussion. The informal vote was just to see at this stage which side people stack up on. I daresay it will be difficult to derive a question to which all agree. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to disagree Jamesinderbyshire but you said "the proposition is "that Welsh, now having official status in Wales, is therefore an official language in the UK", so your answer is in fact Oppose" - WRONG!!! I can tell the difference between 'in the UK' and 'of the UK' - these are not 'different ways of phrasing it' - they mean different things! As I said, if the question is, 'is Welsh an official language in the UK?', the answer is undoubtedly 'yes' because it is an official language in Wales and Wales is 'in the UK'. Is that clear now? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 08:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
That's OK, just curious as to your reasoning. Useful to know your position for the straw poll when it comes. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


  • Support - on its own basis and as per Tolkien insights.Jembana (talk) 06:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
That's interesting Jembana - what did Tolkers have to say about the official status of Welsh in the UK? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • --Snowded TALK 07:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC) Support inclusion in the Information box, but not necessary in agreement with the question as possed

Oppose

Comment Why are you opposed to this being put to the community in an agreed format? Its a policy issue that requires some independent views. --Snowded TALK 17:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not - I'm seeking opinion here to see if it is really all that contested. If it isn't very controversial one way or the other, I would question the point. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Invalid process, wikipedia is a not a democracy, the proper way forward is to refer the issue to the appropriate forum along the lines proposed here. Its also normal if a straw poll is agreed for the question to be agreed by both parties, not formulated by one side. Further the vote ignores the earlier compromise proposal put forward by several editors for a drop down information box. --Snowded TALK 17:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
On the assumption the vote isn't binding, why worry? GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Not anything as formal as a Straw Poll. Just curious what editors here think on this simple point. Are you against finding out, or against the wording? On the "compromise" thing, it seemed very clear we had already moved well beyond that and nobody has so far overturned the removal of the dropdown - I would definately want to see a formal Straw Poll if the plan is to re-introduce that. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
(ec)'cause its wrong GoodDay. One editor who is a strong advocate for one position formulates the question without consultation and immediately posts notices to other pages without even engaging in discussing an agreed way forward out of an impasse. Its bad practice--Snowded TALK 17:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Wait a sec. James mentioned the dropdown compromise. Interestingly, my change of the infobox to 'English' version got reverted, yet his change to 'English/Welsh' version didn't. GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I think you're jumping ahead Snowded. I saw a straw poll happening further down the track. This has no effect and is simply a gathering of informal views on this very simple point which we've finally elucidated. If you don't want to participate, that's absolutely fine. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
And again not discussing a sensible way forward. Sorry James I'd disappointed with you on this one. I thought you would work with agreeing a process even if there was a difference of opinion, instead you are pushing forward on your own formulation. --Snowded TALK 18:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Poking my nose in here. Snowded, is there anything to stop you formulating your own straw poll? Fred DeSoya (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Fine with a full Straw Poll - Snowded, pls suggest wording. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think a straw poll is appropriate. This is a policy issue for Country Information Boxes, not just another British Isles battleground. If you look at the history of polls they just postpone conflict and frequently accentuate it. Forced solutions through them on one article lead to spin off battles on others by the "loosing side". Lasting solutions (like the one on if E/W/S/NI aret are countries) are achieved by involving outside editors, moving away from the battleground, agreeing process and also agreeing the words in which an issue should be defined. Polls reinforce existing view points, force people into either/or positions and generally create bad feeling. I remain surprised that my proposal for a binding process here here was ignored in favour of a further repetition of the previous arguments--Snowded TALK 18:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I've no probs with those proposals. Getting infobox headings consistant across sovereign state articles is fine. GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
If James and others are happy for you to do so, couldn't you post your proposal for a binding agreement to the appropriate forum now? If James were in agreement to remove his straw poll for the moment or even add his questions to the proposal would that be a better way forward? Fred DeSoya (talk) 18:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Let's not waste any more valuable off-work time! Snowded, not sure what you meant by "binding" - I was sceptical because the external forum debate will surely rehash arguments and participants familiar with these parts - but happy to try it. What prop did you have in mind to put there, please describe. Fred, not sure if I'm allowed to just delete the above - shall I roll it up or something? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure how it works James. Maybe inform those editors that have already voted? Fred DeSoya (talk) 18:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
The text is outlined here and my suggestion is that we agree the text before we place it at the forum. I also think there is value in those editors who have taken part here staying out of the discussion - our views are manifest here. --Snowded TALK 18:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I recall now why I didn't want that to go forward as-per your proposed text Snowded, as it contains quite a number of steers and assumptions and does not quite match the actual facts as debated. Please consider this alternative: Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

A question has arisen in respect of which languages should be shown in the information box of a country article. In the case of the United Kingdom, Welsh is or will shortly be de jure an official language in Wales, which is a constituent country of the UK. It has been proposed that this means that Welsh is therefore official in the UK and so the infobox for the UK should now display the Welsh translation of United Kingdom. It is not quite clear if English is an official language of the UK. The official status of Welsh is something that the Government of Wales has confirmed in a recent Act of the National Assembly for Wales.

There are two questions

  1. If a language is official in a part of a country, is it legitimate to translate the country name in the information box, thereby inferring that it is official for the whole country?
  1. Independently of this, is it appropriate to list the translation of the country name in all languages with official status in a drop down box within the information box?
I think the proposal is that as Welsh is official within the UK it should be in the information box, there is no wider claim made. I am unhappy to assert or imply that Welsh is official for the whole of the UK or link the question to that assertion. Your final statement doesn't really cover the point that the Welsh Assembly is working within a legal framework set up by Parliament and that the act will get the Royal assent. As you have worded it plays to a misunderstanding that was evident a few days ago where one editor said its a welsh decision so it doesn't account. All constitutional authority comes from the monarch. Let me think on it overnight and I will do a new draft in the morning and try and accommodate what you have said and any other comments. --Snowded TALK 20:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

This is acceptable, too. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at how the Spanish do this: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espa%C3%B1a AJRG (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
They'll just tell ya, that's the Spanish Wikipedia, therefore irrelevant. That what I've been roughly told, when I pointed out how the French Wikipedia handles Canadian provincinal/territorial articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I like their small language explanation panel at the foot - that could be used to good effect in en-WP. This isn't the only case where we have a lot to learn from the other-language WPs. On the above text, now I'm thinking about it, it will be difficult to get an accurate and usable answer from this. It's too vague. We probably need to present something like a table of problems, including what makes a language official, what makes a regional language nationally official, what makes a national official language regionally official, etc, etc. A true policy for en-WP could then emerge. There's actually a lot of complexity to the problem. In the meantime, a simple straw poll on going back to the pre-November multi-year status quo would make sense. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I made a change to the font size as an experiment, feel free to reverse it if you want. Otherwise you already have a poll going in which the "oppose" section is to revert to the pre-November position; --Snowded TALK 20:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Can we collapse the discussions under the support votes? It's much neater when just the monikers are added. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Better if James resists the temptation to challenge people who vote against him --Snowded TALK 07:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)



Suggestions for changes to the proposed text:
1. Disamb the link to [[Welsh]] to [[Welsh language|Welsh]].
2. Amend the sentence "It has been proposed that this means that Welsh is therefore official in the UK and so the infobox for the UK should now display the Welsh translation of United Kingdom." to "It has been proposed that as a consequence the infobox for the UK should display the Welsh translation of United Kingdom." so that it reads more NPOV.
3. Remove the sentence "It is not quite clear if English is an official language of the UK.". English will be displayed anyway and so it is of no consequence.
4. Remove the final part of question 1 (" … thereby inferring that it is official for the whole country") The additional language(s) may or may not imply that the language is official for the whole country. Stating it is unnecessarily POV. Daicaregos (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

On your Point 4 Dai, do you then not accept that the alternate language versions displayed at the top of national infoboxes refer to official national languages? If not, do you realise this places you against the en-WP-wide precedent? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
My view is that the additional language(s) may imply that the language is official in that country, and not necessarily for the whole country. As far as I know this point is not explicitly mentioned either as part of policy or MOS. If it were, it would have been noted above. Surely, this is the reason for bringing the questions up in the first place. Daicaregos (talk) 22:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
That seems to be the established pattern, even if not spelt out in policy. It may be that the problem we are discussing is actually a very simple one of seeking clarification that national article infobox header languages represent national official languages. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. Your view, however, should not be evident from the question posed, which should be NPOV. Daicaregos (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Better yet, ask if Welsh is an official language of the UK (i.e. across all 4 parts of the UK). GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
In the English version of Wikipedia, just put the title in English. The Welsh version of Wikipedia can put the title in Welsh. The UK is not a bilingual country in the Canada/Belgium sense. Wales is less than 5% of the population, and even within Wales a majority don't actually speak Welsh. More people in the UK speak Urdu. -- Alarics (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
It oughtta be that simple, but 17+ days later, it apparently isn't. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

This has been debated many times before. The United Kingdom has ratified the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages in respect to Welsh. One criterion for it being ratified for a language is that that language is not an official language of the signatory state. As such, it cannot be an official language of the UK. Bastin 23:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to note that the government website Direct.gov.uk says English is the official language of the United Kingdom and on the same page The Welsh Language Act 1993 establishes in law the equality of the Welsh and English languages in Wales. It places an obligation on the public sector to treat the Welsh and English languages equally in the provision of services to the public in Wales. This means that the direct.gov.uk although a UK website gives an option for a Welsh because it covers services in Wales. So although not an "official" language it does have a standing in government business unlike the other recognised regional languages. MilborneOne (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
That's a good example of how different branches of even official government mouthpieces misunderstand things. English is not official in the sense that there is no legislation to say it is, unlike all those countries that do have such legislation. It just is but the writers of directgov presumably don't say that as it would be too sophisticated a point for their audience. However, if it is evidence, it is evidence that Welsh is only official in Wales. There is nothing in that statement to say it is an official language of the UK and in fact it contradicts that. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
The UK is not France, our constitution is based on precedence as much as statute. Its perfectly reasonable to say that English is the official language without having to qualify it de facto. The one change that happened by statute is to change the language of the courts although I cannot remember which act off hand. --Snowded TALK 07:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Even in the UK, official usually means governmental and legal. If Welsh is official for the UK, why is Parliament not permitting Welsh? In all parliamentary countries where more than one language is classified as official, those languages are simul-translated in their parliaments. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Sigh, it does not matter what formalities are required in the UK to make a language 'official', 'legal', or otherwise. It only matters that, whatever the formalities are, the government has clearly decided - by ratifying the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages with regard to Welsh - that they have not been met for Welsh. End of story. Bastin 14:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Its always a little dangerous to use a wikipedia article about a treaty as authority. I checked it out and the treaty covers languages "significantly differ from the majority or official language". Please note the 'or' in the phrase and the lack of a plural on 'language'. In addition the Royal assent to the current act would resolve any potential issue. --Snowded TALK 14:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Can we trust Welsh language, which has as it's fourth paragraph "Officially, the English and Welsh languages have equal status in Wales. In December 2010, the Welsh Assembly unanimously approved legislation to make Welsh an official language in Wales, and additional measures to promote the language. The legislation will come into force in 2011."? Just one of quite a number of articles that will need modification if we don't get this issue sorted. As to the language in the European Charter, that's just terms definition - Bastin is right and the UK govt have legally confirmed that Welsh is a minority language - and the language confirms that. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Please point to any part of this discussion in which anyone has said that Welsh is not a minority language? Otherwise if you want to make this an issue over multiple articles then it will need to move to a different forum which would be no bad thing given your continued assertions. The UK Government by signing the treaty have confirmed that Welsh significantly differs from the majority language. Agreed, no problem with that. --Snowded TALK 15:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I didn't (of course) say that anyone had said it isn't a minority language. I was referring to your point about the untrustworthiness of Wikipedia articles and pointing out (as anyone can see quite easily from the para I provided) that Welsh language (quite correctly) describes Welsh as official and of equal status to Welsh in Wales. If the assertion that it is now official and equal in the UK is correct, that would need changing to in Wales and the United Kingdom and it would also require a false claim that the Welsh Assembley had approved legislation to make Welsh an official language in the UK. This is currently a very accurate paragraph and one I assume comes under close monitoring from our many Welsh Wikipedians. Is it currently accurate or not? If it is (and of course it is!) then it conclusively contradicts the supposed officiality of Welsh in the UK, as does the Treaty. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up. I am not aware that anyone has asserted that welsh has equal status with english in England. You continue to argue against a position that no one is taking. This has been explained constant times (even today), namely that if a language is official in a part of the UK then it is an official language of the UK. --Snowded TALK 15:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I didn't claim that anyone has said it is "equal". Bit confused on that last point though - are you saying "if a language is official in a part of the UK then it is an official language of the UK" or are you saying I think that? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
By George, I do believe he's got it. I would probably say "within" rather than "of" if I was being pedantic, and I would add that Welsh can be used as an official language in specific contexts in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. But at its heart, in response to your question: yes I am (along with several other editors), no I don't think you are, yes I think you should. --Snowded TALK 15:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
This appears to be a shift in view. Previously the assertion was that "in", not "of". Glad we've got past the semantics to the nitty-gritty. . So the position now being put by yourself is that an official minority language legislated for in a region can be said to be an official language of the host nation. Do you agree, yes or no? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
To the way you have phrased the question "No", otherwise I see both of my statements above as consistent with the discussion so far. I am feeling hopeful that you are starting to understand that the position you are arguing against is not one held by your opponents. --Snowded TALK 15:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Infobox headings across Wikipedia

Can we try this over again? things are getting muddled. Meanwhile, having looked over the 'head count', it's not surprising the alleged 'tiny issue' has continued on this long. We've 2 groups of editors, who aren't budging on their stances. GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

If I remember GoodDay one group did budge to the use of the drop down box as a compromise. You and others were not prepared to accept that. --Snowded TALK 07:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Is Welsh declared explicitly as an official language of the UK as a whole? If not then it should be removed. If its just declared as an official language of the UK, it still doesn't merit inclusion as technically Scots, Gaelic etc. etc. are official as they are recognised as regional languages of the UK. Mabuska (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
It's only an official language in Wales. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Except that it has been stated that "in Wales" means "in the UK" and therefore it is official "in the UK". Clearly we need a ruling that infobox header language means official language "of the nation in question" and not just "in the nation in question". This may seem to others an unnecessary distinction, but we apparently have to overcome such sophistry in order merely to align this article with the 150+ other national articles. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Please don't call arguments supported by several editors with long standing contribution records "sophistry", sometimes people will disagree with you: AGF --Snowded TALK 07:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
OK. Sophisticated. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Can ya imagine the commotion over getting those 150+ articles infobox headings changed, in order to compensate just 1 article (if the community decides to do so)? GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
It won't happen. China for example has hundreds of regional and local languages - they can't all appear in the infobox. This whole thing is a time-wasting farce basically. The November edit was a simple mistake. The end result of this process will be that it will be confirmed that infobox header languages are the official languages of the state in question and Welsh will be removed. We can do that now or do it after hundreds of hours of exhausting effort. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if the editor who put the Welsh verson in, last November, is aware of what's taken place since then. GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Dont have a strong view either way but can not the Welsh text just be hidden and toggled on if needed by the reader. MilborneOne (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Best it's not. GoodDay (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
That option, with "other languages" was put in place as a compromise over a week ago MilborneOne and I and others thought the matter was then closed. However those who want English only refused to accept that and have continued the argument for the best part of three weeks and plan "hundreds of hours of exhausting effort" if the rest of us don't give in. --Snowded TALK 07:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
This really is nonsense Snowded. The "compromise" was not a compromise at all - it was a mistake. Welsh is at least official in a country, Wales. The other languages listed are local languages in regions. Very pleased it's gone. Now let's stay on the main track. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Please try to stay civil and respect the fact that some people have viewpoints that differ to yours. This is the reason why we are trying to agree the wording for the questions to be asked, to have input from non-involved, objective editors to resolve this difference of interpretation. Endlessly repeating the same argument gets us nowhere. Can we now agree the wording please?Daicaregos (talk) 11:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
It isn't incivil to say something's nonsense when it is, or to point out that something being presented as a "compromise" is no such thing. As I said, the main track is the question of whether the UK is now officially bilingual, as currently depicted in the infobox. That's quite unlikely tp be a matter of opionion, or of compromise. It's more likely to be something tested by sources, something there was some reluctance to do earlier on in this discourse. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
The sooner the wording is agreed and neutral observers can give their opinions on whether Welsh should be part of the heading, the sooner this will be resolved. Fred DeSoya (talk) 11:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
(ec)The option MilborneOne suggested was the previous compromise James. I know you think its a mistake but I simply made reference to that and my comment was not "nonsense". And for your information that option has not gone, its still there as an option. As Dai says you really need to tone down your language as there have been multiple AGF breeches by you during these exchanges. Its getting to the point where your behaviour and language could be a bigger issue in making progress that the content question. You pushed forward an informal vote on your own terms rather than engaging in a bi partisan discussion as how to phrase the question. You have challenged most who opposed your position on that vote rather than just leaving it and to compound that you now suggest above that you plan a straw poll on top of that vote.
Critically, your suggestion that the main track is whether the UK is officially bilingual is false, itdoes not represent the issue at all. Its your take on on what you see as an implication and is not reflected in what other editors have said or asserted. The other side is simply arguing that if the language is official in Wales then it is official within the UK and should be in the information box. That position does not entail asserting that the UK as a whole is bilingual. This has been pointed out to you by several editors, including those with a strong track record of neutrality in the various issues that surround the British Isles. You keep asking other editors to provide sources for a position they are not advocating, and getting increasingly strident in your requests. Its cup of tea and reflect time.
I'll do my best at another draft of the question later today, but that formulation has to be neutral and relate to the actual position and facts. At the moment I think the basic facts are agreed, but interpretation and consequences are disputed. --Snowded TALK 11:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't "challenging" people who voted, I was asking them for further information - there's a difference. I did go inadvisedly one further for C of E just to point out that he is factually wrong about Canada. Willing to take back saying your argument was "nonsense", but not that the content of it was accurate. You say it was. I say it wasn't. On the bilinguality issue, your statement above says that "if the language is official in Wales then it is official within the UK and should be in the information box. That position does not entail asserting that the UK as a whole is bilingual" - can't be right. At least, not if the presence of a language alternate at the top of the infobox conveys that those are the official languages of the country in question. And therefore officially bilingual. Note that you didn't say "officially bilingual" and there is a difference. Currently, national infoboxes alternate language headers appear to convey officiality in the sense of officially bilingual, trilingual, or whatever. The reason I somewhat inadvisedly use the word "nonsense" is that to go against this view argues that the UK is therefore a special and unique case and amongst all the UN countries of the world, it's infobox alternate language listing alone must convey something different. Of course, we can go to great lengths to get this agreed by the whole community. I just feel very frustrated that this appears to be needed, as it is the result of POV, since the UK is not even officially lingual, let alone bilingual. I think people know that the UK is not officially bilingual, but right now, the infobox suggests it is. The "compromise" would be worse, because it suggests that it is officially multi-lingual. None of which is to say that I won't consider formatting an external question, but if you are going to give me long depositions on the error of my ways, I feel a need to reply. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
What matters James is that we properly structure the areas of disagreement, do not misrepresent other positions and generally keep the exchanges civil. Then with a bit of luck we might get somewhere. Looks from the above that you are happy to do that and I appreciate you formulating your concerns. Its makes it easier to understand where you are coming from. I'll do my best to respect that in the next draft and offer it up for comment. --Snowded TALK 13:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Has the wording of those 2 questions (for the coummunity to review) been agreed to yet? GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Can I make a suggestion

It seems to me as though there is a bit of a stalemate on the infobox question. I have never in my life witnessed an argument that has been so repititious. I'm sorry, that may sound a bit blunt but it also happens to be true. Can I make a suggestion. Wait until the question/proposal has been decided and put to a neutral venue before arguing further. I am no-ones keeper and you can do as you wish, but I do think it would help matters if everyone took a little break. Fred DeSoya (talk) 15:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

No probs, as both sides aren't gonna budge on their stances. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree, I working on a redraft taking into account suggestions by Dai and James and will post it for discussion before I go to bed tonight. --Snowded TALK 15:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
OK. If anyone wants to continue to make comments, feel free to do so at my talk page, as (believe it or not!) I find it quite interesting. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't we also include the Scots-Gaelic version as well seeing as its inclusion on the British Passport equates to officialness throughout the whole UK too. The inclusion of the Welsh version could be simply stuck in the name section rather than the infobox. Mabuska (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Language compromise proposal

Latest comment: 13 years ago40 comments9 people in discussion

Having thought about this, I would suggest the following compromise: a drop down box just headed 'Name in Welsh', the drop down having the name and then in brackets: "Welsh is an official language in Wales". Although not ideal, I think at least there is then no confusion about why the name in another language is there. Any shorthand reference in the drop down box to the status of Welsh or to 'other languages' etc will, I believe, always end up being misleading (i.e. giving the impression of a UK-wide status). I think the other languages have to go though. I would also suggest continuing the part in brackets with: 'Although other languages namely Scottish Gaelic, Cornish and Scots have a degree of official recognition they do not have the official status that Welsh has in Wales'. Although its a bit of a mouthful, hopefully it will explain to future generations why the box is as it is without having to delve the archives. I think this still run s contrary to the normal practice of English Wikipedia, but, in my view, it just about works (I think). Happy New Year to allDeCausa (talk) 11:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

James and I were discussing two drop downs, in part given that several editors wanted all languages. One of those would have been those with official status and the other "other", but we haven't picked up on that given the new year break. If we are going with a one language solution per the above then I think its more practical to simply have welsh there in a reduced font with a (in wales) attached and a note --Snowded TALK 11:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Afternoon everyone and Happy 2011 - warmest day for ages here in Derbyshire, a balmy 6 degrees and drizzle. This seems positively benign. I think the basic point I am trying to persuade people to avoid is giving a misleading impression that a language is an official one of the UK if that is either (1) somewhat unclear or (2) certainly untrue. In the case of Welsh, this aspect of status is I would suggest, at best, somewhat unclear. In the case of the other languages, it seems clearer that those are either protected or unprotected regional/minority languages. This goes to presentation. If they appear in the usual place at the top, that appears to make them official. Hence some kind of heading explaining more would be one option. The other (my preference) would be to have something lower down in the infobox that briefly lists them under headings. It might also work to have the (in Wales) bit Snowded refers to. We need to look at some examples I think. I'm not very good at doing the infobox design end of things and will gladly accept sensible efforts from others that attempt to encapsulate these ideas - maybe if we could look at a couple of alternatives? If not, I will have a stab at it myself over the next couple of days, with possibly variable results. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Looks like we are going in a better direction here. I'm happy to remove the ambiguity over welsh by placing (Official in Wales) under a reduced font Welsh version and ideally in italics. Then we could have "Other languages" in a drop down box with a note in the drop down box about passport use, official status etc. That way there is no danger of an implied claim (which has concerned James DeCausa etc), but we respond to those editors who wanted all lanuages. --Snowded TALK 13:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd go for the welsh proposal. But I'm still very against including the other languages. Scots gaelic is a vague 'maybe' but Scots (which has the same legal position as Cornish) looks ridiculous IMHO. DeCausa (talk) 13:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Well we could go with that at the start (given that we seem to be agreement) and then create a subsection with the translations later in the information box where the languages are already listed (per James). We could also tighten up the wording there at the same time as it gives the impression all have the same status. --Snowded TALK 13:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
The proposal for dealing with Welsh I like. The other ones we will probably need to look at one by one and decide on how to group them or if they should be displayed at all. There will always be people pushing for ones that are very obscure (expect a future fight at some point over BSL for example), but we need to either stick with the current precedent that only official languages are displayed at the top, or take the question to wider project pages as Snowded has previously suggested, since to have non-official ones up there is for sure a change in the way it works at the moment, even if it isn't enshrined as a formal policy. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
OK so lets make the Welsh change assuming no one objects in the next few hours. For the rest how about we include those with some formal status (on a passport, included in official documents) but leave everything out?
No - this was my concern with putting in Welsh - it opens the floodgates. I agree that we should put in Welsh - but the other languages should be discussed later and, in so doing, agree explicitly what the criteria are. I don't think the fact it appears in a passport is enough, for instance. As James says, before we know it we'll have BSL. DeCausa (talk) 14:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
By the way, I suggest the criterion would be that it has been explicitly declared an "official language" by a statute of the UK Parliament or statute/measure one of the devolved assemblies/parliament. This gives certainty DeCausa (talk) 14:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Let's take it slowly and step by step. The reality is that probably each language needs references and discussion to determine it's current status as regards how we talk about it in a WP infobox. We've done that for Welsh (although possibly not all that systematically in terms of sourcing - we need to get tighter) and so we can accurately display the status of Welsh in the UK now. We can then go on one by one and look at other languages and how to display their UK status. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
OK one thing at a time - I made a change to see how it looked --Snowded TALK 14:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Would look better if 'official in wales' was on same line as last Welsh word. Looks like the whole thing is 'official in Wales' at moment. DeCausa (talk) 15:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Also, only 3 of us have commented. Is it premature? DeCausa (talk) 15:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Well on both sides of the dispute! Someone can always revert it if they think it needs more discussion. I thought it looked better on the line below and in the same small font. Happy to bet rid of the line break if you want --Snowded TALK 16:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to clear up a few misconceptions here, the Welsh Language Act, 1993 was enacted in the UK parliament because the Welsh Assembly could not produce primary legislation at that time (it can now but only in certain areas). That act didn't confer official status for Welsh but put Welsh and English along side each other as regards the public sector only. The Proposed Welsh Language (Wales) Measure---when given royal approval---will give English and Welsh co-official status in Wales but the measure makes it clear that Welsh has official status in Wales only. The only way for Welsh to go into the infobox as an official language would be if separate legislation was enacted at Westminster for England and Wales, and Northern Ireland making Welsh official throughout these areas and in Holyrood making Welsh an official language of Scotland and so this isn't going to happen. The infobox for Wales at the moment gives the official languages of Wales as Welsh and English which technically is incorrect except in a de facto sense but in a few months will be. So, for Wales the official languages will be Welsh and English but for the UK only English is official. The semantic argument---in the UK or of the UK is bound to lead to confusion with the uninitiated and this category of readership will almost certainly form a false impression. -- Bill Reid | (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

You've covered my view pretty much (as I've expressed above). But I support this compromise because (1) it does say "official in wales" so the in/of point is covered and (2) the welsh Language Measure will come into force in a few weeks. I suppose if I were being consistent I'd say the change needs to wait til then, but..... DeCausa (talk) 16:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I support this compromise too. Daicaregos (talk) 16:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
My point is that Welsh's official status in Wales is irrelevant to the UK country infobox; its only relevant to the Wales infobox in the Wales article. Also, I notice that changes to the infobox structure are being considered. Please note that the Template:Infobox country is a protected template and the coding can't be altered in any way without the agreement of the community. Thanks. --Bill Reid | (talk) 16:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
If you read back Bill you will see that there are two positions on the relevance or not, some of us think that if a language is official somewhere in teh UK then it belongs, others disagree and its being pretty evenly split over several weels. If we finally (hopefully) got to a compromise which removes any ambiguity and so far we haven't had to change the template. --Snowded TALK 17:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Bill, are you saying that a drop-down isn't permitted because it would result in a change to the infobox structure? DeCausa (talk) 18:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I know I couldn't change the bold in the first section which is the sort of thing I think Bill means. --Snowded TALK 18:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes DeCausa, the template is protected and no change can be made to the coding unless protection is lifted and that would have to be agreed. The question of compromise, for me at any rate, doesn't come into it. Its a question of verifiable fact. Welsh and English will be official languages of Wales but only English is the official (de facto) language of the UK. I know the semantic in / of is being used to agree the use of Welsh as an official language but it shouldn't as it refers to the position in Wales and not the UK. Legally Welsh is not an official language of the UK, neither now nor when the Measure comes into law. The question of compromise to allow something that is incorrect to be part of a encyclopedia is skewed. Please don't get me wrong here, nothing would please me more (and its hopefully only a matter of time) that Gaelic is adopted as an official language of Scotland but even then I would still argue the point I'm making and that is Welsh is only official in Wales---not in Scotland, England nor Northern Ireland. I know that Snowded has put up as an experiment the translation of the UK in the box but to me this would further emphasise the (false) status that the Welsh language has within the UK. Thanks. --Bill Reid | (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I am still not persuaded that Welsh should be in the box at all. I agree with Bill Reid. -- Alarics (talk) 19:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

hmm...Bill, I know what you are saying is correct, and logically implied in the context of the infobox but are you aware of any explicit Wikipedia policy that says the country title can't be in a language which is official in only part of the country in question? No one previously could identify such a policy. DeCausa (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
What I'm saying, DeCausa, is that there could be an argument for including the Welsh translation if the UK was officially multi-lingual ( as say Belgium is) but Welsh is only a co-official language of Wales and has no place in the UK country infobox as an official language of the UK. Thanks. --Bill Reid | (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Exactly right. I completely agree. -- Alarics (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Only the English version should be in the infobox heading. No compromise, no this or that, only English. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Therefore, I'ver reverted Snowded's 'temporary change' to English only. I didn't know how to revert to James' termporary change, without wipeing out in between edits. GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Bill we have been going through this for weeks, with established and experienced editors falling on both sides of the argument. You are making the same argument as has been made by others over those weeks. We have now reached a compromise in which Welsh is there, but it is clear that it is an official language in Wales. I've had my disagreements with DeCausa over this but I think he asks the right question above. If you can point to a formal policy on this fine but no one has been able to find one. FYI I did not put up a translation as an experiment. Another editor made the change some time ago and no one objected at the time. I with others have defended that position but I did not initiate it. I have reduced the font size and added in the compromise text. --Snowded TALK 21:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Snowded, if there is viable support for the compromise, I'll continue to support it. However, i strongly suspect that what Bill has said is the prevalent or at least a very widespread view. The reason I think that (besides the fact I believe it's logical!) is that consistently the same 5 or 6 editors have supported non-English in this thread. But the editors who say 'English only' have dropped in and out over the weeks. At any one time they approximately equal the "other side". But in total, I think the "English only" view now represents about a dozen if you aggregate the last three weeks. I'm not making a point about it being a 'majority' view, but I am saying that even if this compromise is agreed by the handful of us who are contributing at the moment it will be a running sore for the Article - it will be objected to time and again each time a new editor notices it. This is in the context of the pre- Mid November position where the infobox title had been stable for years without disagreement. I'm not reneging on suppporting the compromise, but I believe those who want welsh there should think about whether it's really worth it.DeCausa (talk) 22:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
As it stands now (just English) looks good. There is simply no good reason for adding anything else in the English Wikipedia version of this article. If you do, the arguments will just go on for ever, as DeCausa so astutely observes. If you put Welsh, somebody will want Scots, and Irish, and Gaelic, and so it will go on, with endless debate about what constitutes official, how many speakers of this or that language there are, why not put Urdu or Chinese or French or Bengali, blah blah. Let us all save our time and energy for more useful work. -- Alarics (talk) 00:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I am persuaded by Bill Reid's arguments and I now support English-only for the infobox. All the other languages, including Welsh, can be addressed in the text of the article. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 01:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the statement the users have said above; I always have thought this. English is the only language that should be there. Nations United (talk) 02:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
The essence of wikipedia is the willingness of editors to reach agreement, provided that compromise does not compromise policy or facts. We had a long running festering sore around whether Wales, Scotland and England were countries and we resolved that by saying that they were countries which were a part of the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland came into that with a similar but different wording. As a result that wording has been stable for two years. At the moment this has been running for the best part of a month, new editors have entered on both sides of the argument at various stages and the current compromise is the best we have achieved. Far too much time is being spent on this, its time to move on.
Alarics, we have resolved that Welsh is an official language (per Royal assent) so the entry bar is clear for any other language --Snowded TALK 05:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Changes at Template:Infobox country, must be sought first, by those who still wish to include the Welsh version. At the moment, the infobox heading should reflect the current makeup of all infoboxes of countries. GoodDay (talk) 06:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Honestly GoodDay, pay attention. NO change has been made to the Template, the issue is what langauges are in the first section (the template allows for multiple ones). --Snowded TALK 06:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Welsh isn't an official language of the United Kingdom & therefore the Welsh version must not be in the infobox headings. There's already an agreement at this infobox & others like it, for including regional languages in a regional languages section. GoodDay (talk) 06:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes we all know your views on that GoodDay, the point was that no change has been made to the Template. --Snowded TALK 06:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The infobox heading's content, is the center of this disucssions attention. Therefore, I've blanked it out, until a consensus is reached for what should be there. GoodDay (talk) 08:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Ivor's suggestion for inclusion of the Welsh language as a joint official language of Wales in the body of the article of because its verifiably so but it is just one of the regional languages within the UK and has no more importance in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland than any of other languages. Its importance resides solely in Wales. Thanks. --Bill Reid | (talk) 10:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit War

Latest comment: 13 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion

I see that GoodDay has decided to pre-empt discussions here by removing material he disagrees with before agreement is reached here, and just when we are discussing a possible compromise. I'm not getting sucked into an edit war here, but while this type of behaviour might be understood with a newbe editor, an experienced editor should really know better. --Snowded TALK 07:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

There was never a consensus to add any of those non-English versions to the infobox heading. For years, the infobox heading was 'English only' (for those who argue 'silent consensus'). I've nothing against the Welsh language or the other languages (which are correctly placed in the regional languages section). Anyways, If a majority of editors at this discussion, wish me to 'step aside', if they see me here as a disruptive presence? I'll respect their request & stay away from this issue. PLEASE, give me your views at my talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 07:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
No one is asking you to withdraw from the discussion GoodDay, but just to respect WIkipedia rules and process. You are currently removing material without consensus while discussion is active and a compromise is being discussed. You should self-revert to allow that to reach its natural conclusion --Snowded TALK 07:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
If a majority agrees with you, that I'm not helping? I shall 'move on' from here & not begrudge anyone. GoodDay (talk) 07:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Not the issue GoodDay, if you want to seek comments on your behaviour as an editor there are various ways to do that For the moment the issue is very simply, edit warring. You really should self-revert to allow the discussion to complete. --Snowded TALK 07:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
You or others wish to revert, go ahead, I won't challenge it. I won't self-revert, until somebody shows me where Welsh is an official language across the United Kingdom (certainly I shouldn't have to repeat that anymore) or until somebody shows me where there's a consensus for addition. PS: let's stop here & let others have a chance to post. This is becoming a GoodDay -vs- Snowded thing, which this discussion doesn't need. GoodDay (talk) 07:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've just got back to Wikipedia today. Surprised to see the current state of play - I thought we were making good calm progress. I didn't like the version you loaded up Snowded on reflection - it seemed confusing to have ("in Wales") as text there once I looked at it - but I was willing to give it some time for discussion. I think we do need to stop edit warring and achieve consensus if we possibly can. The difficulty is where we draw that line. Pre-November? Latest edit? I am uncertain. I suspect that the underlying problem here is that the November edit (the one that added Welsh) was not done with consensus and then, due to a lack of vigilance, rode for some time without challenge. I don't know enough policy to know how long a BRD can run for. I suspect less than a month. So the reality is, if we don't have consensus yet, we probably have to go back to the November edit for it. Against that we have the facts. The facts are with Bill Reid's excellent analysis above. I think we are all not far off agreeing those facts actually, hence Snowded's proposed "in Wales" edit. So it just goes to what categories of official languages can go at the top of the box. Against the background that we broadly agree, I suggest we leave it as it is now and keep discussing. However, I think for the sake of peace and quiet, we need to agree a hiatus for a period on doing any more edits to this piece of content until all are agreed. If that means going back to the November one, I will accept that. I would suggest that period be at least one week and that you, GoodDay, me, Snowded, Bill and other regular participants agree to it. So we need to agree the baseline edit we are working from (November or the current one) and no intervention until consensus. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec)November us the default James and if check it out it turns out that GoodDay was just trying to delete my addition of "(legal in Wales)" for reasons I can't understand given his position. So he just got rid of everything and compounded the error by edit warring. I think we should go back to yesterday (but I will accept November) and continue the discussion. We are I think more or less agreed on the facts, and the issues now relate to avoiding any ambiguity. I was very surprised at GoodDay's behaviour this morning given that we had moved away from two camps showing no movement to signs of movement --Snowded TALK 11:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
What is this? bash GoodDay's brains into mulsh day? GoodDay (talk) 11:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
If the infobox heading is left with the English version 'only'? I'd take a break. GoodDay (talk) 11:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Is that a threat to carry on edit warring if you don't get your own version implemented while we are discussing it GoodDay? --Snowded TALK 11:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
That is not a threat to carry on edit warring if I don't get my own version implemented while we are discussing it. GoodDay (talk) 11:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Pity you started then, you know perfectly well you should have left things alone this morning and having made the error you should have self-reverted. Then we get the silliness of deleting everything. Sounds like there is no need to "bash". With five years history you should know by now that following process and avoiding edit warring over content is the only way to handle contentious issues --Snowded TALK 11:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment on content, not contributor. GoodDay (talk) 11:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Terminology: Northern Ireland as "a country"?

Latest comment: 13 years ago42 comments18 people in discussion

Reference to Northern Ireland as one of the "countries" of the United Kingdom, in the same sense as England, Scotland and Wales, is historically inaccurate and politically charged. England, Scotland and Wales each have had many centuries of existence as countries with distinct histories, cultures and institutions; Northern Ireland came into being only in 1921 as a consequence of the partition of the island, and country, of Ireland. It was not at that time constituted as or ever referred to as a "country". In modern Northern Ireland, the term "country", like the term "the Province", is only ever used of the region by members of the majority (British, unionist, mainly Protestant) section of the population, although many in that community would prefer to think of Northern Ireland as a part of a larger "country", the UK itself; in the minority (Irish, nationalist, mainly Catholic) community, the region is regarded as a part of the "country" of Ireland, a part that is, for better or worse, governed as a part of the United Kingdom. Thus in Northern Ireland, to refer to the place as a "country" instantly identifies the speaker as British/Unionist/Protestant, and it is in no sense a neutral term. Neutral terms are, however, available - to refer to Northern Ireland as a "part" or a "region" or a "jurisdiction" of the UK is uncontroversial, just as it can also be referred to as a "part" or a "region" or a "jurisdiction" within the island of Ireland. These neutral terms should be preferred in Wikipedia. When I (a lifelong resident of the region, passionately committed to maintaining Wikipedia as a politically neutral space) made modest edits to the UK article to change references to Northern Ireland as a "country", my changes were quickly reverted by, I think, a person from one of the actual UK countries, namely Scotland. I'd like to seek support for changing references to Northern Ireland as a "country" in its own right, or a "constituent country" of the UK, to neutral terrms such as part, region etc. Views please? Brocach (talk) 21:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

One of the problems with your edit was that you simply piped Countries of the United Kingdom as "regions", contrary to the title of that article. Whatever the merits of your argument, I don't think this is the best solution. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Brocach and thanks for raising the issue on the talk page. I am indeed 'from one of the actual UK countries, namely Scotland.' If you check around the talk pages of this article and those for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, you will see that issues concerning describing each of these 'entities' comes up regularly. The difficulty is that it is not as straightforward to find neutral terms as you may believe. Editors disagree about what is appropriate and, indeed, neutral. I support the current version (which is supported by an appropriate reference) and would find a change to 'regions', as you suggest, completely unacceptable. I should also point out that the England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland articles each state that they are 'one of the four countries of the United Kingdom', including the Northern Ireland article which begins "Northern Ireland (Irish: Tuaisceart Éireann, Ulster Scots: Norlin Airlann) is one of the four countries of the United Kingdom.[3][4]" Therefore the change you propose, if enacted, would re-open arguments on other articles in turn...I hope we don't go there yet again! But thanks for raising the discussion on talk in response to my reverting your changes. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the fast responses, Cordless Larry and Fishiehelper2 - as you might suppose, I would prefer to see the article Countries of the United Kingdom renamed, and the various other articles that contain this terminology edited, to reflect the same point that I am making here. But as everyone agrees that England, Scotland and Wales are countries, I am only looking for consensus around the issue of whether the term "country" should be applied in the same way to the one constituent part of the UK where that word is politically contested. I'm not looking for any arguments - quite the contrary - but for NPOV in a very touchy area... Brocach (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Please note this user seems to be suggesting this to another article - Talk:Ireland#Northern Ireland a country?. --George2001hi (Discussion) 21:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Not "seems to be" but is - while I think the discussion so far on Ireland has helped, there are, as Fishiehelper2 points out, several pages where the same issue arises. Rather than just conduct the discussion on one page, it seems to me to be right to work gradually around the affected pages seeking consensus. Brocach (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I have a feeling what I'm about to say will piss a few people off, but this is just my understanding of facts, which may be incorrect since I don't claim to be an expert on such matters, but not my own opinion as such. My understanding was that Wales is a principality (and thus not entirely independent of England) and NI is a province, but only England and Scotland are countries. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks HJ, you might want to look here at what the Welsh Assembly Government says about the term 'principality' - having no connection with Wales I defer to their elected representatives... as for 'province', Northern Ireland contains six of the nine counties of the historic Irish province of Ulster, but it is not the whole of Ulster so is not an Irish province, and the term 'province' does not exist in UK constitutional law so it's not a province of the UK (unless you can find the other provinces...) Brocach (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Hang on a minute, though. If you accept the Welsh Assembly as a valid source for the correct description of Wales, why not the UK government for Northern Ireland's status? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Or indeed the Northern Irish government. For example: "Northern Ireland has the highest total period fertility rate of the constituent countries of the UK", from this publication. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
No, Wales is a country. The Principality of Wales was a different, and considerably smaller, geo-political entity. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 22:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
In no definition outside of the UK (and some sporting bodies) can NI be considered a country. It doesn't even have a flag. It has always been a province unlike the other other parts of the UK. Can anyone name the last king of NI before the union? Sorry that was a difficult question, lets try the first king....or any king....or any international body (not link to sport or the commonwealth) that recognises it as a proper state? Bjmullan (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that anyone here is claiming that Northern Ireland is a state. No international body recognises England, Wales or Scotland as states either. There is a difference between a constituent country and a state. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
In my view this all touches on interesting and complex semantic issues. Northern Ireland is clearly not merely a region, is a political division of the UK with its own laws, governance, parliament and institutions and is allowed to field its own team in many international sporting competitions. However I can accept that there is an argument against the use of the word country as a description for Northern Ireland because it does not have a history as an independent nation. It should be noted that the manner in which England, Scotland and Wales are described as countries is almost unique worldwide and in large part reflects their histories prior to unification and the many ways in which they have maintained very strong identities after unification, despite the UK being quite a centralised state, at least until recently. What concerns me is that some clearly want to emphasise a difference in the title for Northern Ireland vis a vis England, Scotland and Wales for reasons other than pure semantics. To overly stress a difference in the label for Northern Ireland vis a vis the other parts of the UK is in my view POV and an attempt at using an issue of semantics to make a political statement. Life would be easier if we could just describe the four constituent parts as states, but the UK does not have any tradition of using that term and is not federal (though the recent devolution of Scotland and Wales has moved in that direction).
When Northern Ireland is described on its own I think that 'province' is acceptable, and the BBC and many British government departments do use this description in such contexts. However when one is describing the four parts of the UK together, I actually think that the most neutral and least POV solution, as well as the most elegant, is to describe all four parts of the UK as countries. Northen Ireland, though not very old as a concept, should in such situtions be defined by its relationship as a parallel entity to England, Scotland and Wales, which are all countries in common parlance. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I should add that Home Nations exists as a possible compromise solution, although I expect that many will not like it.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Terms such as "state" or "region" are clearly inappropriate, and "home nation" is a term used almost exclusively in the context of sporting competitions. The most neutral term, if there is an overwhelming need for consistency, is constituent country. But the problem is that the four parts of the UK have asymmetric histories and current administrative arrangements, so that imposing a consistent terminology across all four - while seeking to maintain the position that all four have an equal status - inevitably leads to disputes and problems. There's no way round that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If England, Wales and Scotland can be described as countries today then Northern Ireland is one. If the description of Northern Ireland is changed, England, Wales and Scotland MUST be changed to. I strongly oppose just changing the description of Northern Ireland. If people can get consensus to change England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to stop saying country and describe them as something else, id support it.. but the chances of that happening are about as likely as World War 3 starting this week. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that is a bit extreme BW, it is the case that Northern Ireland is not, per WP:Common often described as a country and has an independent history which is less that a hundred years old. If the definition of country is extended to require the name of a King at some stage in its past then a lot of UN member states are going to have to give up the status. When we spend a lot of time looking into the references then all four parts of the UK are clearly referenced as countries. We have subsequently modified the language on Northern Ireland to reflect common usage. Politically many editors (including myself) will feel that Ireland should be reunited as a single country, but that is aspirational and should not influence editing here. I think the current wording on the Northern Ireland article stands, and where all four units are described in a sentence it is obviously valid that say it is one of the four countries. --Snowded TALK 10:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Perfectly understandable. Although if the definition of a country did require it to have had a monarch then you could use that as well to class NI as a country due to it being the direct continuation of the Kingdom of Ireland. On a personal note I too would love to see Ireland reunited....with the UK and it seems a certain ROI politician agrees. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 13:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
There is no need for consistency in describing England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland - they have different histories and the first three have existed separately as nation states, whereas the last (User:Snowded note) has never had an 'independent' existence. I strongly agree with Snowded that private political views should not influence editing but, although not one user has contested the point that "country" is a politically loaded term in Northern Ireland (used only by members of the British/Unionist majority), a number of users revert every edit to substitute a neutral term such as 'part' or 'region'. I don't know whether they are not reading this exchange, or if their motivation is to assert the Unionist view via Wikipedia.
It also seems bizarre (User:The C of E) to describe the region as a 'continuation of the Kingdom of Ireland' when there was a 120-year gap between the end of that Kingdom and the creation of Northern Ireland, and the latter has only one-fifth of the territory of the former. Brocach (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
You avoid the fact that the description 'the United Kingdom consists of three constituent countries and a region' is highly politically loaded, drawing as it does a clear (and incorrect) distinction between the current status of Northern Ireland and England, Scotland and Wales within the UK.
Today Northern Ireland exists as a parallel entity to England, Scotland and Wales, albeit with a different history and different origins. Northern Ireland is actually far more institutionally and politically autonomous than England, and it is counter factual to describe England as a country and Northern Ireland as a region in a description of the four component entities of the UK. There is no requirement in the dictionary for a country to have existed at some time as an independent nation state, that is your own definition. It is also clear that every country must have a period of birth, the fact that Northern Ireland is (relatively) young - as an entity it is older than many members of the United Nations - is not by itself an argument against it being a country. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

No-one to date has contested the statement that, in Northern Ireland, the term 'country' is politically non-neutral. Likewise, no-one has offered any evidence that there is a legal basis for calling it a 'country'. There is therefore an imperative per NPOV to avoid the non-neutral term. None of my edits have sought to impose any non-neutral alternative. Anyone who seeks to revert edits replacing the non-neutral term should give some reason - consistent with Wikipedia standards and basic courtesy. Brocach (talk) 11:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Although you say it is non-neutral - and it may well be, in some circles, I simply don't know - there would need to be citations from reliable sources to demonstrate that it is seen as a non-neutral term. It's not acceptable simply to take one editor's word for it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
If England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland were called constituent countries, would that satisfy? GoodDay (talk) 14:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
No. This has all been debated so many times before. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Am hoping to find a consensus among the regular editors of this page, preferably one that coincides with the overarching Wikipedia principle of NPOV. So far I identify Cordless Larry, Fishiehelper2 and BritishWatcher as fairly strongly in favour of the Unionist usage of "country" as a, or the, proper description of Northern Ireland even though it has no legal basis. HJ Mitchell, Brocach and Rangoon11 are against using that term, at least without some explanation or alternatives; with The C of E. God Save The Queen!, Snowded, GoodDay and Ghmyrtle somewhere in between, neither contesting my claim that "country" is non-neutral nor insisting that only the Unionist term should be used. No-one has yet come up with a single argument to show that "country" is not politically charged in Northern Ireland and is really a neutral term, so unless someone does so fairly soon I think we should accept that it is not neutral, and those editors who have been reverting my changes should allow non-neutral terms to be included. Of course I would immediately accept any reverts if it could be shown that any of my edits tried to impose a particular political perspective; but I really am tiring of reverts that simply try to suppress NPOV in favour of exclusively Unionist terminology. Brocach (talk) 00:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Clarification: I'm in favour of constituent country for all 4 parts of the UK & country for the UK. PS: Shouldn't this discussion be at Talk:Countries of the United Kingdom? -- GoodDay (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks GoodDay, I have been following this debate fairly closely so I do know your position; my own is that a "constituent country" is a priori (logically and necessarily) a "country", so that if Northern Ireland should not be described as a "country" without qualifying that as a politically loaded term and offering neutral alternatives, the same applies to "constituent country". You appear to be saying that "constituent country" is something other than, maybe lesser than, "country", but my view - which others have also put to you - is that if N is a "constituent X" of Z then N is also an "X" in its own right. (Not sure if that clarifies my point, but God knows I've tried other techniques...) Brocach (talk) 00:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Of course it's POV to use 'country' in the context of NI. But the problem is that Wikipedia has absurdly been stuck with the label of 'country' for England Scotland and Wales - it logically doesn't leave NI anywhere to go. It will only be fixed in an intellectually coherent way if England, scotland and wales are fixed. DeCausa (talk) 00:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Pity that the body of citations don't support that position DeCausa. We did this one to death a couple of years ago, brought in some mediation and creating a table of references so that we could move on. Northern Ireland and the weakest (in number of citations) but the number calling it a country exceed those saying it is not by a substantial majority. --Snowded TALK 19:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
The enumeration of citations doesn't really interest me (quantity over quality is never convincing), neither was I calling for any change in how the term is used in wikipedia. (Far too much effort.) I was simply pointing out that the muddle that this is in (as demonstrated by this thread - which I have until the above posting avoided) is as a result of the lack of intellectual coherence and/or POV-pushing in the dogmatic use of the word 'country'. It will always be a muddle because of that. Jamesinderbyshire accurately assesses the position below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeCausa (talk • contribs) 01:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
If you bother to read up on the various discussions DeCausa you will see that the determination was as much about quality of source as it was quantity. You are pushing the boundaries of AGF in your posts. Accusing editors who have supported a position determined by consensus after an extended debate based on reliable sources of a "lack of intellectual coherence and/or POV-pushing" and dogmatism demonstrates a failure on your part to follow the wikipedia rules of addressing content issues not the motivation of other editors. You appear to like making broad accusations against people who oppose you and I strongly suggest you review your behaviour in this respect. --Snowded TALK 06:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Your increasingly aggressive postings directed towards me are unwarranted. I suggest you review you behaviour. DeCausa (talk) 14:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I should also clarify my position. I would prefer to describe England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as "constituent countries" and to reserve use of "country" for the UK as a whole. I don't say this out of Unionist preference (I wouldn't say I was a Unionist in relation to Northern Ireland), but because there are reliable sources for this terminology. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
There may be a majority for "country" here in Wikipedia, with its many nationalist activists, but in the real world the constitutional position of Northern Ireland is left quite deliberately vague so as to avoid the many traps that befall certainty. This is even mentioned in Tony Blair's recent book as a deliberate act by the British and Irish governments. "Country" is also debatable for Scotland and Wales in terms of the sort of standardised international nomenclature that Wikipedia ought to use - neither are "countries" in the sense of statehood, they are more analagous to administrative regions. That is how the EU regards them. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Constituent country, would've been a perfect neutral descriptive for all 4 parts of the UK. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
This topic seems to be raging on several fronts, and spreading it everywhere isn't going to make things any easier or better. As already noted to Brocach by Snowded - stating country in regards to Northern Ireland is more sourced than any alternative (see here). As already noted to Brocach by Daicaregos the concensus is "country". Yet i doubt thats going to dissuade what appears to be a personal campaign to remove the term that flies in the face of concensus and weight of sources. Mabuska (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
For the record I agree with GoodDay about this. Outback the koala (talk) 07:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
It was one of the options evaluated, but there was little citation support in comparison with country. The addition of "a part of" in all the country articles where country was used in the lede was agreed to ensure that was no ambiguity about the status relative to the UK--Snowded TALK 07:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Country, due to it's multiple meanings can still confuse folks. It also continue to drive up the wall, those in the Northern Ireland camp. GoodDay (talk) 14:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

One is one. A quarter is of the one. A part of Ireland is of Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.213.163 (talk) 15:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Lol that sounds like a riddle. It can also be said to be a part of the UK too ;-) Mabuska (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
What 124etc was probably trying to say was that for her/him, the 'country' in question is Ireland; Mabuska points out the alternative view that Northern Ireland is part of the 'country' that is the UK. Each entitled to think that. Both obliged to recignise that in the case of Northern Ireland, 'country' is a controversial term. Brocach (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Map

Latest comment: 13 years ago54 comments13 people in discussion

Why is why is the EU shown in light green? This article is about the UK not the EU and it seems bizarre and slighly offensive to reference it on the map. I checked some other coutries such as Thailand (ASEAN) and Egypt (African Union) and their respective trade unions are not highlighed which seems inconsistant. I suggest that this is reverted to a standard map of the UK with no special highlighting of bordering countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.81.149.68 (talk) 23:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not offensive, and Thailand does have ASEAN highlighted, with ASEAN having even less relevance then the EU. For better or worse, the EU exerts strong collective power over its members, and is highlighted in all member maps. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thailand does not have ASEAN highlighted. It has it's geographical region, South East Asia, highlighted in grey. The EU is no different than ASEAN or the African Union, it is merely a set of treaties. For example ASEAN members have shared import tax levels, same as the EU. The 1973 Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement allows Australians to live / work in New Zealand with no official pre-approval needed yet New Zealand is not highlighted on the map of Australia.

The EU does not exert collective power over it's members, it's members are co-operating. In the UK's case for example any directives initialised in the EU are implemented due to a piece of UK legislation (1972 European Communities Act) which can be rescinded at any time. This is evidenced by the fact that each member state is signed up to different treaties, for example the UK is not the Schengen area. There is enormous difference in which EU led initiatives each country has taken on board.

The unnecessary highlighting comes across as propaganda designed to give an unwarranted and unrealistic level of importance to the EU. This highlighting should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.81.149.68 (talk) 00:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of the EU highlighting either, countries' memberships of other very important multi lateral organisations such as NATO, the United Nations, the WTO, the Commonwealth of Independent States, ASEAN, the African Union and the Arab League are not shown in such a way on such maps. The clear implication is that membership of the EU is more important than membership of any other multilateral organisation. I take issue with this implication, which in my view is false. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Start with various archives - this has been hugely debated in the past and the consensus was that the maps should show EU as the most significant geopolitical entitity on the national article pages for EU member states. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the archives it seems that this issue was discussed in 2007. To reopen it after over three years hardly seems excessive, particularly as it is so important. Looking at the archive discussion I found this map which, in my view, is far more neutral and appropriate:
 
LocationUK.png
TharkunColl style
I move that this map replace the current, highly POV, version.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
There's no POV. The UK's principal external affiliation is membership of the EU. All EU member state articles have the same map format. This is to assist casual readers of Wikipedia and accurately represent the primary geopolitical context, showing them within the EU and Europe. You can argue this till the cows come home, and after a huge amount of debate and discussion at multiple locations it will come back to the consensus being as-is. Or we can leave it. Whichever. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't represent the 'primary geopolitical context'. The UK's membership of NATO, UKUSA and the UN (particularly the UN security council) are in my view all equally if not more important in terms of geopolitics. The UK also has a special relationship with the United States, with which we share nuclear weapons, a personal union with Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and a shared language with all of those nations. The EU is a glorified free trade area, analogous to NAFTA or ASEAN, albeit with a more extensive remit and greater powers. It is an economic bloc, but a minor force in terms of diplomatic, intelligence and military affairs.
You conceed that the current map shows that the 'UK's principal external affiliation is membership of the EU'. This is a highly POV and controversial contention and must be properly supported with citations. It isn't currently, and should therefore be removed ASAP. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
No. The map is the map and just shows the UK's position in Europe and the EU and aligns with the maps of all the other EU member states. It's use doesn't depend on my statement about the UK's geopolitical affiliations, it depends on consensus and that consensus has been heavily debated - if you want to wake it up again, you can do in the correct forums. I was simply explaining why you won't get anywhere - have fun anyway though. Any change to the map will be reverted until you have changed the consensus. As regards your points about the UN and NATO, there are maps that show those in the correct articles, and there's also nothing to stop other memberships being explained (the ones you mention are) but the infobox map is standardised for EU countries. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Unless there is a specific Wikipedia policy on this issue, in which case please direct me to it, the approach taken in other EU member state articles merely represents non-binding precedent. Each article in Wikipedia is dealt with separately, Wikipedia articles cannot be cited in other Wikipedia articles, and articles frequently contradict each other. Despite your back-peddling you rather gave the game away above when you stated that 'The UK's principal external affiliation is membership of the EU'. That is precisely what the current map implies. That is POV and must be cited.
As you say, the UN, NATO and UKUSA are dealt with in their own articles. So why not the EU? Rangoon11 (talk) 13:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
There's nothing in policy to say that every article element is dealt with seperately and much to say otherwise - that's the whole purpose of subject templates, infoboxes, etc. It's incredibly disruptive and anti-reader to remove useful subject-wide tools like standardised maps because one has an anti-this or anti-that POV when those tools and elements present a seamless experience. That's one part. On the other point, yes, the UK's primary international affiliation in Europe is with the EU. That's not my POV or anyone else's - it's a plain fact. NATO extends beyond Europe and the maps are designed to show (a) Europe, (b) the EU and (c) the EU member state. And a very good thing to. The UN and NATO would appear on world maps and as I said there's nothing to stop world maps appearing in the article showing different contexts of UK affiliations. The infobox maps for EU countries follow other international precedents in Wikipedia for country-context infobox maps showing the country's location in regional context. I suggest you spend some more time browsing countries and regional project pages to gain an understanding of this. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
The nations of the EU no more form a 'subject' than do the nations of NATO, the UN, UKUSA, the Commonwealth of Nations or the WTO. If the UK is part of any 'subject' it is first and foremost not the EU but the subject of the nations of the world. If a second level of 'subject' membership below that primary level had to be chosen, I would choose the subject of English-speaking nations, not EU member states, and a large number of citations could be used to support this view.
Please explain how readers of the Spain article will be 'incredibly disrupted' if the UK article no longer shows the member states of the EU. I really can't see this myself. Looking at the articles of EU member states one sees that they actually differ in all sorts of ways, not least in terms of the actual sections which the articles contain.
Looking at the articles of nations in other parts of the world is indeed instructive, but not in the way that you imply. Maps of South American nations do not show membership of Mercosur (despite the maps showing South America only). Maps of North American nations do not show membership of NAFTA (despite the maps showing North America only). Maps of South East Asian nations do not show membership of ASEAN (despite the maps showing South East Asia only). Maps of Middle Eastern and North African nations do not show membership of the Arab League (despite the maps showing that part of the world only). Rangoon11 (talk) 14:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The UK is a global power with global interests, global relationships and a global history. Fair enough to have a map which places it geographically in Europe, but not just blatantly POV but factually incorrect and intellectually bankrupt to attempt to define it geopolitically as a mere EU vassal. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see why it should be such a big issue. Firstly, having had a quick look at several other EU countries' articles it seems to be the standard approach for all of them. Secondly, the EU is not like ASEAN, African Union, NAFTA, NATO etc. It is much more than an economic trade area or just a series of treaties. The EU as an institution can make direct changes to the law in the UK through Commission Regulations. Someone above said that that only originates through a UK act of parliament which could be repealed. Actually that's a matter of debate amongst constutional lawyers because withdrawal and repeal of the Act can, on the face of it, only be done with the consent of the EU - which of course clashes with the constitutional principle that one Parliament can't bind another. Anyway, I think the general point is that the EU is a unique institution where members have shared/pooled/lost (depending on your POV) sovereignty and it seems appropriate to acknowledge that unique state of affairs in the map. DeCausa (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh and there's quite a few academic sources (best to stay away from journalistic ones as it's such a political issue) that testify to the EU's uniqeness. I quick google gives this one: "as the first genuinely supra-national political system,many aspects of the EU are unique". I don't really think this is a pro- or anti-EU issue. DeCausa (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
In so far as unique means that there is no other organisation with quite the same remit, powers and structures, then the United Nations, United Nations Security Council, WTO, NATO, African Union and UKUSA can all very easily be described as 'unique'. The manner in which the U.S. and UK share nuclear weapons, and the general closeness of their military and intelligence communities, is certainly unique. Arguably the most unique aspects of the EU - the Schengen Agreement and the Euro - are the ones that the UK is not a party to. The issue is in any case not whether the EU is or is not unique, but whether the UK's place in the world should be inferred by the infobox map to be defined by its membership of the EU.
Regarding the freedom of members to leave the EU, you are incorrect - please refer to this article for details of the process: Withdrawal from the European Union.
Pooling of sovereignty occurs in many multi lateral organisations and applies to the UK's membership of the UN, NATO, WTO etc. There is nothing unique about the EU in that respect. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Not in the same way or in anything like the same extent. What you need to look at Rangoon is not our own opinions on the EU (and personally I am dead against a lot of what goes on it it) but on the facts - since Maastricht and even more so since the new constitution, Britain is very much part of a wider union. The article map that you are attempting to draw comparison with should be the one at the European Union, as that is a valid analogy with, say, United States. We aren't quite at a single country called "Europe" but we are in very close union now, like it or not. Nato, EFTA, UN, etc, are nothing like the same - NATO in particular makes no claims to shared sovereignty, whereas we have signed treaties with the EU that do. Enough now on the detail though, which I would guess you will be reluctant to acknowledge. This isn't the right forum for your discussion. You need to take it to the relevant project page. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Regarding correct forum, I have stated my view clearly above and you have not responded to my points.
Regarding your points about the status of the EU. The EU is NOT a single state, and it is patently clear that the British people will never accept membership of a single EU state, even membership of the Euro now looks very unlikely. All multi lateral treaty based organisations involve a pooling of national sovereignty. For example, NATO members are bound by mutual defence provisions, even in the event of nuclear conflict. The EU is a glorified, and grotesquely bloated and self important, trading bloc. Many in continental Europe wish it to develop into a state, and they may get their wish, but to compare it today with a state is incorrect. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Rangoon, James is right. But just want to acknowledge you're quite right on withdrawal - Lisbon Treaty made what I said out of date. Apologies. Nevertheless, none of the organisations you mention have institutions which can change UK law directly, as the EU Commission can legislatively or the European Court of Justice judicially. Indeed the Factortame case has made it clear that EU law has superiority over UK national law. DeCausa (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
For all the reasons made clear by DeCausa and Jamesinderbyshire, the existing map should remain. Rangoon11's personal views about the EU carry no weight here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I have raised numerous issues which have yet to be answered. It is not a question of my personal views on the, or those of other editors on here who are arch-federalists. It is a question of the map reflecting a blatantly POV position, without that position even being properly cited in the article. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
But, unfortunately, you have made comments like: "The EU is a glorified, and grotesquely bloated and self important, trading bloc". Those opinions must make it difficult for you to consider arguments here from a purely neutral perspective, or for others to give much credence to your comments. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I have stated a fact. In a discussion one cannot be wholly neutral, or one would not be able to actually engage the debate, apart from as a spectator or a chair. In this discussion others have made statements which I regard as extreme, such as that 'The UK's principal external affiliation is membership of the EU.' I have been civil throughout this discussion and have made numerous valid debating points, many of which have had no proper response. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
So your statement (sic) "the EU is a glorified, and grotesquely bloated and self important, trading bloc" is what you regard as a "fact" is it Rangoon? Are you sure you're working in the right internet location? Possibly blogging beckons? Just a thought. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes it is a fact. If you want citations I could provide thousands from major broadsheet newspapers in the UK. The focus on this one sentence of mine seems to be a diversionary tactic however. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Unusual interpretation of the word "fact". Still, if you want to progress this, I suggest you take your approach to Project Countries, where your highly objective arguments will doubtless receive the quality consideration they merit. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
This is a perfectly appropriate forum for the discussion of the infobox map. Re my statement, here are a few citations which support its accuracy: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. The comment was clearly only made in passing however, and I never suggested that it was key, it is others who have focused on that one sentence of mine. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
This is a horribly mixed up thread: in case you don't see it, I've asked below for some sources to what seems the core of your position. DeCausa (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank goodness - it would be truly horrible if we had to rely on that one sentence, that you earlier defined as an absolute "fact". Glad to see you weighing in with such weighty sources as ThisisBristol and the Khaleej Times to back it up, plus some quality sources that in no way support it. Good luck with it all anyway, but again, have you thought of writing a blog? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
The map with just the UK in 'green', should be used. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Why? Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
'Cuz the UK is an independant state. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, all the EU maps should be scrapped from all the EU member articles. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I completely agree, they are a travesty. It's not the role of Wikipedia to be a propaganda mouthpiece for EU federalists.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Protip: The less people abuse words like "travesty" and "propaganda", the more likely they are to actually know them when they see them. You're speaking of it as it's the worst thing that could possibly be going on in the world today. Calm down a bit. --Golbez (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Rangoon, you have, in my opinion, an interestingly unique view of the EU. You are clearly hostile to the EU (not unusual in the UK) but your opinion of the EU seems to be, effectively, 'it's all bark and no bight'. In other words, it shouldn't be indicated on the map because it's not really that significant. The classical British anti-EU/euro-sceptic position is that it is TOO significant i.e we have ceeded too much sovereignty to the EU. There is nothing wrong with the view (except it is of no relevance to this debate) that the EU is an abomination and therefore should not be indicated on the map. But to say that it is doesn't have the constitutional/sovereignty impact suggested by the map is something else and very different to mainstream anti-EU opinion, and ironically closer to an EU apologist view. Either way, it doesn't matter since both are POV. My request is that you give a reliable source backing your view that the EU has the (lack of) significance you suggest. Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I have not heard any good reason to replace the map. A lot of opinions but no good reason. Fred DeSoya (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree nothing wrong with current map. MilborneOne (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Just for the record: the current map shown in the infobox is fine. I have heard no compelling argument for it to be changed. Daicaregos (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
It's misleading. The EU is not an independant country, made up of provinces/territories etc etc, named France, UK, Spain etc etc. You've all heard good reasons to replace the map, but yas just will not except them. We who oppose its usage, can't force yas to change your minds. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
It isn't stated to be "an independent country" and the map legend clearly and concisely explains what it is displaying and it doesn't mislead. The EU is internationally unique in being a union in which all member states share some sovereignty, so it is worth displaying this as well as the basic Europe background. Note that the EU is also now represented diplomatically as if it were a nation at the UN, Vatican, IMF, World Bank, etc and that it has a President, a Parliament, a civil service, seperate representation in each capital, a capital, etc and that the US treats it as a state. Clearly it ain't unimportant by any stretch. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Until France, UK, Spain etc etc, abolsh their heads of state positions & give up federal powers in their respective parliaments? I'm not convinced. GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree with James on this. Not sure what you are unconvinced of GoodDay. --Snowded TALK 06:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Those countries are all independant & should be respected as such in their maps. GoodDay (talk) 06:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
If they withdraw from the European Union then they are, but as long as they are members they are constrained. IN any event the purpose of a map is to place something in context not in isolation --Snowded TALK 07:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Ehh, there's no giant sovereign state called Europe. Tharky's map is more accurate. GoodDay (talk) 07:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

"Pooling of sovereignty occurs in many multi lateral organisations and applies to the UK's membership of the UN, NATO, WTO etc. There is nothing unique about the EU in that respect." (Rangoon11)
-- I'm afraid Rangoon11 you are completely mistaken about that. The EU is much more than just another intergovernmental organisation. It has a Parliament directly elected by its citizens, and it can make laws that are binding on its Member States. It is therefore, whether you like it or not, a unique form of supranational government. That is the constitutional position, not just somebody's POV, and the fact that you personally disapprove of this state of affairs is neither here nor there. -- Alarics (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

If Napoleon were around, he'd be smiling right now. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
That is a deeply stupid remark, if I may say so. -- Alarics (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Why? he always wanted Europe united. Though not in the form of democracies. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Come on GoodDay, you must recognise some people could get offended at that. Bad analogy, although if you take it to a talk page I'm sure you could have a humourous discussion somewhere. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
This is just a tough neighbourhood, Chipmunkdavis. GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Concur with Alaric, making pretty lame jokes on article talk pages does not contribute to the debate and its dubious if its a proper use of a personal talk page. Best you join facebook or similar for that sort of thing GoodDay --Snowded TALK 17:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Cool. GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The size of Britain

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Can anyone supply a source for the measurements of Britain as shown in the Geography section? Fred DeSoya (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I assume you mean latitudes and longitudes? Can't find anything RS just off the bat, it could just be removed if need be. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Language - Another compromise proposal

Latest comment: 13 years ago67 comments13 people in discussion

I think events of the last day have confirmed my earlier comment that inclusion of any other language (even if a compromise is agreed by current contributors - which admitedly looks unlikely at the moment anyway) will never restore the infobox to peace, bearing in mind that until the addition of welsh in mid-Nov it peacefully existed as English only for many years. Editors will continue to raise the issue (and possibly edit-war) for all the reasons we know well regardless of any compromise. I believe (and probably Snowded will tell me off for this) the issue for the 'pro-Welsh' side is really about recognition not information. Non-Welsh speakers are unlikely to look to the infobox should they need to know the Welsh for "UK" - and I don't think there are any monolingual Welsh speakers - but if there are they would be using Welsh wikipedia. My suggestion therefore is to leave the infobox in English but to include the name in Welsh in the opening of the article (possibly in the brackets that state the "commonly known as" names) with a footnote explaining why it's there: status etc. This way the logic of the infobox is not disrupted (for those who are "English only") and welsh gets recognition (for the "pro-welsh"). And peace will reign.........DeCausa (talk) 10:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I've thought along similar lines - it would also serve as a useful reminder that the UK is a place of many cultures and languages. It is true that in en-WP, the monocultural Englishness is easily re-inforced unwittingly in articles like this. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm happy to look at alternatives. I think the point you could make DeCausa is that many of us have fought for recognition of the Welsh Language in the real world, so once it has achieved we legitimately want that to be represented in Wikipedia and elsewhere. I don't think that you should take GoodDay's edit warring as an issue if a compromise is agreed. If it is then it can be enforced. At the moment I see some opposition or reluctance to the last attempt but no out right rejection. What matters is that we continue the discussion. --Snowded TALK 11:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned by this. Editing Wikipedia should not be an extension of our real world activism. This suggests to me that there is a POV at work here. Bill Reid reminds us that we must strive to be encyclopedic, whatever our personal views. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
If I had attempted to insert the welsh language version before welsh was official then you might be correct in a POV accusation. As it is I am responding to a question from DeCausa and pointing out that once official status has been achieved it should not surprise editors that people want Wikipedia to reflect that real world position. Some of us have the honesty to make our positions clear on a range of political and social issues, doing so puts added pressure to follow the rules and respect NPOV and RS etc.--Snowded TALK 17:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
GoodDay hasn't edit warred (which is breaching 3RR) James, nor does he intend to in future. Snowded, please comment on content, not contributor. GoodDay (talk) 11:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
You need to check out the definition of edit warring, you imposed your position on the article while the wording was under discussion and then ignored WP:BRD. Following that you deleted everything. That is edit warring and is a behavioral issue which is the legitimate concern of other editors. No one is bashing you, just asking you to follow the rules --Snowded TALK 11:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Snowded, I repeat: a compromise isn't going to stop the constant addition of 'new' editors re-igniting he discussion. (I wasn't thinking of GoodDay's actions particularly.) I don't think a compromise reached by a half a dozen editors will stop that. In the last few days we've seen additional editors join. It will carry on, I'm sure. DeCausa (talk) 11:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
actually, I first thought of the above proposal as a compromise. The more I think about it, I think it's a real omission that welsh (and probably Gaelic) isn't included in the "commonly known as" DeCausa (talk) 11:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes that's pretty close to my position also. But can we continue with verifable consensus as the way forward rather than compromise? -- Bill Reid | (talk) 12:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

To flesh it out this is what I propose as the Article's opening sentence:

"The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland[note 7] (commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK, Britain or, in Welsh, Teyrnas Unedig Prydain Fawr a Gogledd Iwerddon or, in Scots Gaelic, Rìoghachd Aonaichte na Breatainne Mòire is Èireann a Tuath[note x]) is a sovereign state[7][8] located off the northwestern coast of continental Europe.

note x: Welsh and Scots Gaelic are the only languages in the UK to receive statutory recognition – see note 2 for details. The UK government has recognised other autochthonous (regional) languages under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, for details (and translations of the UK’s names into those languages) see Note 7."

DeCausa (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

There is absolutely no need for all that rigmarole, and I would oppose it as WP:UNDUE. This article gets some 30,000 visitors a day, if the traffic stats are to be believed. For the, surely, tiny fraction of that number that wants to know about languages other than English, the situation is already more than adequately covered in Note 7. English is the language that *everybody* in the UK speaks, whether or not they also speak something else. Speakers of other languages who don't speak English will not be looking this article anyway, but in their own language version of WP. This whole argument is completely pointless in my view. -- Alarics (talk) 14:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Likewise, I don't feel the use of translations of the UK's full name is really required. A mention of Welsh's official status in Wales in the language section (5.3) should be all that's required. The infobox section Recognised regional languages could be re-ordered on the basis of actual speakers which would put Welsh first. -- Bill Reid | (talk) 14:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It's already in note 7, after the main title. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Have you seen how long this debate has dragged on? Prior to it starting, Welsh was included in the infobox for one month without comment. There's a good argument (which has been deployed by those that want Welsh) that that means it now requires a consensus to revert back to English only. Since note 7 already includes translations in all languages, I take it that you both want to offer nothing to those that want Welsh. Or am I wrong? if that is the position I see no end to this. DeCausa (talk) 16:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I missed the whole debate apparently, had to read it all today! I got the gist a neutral question was being posted somewhere, is that still on? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I think we were pretty close to a sensible agreement yesterday to be honest. It kept welsh in their with a reduced font size and an clear statement that it was official in Wales. Criteria for inclusion of other languages was that they had official status within a country or region. Reduced font size in the information box is hardly going to distract readers to the article in the way that elaborate text in the lede would. There is no policy on languages which are official in a constituent country and I think Welsh is probably about the only case (I know there may be some very small islands in the Netherlands but that is hardly comparable). --Snowded TALK 16:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's going to work though Snowded - it was still confusing having it up there, possibly even more so than before - that's the place you look to see the official language versions of the article you are looking at - so "official in Wales" confuses as to which article it is. I am inclining back to the view that we don't need translations there, as the UK as an entity has no official language(s). Having seen the alternative proposal for translations in the intro sentences, they are even more of a mess. 17:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
How does "official in Wales" confuse anyone? I think the issue at the moment is are editors willing to work out a compromise or not? The editorial group here is split 50-50 so neither the November version or the pre-November version represent something that all editors are happy with or can live with. We can agree that Welsh is official in Wales, that Wales is a part of the UK and that other official languages are used in the information box for other countries. So the whole debate is whether something official in Wales in therefore an official language within the UK and should be in the information box or no. Give that your and others concerns were that people might think Welsh was an official language in Scotland or elsewhere we address that simply with the qualification "official in Wales" or if you really want "official only in Wales" (although I don't think that is strictly true. Its a good compromise, and all of my experience here says that compromises move things forward. If one side "wins" then we just get proxy battles and bad feeling. --Snowded TALK 17:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Snowded, Why not focus on the text of the article? i know noone seems to like my suggestion above, but I'm sure (having seen recent postings) some language recognition somwhere in the text stands a much better chance of compromis than in the infobox. DeCausa (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Alarics and Bill Reid. I also agree with Ivor when he said: I'm a bit concerned by this. Editing Wikipedia should not be an extension of our real world activism. This suggests to me that there is a POV at work here.. Best thing to do would be to keep it plain and simple with the primary language of the UK - English - on its own. This Welsh "recognition" campaign has strong hints of POV.
Move the Welsh version (and any other minority language versions) to the name section as Bill mentioned. That is more than fair. If there was a real desire from the pro-Welsh camp for reaching an agreement and to prevent future edit-warring over the infobox by old and new editors - this would be the best solution. Mabuska (talk) 17:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


I still strongly oppose the inclusion of other languages apart from English within the main article and at the top of the infobox. Only English is needed. The proposal to put non English names for this country in the introduction is totally unacceptable and this is all seeming like an attempt to promote minority languages which are not even spoken by a majority in their respective parts of the United Kingdom, let alone throughout the whole UK. This article should not be messed up with other languages. I also notice that the infobox at Pound Sterling has the same problem now as existed here previously, with half a dozen languages included when only English is needed there. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Why BW? At the moment, we are mostly getting opinions or shallow arguments visibly based on opinions. It's the facts that matter. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
This is the English language wikipedia. There is no need for non English versions of the country name in the infobox and certainly not in the introduction of this article. The Welsh spelling of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has no relevance on this article. We list minority languages in the infobox, that is all that needs to be done as far as im concerned. Why is the Welsh spelling of UK needed here? and if Welsh is allowed, then we have to allow every other language that has been given some minority protection by the UK government. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree, I see little reason to include Welsh in the infobox. G.R. Allison (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
There are so many errors in your comment BW that I hardly know where to begin. It isn't about "spellings" for a start off, it's about translations. Welsh is under consideration because it has recently been made an official language of Wales in the Welsh Assembly. It is contested for use in the UK, but it does not have the same status as every other language. Frankly, you need to either get with the programme and read debates properly and base your arguments on background source material, or stop bothering - at the moment, your "opinion" above can be filed in the appropriate waster-paper bin. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with James. There's no added value in voicing an opinion without rationale. I was strongly against the naming of the country in other languages in the infobox. But the fact is both Welsh and Scottish Gaelic are statutorily recognised (in differing ways) and I think it's appropriate that when there is a list of 'other' names of the country ('britain', 'UK' etc) in the text of the article it is highly relevant (and not undue) to include names used in this country by speakers of minority languages which have got statutory recognition. But I seem to be in a minority of one in this. DeCausa (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Putting all that stuff in the first sentence of the lead paragraph looks even worse than putting it in the infobox. It is quite incorrect, anyway, to say that the UK is "commonly known" as those things. How often does even a native Welsh-speaker say or write all that? The only thing the UK is "commonly known" as is "Britain". Incidentally I am one-eighth Welsh and have nothing against the Welsh at all. Most of the Welsh speak only English, and have no interest in this kind of thing. It is not true that I am "offering nothing for the Welsh". I am offering not to oppose leaving Note 7 as it stands, which more than meets the case, in my view. -- Alarics (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Note 7's not even in issue! ...and how about some sources rather than just raw opinion and emotion.DeCausa (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Surely the onus to cite a source is on those who want to claim that "Teyrnas Unedig Prydain Fawr a Gogledd Iwerddon" is one of the names by which the UK is "commonly known". -- Alarics (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
The reason why I'm proposing it is in the acres of postings and sources of nearly 20 people over the last 3 weeks. I really can't be bothered anymore....DeCausa (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I need briefing. Has the infobox heading discussion morphed into an article introduction discussion? GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. There is a proposal to put the other language versions of the UK's full formal name in the first sentence of the lead paragraph, instead of at the top of the infobox. It was hoped that this might be a compromise that people would be satisfied with, but I'm afraid I think it looks even more absurd than having it at the top of the infobox. -- Alarics (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
How ironic, I've no objections to the non-English languages being in the first sentence of the lead paragraph. GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I also don't have any problem with the non-English languages in the first sentence. Although, if possible, maybe the wording that DeCausa suggested could be a little less messy. It seams a little weird. Nations United (talk) 20:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

reset

Firstly I full endorse DeCausa and James comments about the need to move away from editors simply stating their opinion without a rationale. I also appreciate their efforts over the last few days to move away from the stalemate we have had for some weeks. Secondly I think we now have two issues. The first is to resolve the content issue of the article, the second is the wider policy issue. At the moment there is no agreement on how to deal with languages which are official but not universal, it may even be a uniquely UK problem. I think we need to separate dealing with the immediate content issue from the policy issue which is less urgent.. I also think moving the full translation to the lede will just clutter up that paragraph. If it belongs anywhere it belongs in that top section of the information box.

So let me propose the following:

  1. For the moment the information box reverts to its pre-November position, namely only English
  2. The information box section on Languages is amended to make it clear that Welsh is an official language within the country of Wales, to recognise the quasi official status of Scotts Gaelic with the other languages under "other" or "regional"
  3. The language section in the main article is amended in its lede paragraph to reflect the above and the translations of "UK&NI" are placed there in a table.
  4. Those of us who are interested formulate and agree a question to be put to the wider community to address the question of minority official languages as a principle, separate from what is now an emotion laden content dispute. That can wait a week or so but we agree to agree the question; i.e. no individual attempts to preempt the result by formulating the question without that agreement - we can create a project page here for that
  5. If the community agree as a matter of policy that the first section of the information box can contain minority official languages then welsh will be restored.

I hope that is acceptable, it will take a bit of work on actual wording but I'd like to test if it is acceptable. --Snowded TALK 22:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. -- Alarics (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
When you say 'first section' of the Infobox, do you mean the Infobox heading? If not, does this mean the infobox heading is no longer being debated? GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
The info box heading. As to "debate" please read the proposal --Snowded TALK 22:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
This proposal seems quite comprehensive. On point 3) - in which languages will the translations of UK & NI appear in the lead of the language section? Ivor Stoughton (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
My suggestion is to have a table in the language section with all the translations, no translations in the lede that would be messy --Snowded TALK 23:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
The 5 proposals are acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
By on large they are acceptable. A language table in the name section would be good solution, and allow for more expanding on Welsh's actually status without resorting to ref notes. Mabuska (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Also agree with the proposals. Nations United (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Also agreed - no one could reasonably object to this course of action so let's go ahead asap. DeCausa (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
These are good proposals. Ditto what DeCausa said. Outback the koala (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Alright, so implement 1 and 2 now I suppose. Perhaps the current note can be used as the basis of a change to the language section? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Very clear and well argued piece of work Snowded - I accept all of that. Would like to see how the table looks, but that's just presentational. I assume you are effectively skirting around the issue of which languages should be "in" or "out" but having "all" of them, but possibly that may cause difficulties in future, I suppose we will just argue the points as they arise. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes agree with Snowded's approach. Like James I have some issues in points 2 & 3. --Bill Reid | (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
What are the issues Bill? --Snowded TALK 17:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Snowded, was wondering if you were going to make a formal section where each point could be discussed perhaps with agree (with reason)/disagree (with reason) subsections to keep things neat. I didn't want to kick off in this bit of the discussion if that wasn't what you wanted. Thanks, -- Bill Reid | (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I planned to create sections to get the details right, for the moment I was seeking agreement to the overall approach. So if concerns are major probably need to come out now, otherwise if minor I will set up detailed discussion areas. So if someone said they accepted 1 but rejected 2&3 or that official status should not be included in 2&3 then I would be more concerned --Snowded TALK 18:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, what I thought you meant was that you were highlighting the points of difference and that discussion should take place in a more structured way. So my position remains, until persuaded otherwise, and that is that the inclusion of Welsh in the infobox as an official language is wrong. So just to repeat my position, the inclusion of Welsh as anything other than as one of the regional languages of the UK would not be correct; its official status only exists in Wales, the UK is a far larger subject than Wales. The infobox of a country is a way for providing a quick fact finder of that country for the casual reader. The official language in the UK's infobox is English and adding Welsh also as an official language will be confusing and misleading for some. The wording of point 2 appears to seek to create a league table of regional languages with Wales in a separate category to the others but at UK level that simply isn't the case. Wales is one of many regional languages with no special UK status. Because the Welsh Assembly has chosen to make Welsh and English official doesn't change things at UK level at all. I don't see the UK article as the place for boosting the 'prestige' of a regional language that holds no legal status in the bulk of the country. -- Bill Reid | (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The proposal moves the policy issue around minority official languages to another forum (see points 4&5) keeping English only as the solution pending that (point 1). Points 2&3 do not establish a hierarchy per se, but they do need to reflect the actual status of the different languages rather then just lumping them all into one category. I worded 2 to ensure there was no claim in respect of the UK just Wales so I don't see why that should be a problem. --Snowded TALK 20:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes I have no problem with point 1 at all and should 2 & 3 be resolved, 4 & 5 would not be necessary but there is a problem and that is at UK level, Welsh has absolutely no more standing than any other regional language. It only has status within Wales so shouldn't be elevated beyond a listing with the other languages. In the Wales article, the status of Welsh is/will be indesputable but the UK article is different. For me, it is just one regional language among the others--no better, no worse. Of the three celtic countries, Wales does have the largest native speaking population and in the body of the article, this deserves to be mentioned along with its official status, but the infobox has to be tighter and deal with the coded parameters of the infobox and not other issues. The UK is legally not bi-lingual and so the only Official language is English. Maybe the solution is to adopt the United States position of not mentioning the regional languages at all. I'm sorry if I'm repeating myself. --Bill Reid | (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Maybe I misunderstood Snowded's point 2. I assumed that Welsh remained in the 'regional languages' part of the languages section of the Infobox but with some sort of statement added on saying it was official in Wales. Have I misunderstood? If I'm right I really can't see any objection to it and would follow other countries (Spain etc). DeCausa (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
We probably need to see a sandboxed example to make a solid judgement on 2/3 - from Snowded's description of what he has in mind, they sound right to me. Bill, can you explain a point of yours please? You said above "Welsh has absolutely no more standing than any other regional language" - I am not quite clear why you say that. Is it not the case that Welsh is in fact the _only_ language in the UK territorial area to now have legal status as official? Contrary to your point above, I am not certain from the sources we've seen so far that even English is formally official. It may be that the shifting-sands of British constitutional arrangements have given us this particular bit of strangeness. Why do you think Welsh is no different? To some extent we are pre-rehearsing the arguments for how to codify, but that's probably OK. I also aim to comment on your assumption that country infoboxes do not display this information, but let's start with this one. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree there should be no implied hierarchy of the regional (or national) languages. Also agree that the official status of Welsh in Wales confers no status throughout the U.K. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
It's not implying a heirarchy in some fake way Ivor, the issue is about factually reporting status in a neutral way - "official" is a different and widely internationally recognised status for languages. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and we should convey the information that Welsh is official in Wales, without implying that it is official throughout the U.K. Now, a number of the other national and regional languages also have international recognition in varying degrees (such as recognised minority language status from the EU). That information should probably also be conveyed. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Heres a random thought - if we have to include Welsh due to its "official" status in the UK - we must be even-handed and also rename and amend the Derry article to state the city's actual official UK name which is Londonderry. Whilst i'm not looking to start a debate on this - it would be interesting to see if some editors pushing for Welsh's inclusion feel we should also use the "official" arguement elsewhere. Like if we are made to essentially ignore the official name of Londonderry city throughout Wikipedia - then we can easily leave out Welsh's official status in the infobox of one article and have it stuck in the language section. Mabuska (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I just took a look at the Derry article - the infobox over there includes the names Derry/Londonderry in English, Scots and Irish! Ivor Stoughton (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

This is specifically about language status not alternate names in the same language of cities. The argument is contentious enough already - let's not shoe-horn in other highly charged issues. DeCausa (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with James and DeCuasa's points above. On holiday this week with Daughter for a week so only have an hour or so's internet access a day so it may take a few days to draft. --Snowded TALK 05:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not opening a new debate on an old arguement, but using it for comparison. Ivor i'm on about the convention where we use "Derry" for the city on any article that mentions it despite the fact it is the unofficial name of the city - the arguement for use of the official name is fought against by some who want to an official language here for something else. We just can't cherry-pick when the "official" arguement gives something automatic right for inclusion/use - especially when it appears that trying to include Welsh in this manner in the infobox is highly troublesome. As already repeated, putting it in the language-section is more than suffice and fair and avoids future problems over the infobox - it also wouldn't be the first time information has been left out of an infobox on an article because it is contentious despite being backed up. Mabuska (talk) 10:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the Derry argument is an appropriate comparison, it was a way to balance those who wanted the city called Derry and those who objected, now the county is called Londonderry the city Derry across wikipedia. More of a WP:COMMONNAME issue, which doesn't really apply to country infoboxes. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah well, as i already said its not up for debate anyways the Londonderry issue. Mabuska (talk) 13:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

James what I said was . . . at UK level, Welsh has absolutely no more standing than any other regional language. I said that because Welsh is only official in Wales and can't have any sort of official status in terms of the UK as a whole. Taking it away from the other regional languages would give a false impression of its status vis-a-vis the UK and immediately gives the impression it is mainstream and not a regional language. I've put the infobox in drop down box below to illustrate what I mean.

Example of infobox
United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland
Anthem: 

"God Save the Queen"[note 1]
 
Location of United Kingdom/Archive 21 (dark green)

– in Europe (green & dark grey)
– in the European Union (green)  –  [Legend]

Official languagesEnglish (de facto)
Welsh, (official in Wales)[note 2]
Recognised regional languagesIrish, Ulster Scots, Scottish Gaelic , Scots, Cornish[note 3]
ISO 3166 codeGB

References

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Notes
  1. ^ No law was passed making God Save the Queen the official anthem; however in the British tradition such laws are not necessary. Proclamation and usage are sufficient to make it the official national anthem. God Save the Queen also serves as the Royal anthem for several other countries.
  2. ^ English is established by de facto usage. In Wales, the Bwrdd yr Iaith Gymraeg is legally tasked with ensuring that, "in the conduct of public business and the administration of justice, the English and Welsh languages should be treated on a basis of equality". "Welsh Language Act 1993". Office of Public Sector Information. Retrieved 3 September 2007. Bòrd na Gàidhlig is tasked with "securing the status of the Gaelic language as an official language of Scotland commanding equal respect to the English language" "Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005". Office of Public Sector Information. Retrieved 9 March 2007.
  3. ^ Under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages the Welsh, Scottish Gaelic, Cornish, Irish, Scots and its regional variant Ulster Scots are officially recognised as Regional or Minority languages by the UK Government for the purposes of the Council of Europe Charter for Regional or Minority Languages ("European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages". Scottish Government. Retrieved 11 December 2010.) See also Languages of the United Kingdom.

Regarding English as an official language, Note 2 in the infobox gives English is established by de facto usage but maybe your referring to English's status in Wales? I'm also a bit unclear what you meant by It may be that the shifting-sands of British constitutional arrangements have given us this particular bit of strangeness. Why do you think Welsh is no different?. Could you explain what you meant there? Thanks. --Bill Reid | (talk) 15:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Full protection

Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

I noted the ongoing edit war and protected the article as a more humane option than blocking people. Please see if you can figure out a consensus here. Thanks. --John (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Slightly confused. Why is there full protection? There was a very brief edit war on the language of the title to the info box but as can be seen above we're well passed that now. There was also a very minor issue on the literature section - but surely that doesn't require protection. Please clarify. Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
If all participants in the edit war can reassure me that the edit war is over I will happily rescind the protection. --John (talk) 01:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Very confused, there was a small 24 hours ago when GoodDay failed to abide by WP:BRD on an item under active discussion but that was resolved before the protection. Otherwise we have two editors (James and Rangoon) who might or might not have gone over 3rr on a minor issue. As far as I can see in his final edit James stopped the edit war by making one minor amendment to Rangoon's version. Looks to me like protection came in after the edit war was over and is unnecessary. Better to have issued a quick "stop or you will be blocked" notice on the two editors pages. This should just be removed. --Snowded TALK 05:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
IMHO, it's safe to un-protect the article. GoodDay (talk) 05:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Seconded, full protection isn't necessary for such a small edit-skirmish, surely? It looked like it was nearly over anyway... ★KEYS767★ talk 07:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I will seek to obtain consensus on the literature section but I would suggest monitoring, as the changes Rangoon11 has been doing don't make a lot of sense. The British authors section now has a ridiculously long sentence and rather than try to improve the edit, Rangoon was simply deleting it and making random changes to author names. I don't think I did a 3rr but was going further than I like to, so will make a huge effort to calm down. The "other" edit war, the infobox header bit, seems to be being dealt with in a restrained manner - hopefully we will all leave it alone and try to reach a consensus. We were doing that. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Unprotected. Please don't edit-war on such a high-profile article. Thanks. --John (talk) 15:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Literature

Latest comment: 13 years ago42 comments10 people in discussion

The 'foreign-born' authors paragraph (“Authors from other nationalities, particularly from Ireland, or from Commonwealth countries, have lived and worked in the UK. Significant examples through the centuries include Jonathan Swift, Oscar Wilde, Bram Stoker, George Bernard Shaw, Joseph Conrad, T. S. Eliot and Ezra Pound, and more recently British authors born abroad such as Kazuo Ishiguro and Sir Salman Rushdie.”) makes it sound as if those born in Ireland only became UK nationals because they moved to Great Britain. Can we agree a reworking of the paragraph to clarify? Daicaregos (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if it's a distinction we need in some cases. People like Wilde, Bernard Shaw, etc often feature in "English literature" courses & books. Perhaps the intention is honorable (to show that many non UK-born writers have been attracted to the UK to live/work) but not the presentation? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I have no doubt the intention was honorable. Thing is, Jonathan Swift, Oscar Wilde, Bram Stoker and George Bernard Shaw were UK-born, but it doesn't read as if they were. Daicaregos (talk) 17:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
It's a good thing ya'll have mentioned Nobel literature winners. I had to do some correction at that related 'list' article. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Dai and James. I copied and pasted the relevant parts of the literature section to my sandbox. I intended to incorporate Dai's suggestions on the Welsh poetry to see how they looked. I'm sure they would have been fine but it's nice to see it first. I'm far too busy to do anything else today but you are both more than welcome to use my sandbox to experiment. Please, make yourself at home in my box. <:} Fred DeSoya (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Er ... thank you? Bit pushed for time today myself too. Next year? :) Daicaregos (talk) 17:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I strongely agree with Daicaregos concerns on some UK born authors not exactly reading as if they are. Mabuska (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Do you have any suggestions how it could be rephrased? Daicaregos (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

What's the "cite" you refer to in your last revert Daicaregos? The text is not cited. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

That would be my fault James. Dai gave the reference in a thread further up and I should have added it when I included the sentence in the article. Sorry guys. Fred DeSoya (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
OK - but I don't think we should have claims like "the best" or "the leading" or "most celebrated" or whatever in general attached to cultural figures - the other thing is that this passage is now really long. If we gave that much information about all the other writers, it would be another complete article. Don't forget we have very deep coverage of all this in both the literature of the UK article and the individual articles. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I would disagree with you concerning too much information. I know it is an encyclopedia but giving a little information on one or two writers prevents the section from being just a table of facts and figures. Fred DeSoya (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
You're going to end up with the Lit section twice as long as it is now and calls for serious chopping of the article. Not to mention that your cite doesn't support the text. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I had incorrectly assumed the paragraph had been cited. Sorry. The paragraph's length may be an issue. However, the alternative is to have one name after another - a list. Lists are deprecated and should be turned to prose. How do we resolve this? Daicaregos (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Also, I see that we have lost Roald Dahl in all the changes. He was Norwegian, born in Wales, went to school in England, and I agree that it makes little sense to describe him as a Welsh writer. On the other hand, he wasn't particularly English. Where do we put him? We need a place for people who are simply British. -- Alarics (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
James, I now have further citations to reference the claims for Dafydd ap Gwilym. BBC (“one of Europe's greatest medieval poets “), Academi (“Dafydd ap Gwilym is widely regarded as one of the greatest Welsh poets of all time, and amongst the leading European poets of the Middle Ages.”), Companion guide to Wales (“one of the greatest European poets of the fourteenth century”), Land of my fathers: 2000 years of Welsh history by Gwynfor Evans (“The greatest bard to emerge from this able and influential order [wandering minstrels] was Dafydd ap Gwilym”), Rachel Bromwich (“Regarded as one of the great European poets of the Middle Ages “), Alun Roberts (“ … widely shared view that Dafydd ap Gwilym was Wales' greatest ever poet.” and a memorial plaque, “unveiled by Sir Thomas Parry in 1977, which commemorates in Welsh, English and French, the birthplace of “one of the great poets of medieval Europe”.”), The Houghton Mifflin dictionary of biography (“often hailed as the greatest of the Welsh poets”), Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction by Benjamin W. Fortson (“a major figure in medieval European poetry”), The New Cambridge Medieval History: c. 1300-c. 1415 By Michael Jones (“one of the greatest of all medieval European poets”), Cambrian register, Volume 3 (“One of the most celebrated bards that distinguished this period”), My Life: A Record of Events and Opinion by Alfred Russell Wallace (quoting George Borrow “the greatest poetical genius that has appeared in Europe since the revival of literature”). Is that sufficient? Daicaregos (talk) 14:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Crumbs. Yes! Pretty overwhelming. I just worry when poets, authors, etc, get called "the world's best or xxxx's yyyyest" - it's always hard to evaluate literature in a serious way in that kind of pop culture tone and seems to be a bit too common in WP, even though it is supposedly deprecated. My other worry is the sheer size of the literature section now - if we are to give due weight to the other parts of the UK, we are going to have something far too long and then the demand will be to reduce it. Hopefully this change won't do that, but overall the Welsh section shouldn't be longer than it already is. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Quite agree. Should a clamour arise to cut the section, perhaps a template directing to the main (and possibly, the subsidiary) literature articles could replace it all. But we should cross that bridge when we come to it. In the meantime I'll made the changes to the Dafydd ap Gwilym para. I'm hoping a single reference will be enough, but please let me know if you (or anyone) think more should be added. Daicaregos (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the Welsh paragraph should not become any larger, in fact I think that it should be reduced from its current size. For reasons largely of a much larger population there is no doubt that England has produced a far greater number of notable figures in literature than either Wales or Scotland. The Welsh paragraph of this section is currently almost as large as the England section, and considerably larger than the Scotland section, and that seems incongruous to say the least.
I do think that there is a strong argument for abandoning the England/Scotland/Wales split in this section completely, which inevitably creates issues regarding a desire for 'equal' treatment in terms of length even when unjustified by reality, ignores the existence of Northern Ireland, wastes space, gives the misleading impression that the authors were somehow part of an English/Welsh/Scottish rather than a British (or wider) literary tradition, and poses difficulties as to where to place individuals such as Roald Dahl and C.S. Lewis. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Rangoon11, please reconsider your edit. Your stated aim was to reduce the length of the paragraph, yet your reversion decreased the number of words in the 'Welsh' paragraph by a net two (15 additional words: "most He is widely regarded as one of the greatest European poets of his age"; 13 deleted words:" what may be Owing to the dominance of the Welsh language in Wales"). You will note that the additions were cited and that when editors were invited to comment on the additions here no objections were raised. Thank you, Daicaregos (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
The aim of my edit was to prevent the Welsh paragraph of the section, which I feel is already far too long, from becoming even longer, which is what your additions resulted in. The paragraph as is should be reduced before any further Welsh content is added. As a general, separate, point I do think that the point has now come to abandon the inflexible and artificial England/Scotland/Wales paragraph split within this section, and I welcome comments on this. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
This is the same problem as last night - Rangoon11 you are deleting properly referenced material wholesale rather than seeking improvement. Can you please self-revert this and bring it here and discuss it so we can obtain consensus? I suggest first we seek consensus on the Welsh section, then move on to the other parts. Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

James you seem desperate to provoke an argument, both by posting repeated uncivil messages on my Talk page, and by your sniping at me at the bottom of this page and again here. Your edits last night added not one but four completely uncited claims: 'dominated the international literary scene.', 'has continued to draw critical attention', 'have excelled' and 'all gained huge audiences'. I found this particularly curious in view of how critical you have been towards other editors adding uncited claims to this article. You also deleted W. Somerset Maugham, who is highly notable. Finally, I didn't agree with the content of your new narrative, which I found overly simplistic. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. The whole problem with this game is that one person's "famous author/poet/literary figure" is another person's nonentity. For my part I wouldn't rate S Maugham on anything like the scale of the other figures there. Yet you delete TS Eliot, whom most critics would rank amongst the greats. But my objection last night was that you (just as you did just now) came along without any discussion and got rid of people/items you happen not to like. This is a key article and we need to agree things. Edit comments like "oh this is tiresome" don't help deliver even tempers. I was simply warning other editors to keep a watching brief and so far that is justified. Now I ask again, will you self-revert and discuss? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
(1) Interesting that you use the word 'game'. (2) In your response you have completely ignored the key issue, which is that you added multiple uncited claims. (3) I didn't delete TS Eliot, he is in the final paragraph of the section as well, I merely removed a duplicate reference. (4) My edit comment about tiresome behaviour followed your initiating an edit war. (5) If you regard Maugham as a nonentity then I suggest that you read his Wikipedia article. He is without doubt a major figure, I make no comment on my own views on the quality of his work, which I see as irrelevant. (6) It's not an issue of my self-reverting, since I wasn't the one seeking to make changes to the article. I reverted additions which I disagreed with. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Two words, Rangoon11! In an article of over 200,000 bytes! There has been no suggestion that my edits did not improve the article. I ask again. Please reconsider your reversions of material cited by reliable sources, to which no editors objected, including yourself, when invited to comment. Thank you, Daicaregos (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I will confess that I didn't count the number of words, but your new paragraph certainly appeared longer than the old on the comapre. I again make the point that the Welsh paragraph is already too long. I am therefore not keen on any further expansion of the paragraph, even if cited. Can we agree on cutting back some of the other content in the paragraph, or do you feel the current length to be acceptable? In my view, if England was dealt with in a comparable way to the manner that Wales is currently in this section, it would take up about half of the entire article. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Would you be content with a net reduction to the number of words within the 'Welsh paragraph'? Daicaregos (talk) 13:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
As regards this specific editing issue, absolutely. My general points about the need to abandon the England/Scotland/Wales split in this section will still stand however, but that's another issue. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  Done as agreed. A net six words fewer. Daicaregos (talk) 13:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Instead of hijacking this discussion about the problem of the "foreign-born" authors section, why can't this arguement be taken to a new section? Mabuska (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Back to the primary issue raised

Daicaegos i think that as the whole literature sections reads as English, Scottish, and then Welsh authors before moving to "others", that we rephrase it into two new paragraphs - Irish authors (all Irish authors listed where born in pre-1921 Ireland as far as i can see), and authors born outside of the UK. I made the edit and hope its not too controversial.
Whilst Tolkien may be considered English and is noted as such in his article, i included him in the paragraph on authors born outside of the UK as technically he was and lived in the Orange Free State for three years. Though it is worded in a way that doesn't say he isn't English. Mabuska (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Typically Snowded finds fault with the rewrite as he reverted it. Though his reasoning is lacking substance as not once does it state "Ireland" as part of the UK - even though all editors mentioned where born in Ireland when it was all part of the UK. Mabuska (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
My main point in the edit summary Mabuska is that I preferred the text before you reverted it. Its richer with more detail. We are also in 2011 and we should not assume that all editors are aware of the subtlety of pre 1921 and its meaning. I haven't checked what the default position is and don't intend to as I have an early flight. For the moment lets see what other editors think. --Snowded TALK 23:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't say what was there was more richer in detail. Obviously it can do with expanding, however its only a basis that can be expanded upon. You have to lay a foundation to build the house on first. As i've stated on your talk page, the statement doesn't even say that Ireland is part of the UK - just its contribuation. Nothing is ever perfect first draft either - it mightn't even address Daicaregos concerns appropriately and will probably be rewritten once again. Mabuska (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Undid Mabuska edit - agree with Snowded - we lost valuable content with that edit; also getting rid of multiple mis-spellings and poor grammar - this is a key article, try to remember that and edit with care
I only just realised i accidentally excluded two modern authors, however what valuable content was lost other than two names accidentally excluded? Instead of just willy-nilly reverting, how about helping find a way to fix the problem.
Here is another proposal, based largely on what is there:
Ireland's contribuation to the literature of the United Kingdom includes C. S. Lewis, W. B. Yeats, Jonathan Swift, Oscar Wilde, Bram Stoker, and George Bernard Shaw.
Authors from other nationalities, particularly from Commonwealth countries and the United States, have lived and worked in the UK. Significant examples through the centuries include Joseph Conrad, T. S. Eliot and Ezra Pound, and more recently British authors born abroad such as Kazuo Ishiguro and Sir Salman Rushdie.
We don't need the Bram Stoker source since being born after the Act of Union 1801 and born in pre-1921 Ireland he automatically qualifies as someone from the United Kingdom. Johnathan Swift's may not be needed with the proposed rewording. Of course the Irish section can be expanded upon - but fixing the problem first would be best. Mabuska (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
What's there at the moment is definitely wrong and misleading with regard to the Irish writers. Mabuska's suggestion seems ok, but for the sake of completeness there should be a footnote explaining Ireland's constitutional relationship with Britain between 1801 and 1921 and prior to 1801 (actually since it only applies to Swift, then prior to the repeal of Poynings Law) DeCausa (talk) 01:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

We need to be careful here. Most of the Irish authors mentioned were born in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, not the United Kingdom. Yes, they may have had British nationality, but the constituent countries may be considered more culturally independent in those days. Certainly Shaw, Yeats and Wilde were all recognised as primarily Irish. Swift and Stoker perhaps less so. Lewis was more definitively British. That each made a significant contribution to the corpus of English language literature is undeniable. Wilde and Shaw, despite their 'Irishness', would be considered by many to have written in British English. But Yeats wrote primarily from an Irish viewpoint. It's not a simple and straight forward issue. Fmph (talk) 10:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I entirely agree. CS Lewis, if I remember right, thought himself an Ulsterman, not very Irish if at all, and more than anything else British. "It's not a simple and straight forward issue" is exactly right, further exemplified by my earlier mention of the impossibility of classifying Roald Dahl in these terms (Norwegian parents, born in Wales, educated in England). The problem arises partly from the false assumption that all British people have to identify with one or other of what we now, too simplistically in my view, regard as the "four constituent parts" of the UK. Some people are just British, and the way this section of the article is currently structured doesn't seem to allow for that. -- Alarics (talk) 10:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Read what i proposed.... it doesn't state that they identified as British. It states "Ireland's contribution". Very big difference. It means that they could identify as British or Irish, but being from the island of Ireland they still contributed to UK literature. Mabuska (talk) 14:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree the subtlety works to cover the various ways of looking at it. but I still think it needs a footnote on the constutional relationship/history because some might not understand why Ireland is considered to have made a "contribution" at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeCausa (talk • contribs) 18:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
The subtlety works as it leaves out the thorny-issue of nationality/alligeance. I do take offense to the suggestion of "thought himself an Ulsterman, not very Irish if at all" - are the two mutally exclusive? Lord Craigavon was hailed as a great Ulsterman and Irishman and he was a staunch hardline Ulster Unionist.
As i've even stated a couple of times already, it does need more work on it - its only meant to be the foundations for the house. It can be added now if people so wish to sort the immediate problem out, and then we can flesh it out to meet any concerns. Or just thrash it out here first. Mabuska (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Languages: Reset - Part 2

Latest comment: 13 years ago23 comments5 people in discussion
Thanks for putting the time in to your very detailed response Bill. I actually think the example grouping that you have developed is pretty good - to me, it doesn't convey anything counterfactual, but rather displays accurately the position and is therefore both helpful and informative to the casual reader. I also think it's a mistake for us to get bogged down in questions of languages being "on a par" or "or more or less significance" than one another. They are all just facts and the onus is on us to display them neutrally and truthfully. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I posted a message after Bill's message above - and when I look again it had disappeared. Somehow it ended up in the drop down in Bill's example. I couldn't work out how to post it after the drop down, so opened a new section. To cut a long story short - I quite like your drop down example. I think James has done the same thing as me and his message is also in the drop down DeCausa (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The example infobox posted by Bill Reid does illustrate the problem of implied hierarchy without a basis in fact. Welsh should simply be in with the other regional (my preference would be "national and regional") languages, with the notation that it is "official in Wales". Ivor Stoughton (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
No it doesn't. There is no "implied heirarchy" - it simply gives the facts. Do you have any sourced facts to show that any of the other languages have been legally declared to be official by any of the constituent countries or the UK? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
This is the U.K. infobox, not the infobox for any of the constituent countries. As Bill Reid points out, the only language that is official throughout the U.K. is English, de facto. That said, Scots Gaelic, Irish, Ulster-Scots all have varying degrees of official recognition in Scotland and Northern Ireland. In the case of Ulster-Scots, it is recognised in an international agreement between the U.K. and the Republic of Ireland. As a separate but related matter, I think the "Royal Assent" test proposed above is far too narrow. I much prefer your test of "international recognition". By that measure, all the languages under discussion qualify as recognised minority languages. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
There's nothing like recognition of official status in the European Charter. It just says that they recognise them as real languages (big deal!) and they need help because they're under threat. That's a million miles away from a statutory measure declaring Welsh to be official in Wales. Also, they're not legally binding - being sovereign acts. The Welsh Language Measure is the only stutory measure to make a language official in any part of the UK - so yes, Welsh is different from the other languages.DeCausa (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2011
The Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005 provides for the establishment of a Bòrd na Gàidhlig empowered to ensure that Scots Gaelic attains official status equivalent to English. Here:http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2005/7/section/1Ivor Stoughton (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
(Ec)I don't agree with you James and DeCausa. The drop down box now elevates Welsh to an official language of the UK which it isn't. Now its not even a Regional language of the UK but something disproportionate to its status within UK languages while not even being the majority language in its own country. This demonstrates exactly my misgivings i.e. the casual visitor is going to get the wrong impression completely. --Bill Reid | (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, completely agree with Bill on this. His example infobox illustrates the problem exactly. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Maybe the "Welsh (official in Wales) line should be in Regional Languages? Not clear though why you believe it misleads when it says (official in Wales) right after it. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that Welsh should be in Regional Languages. Although I would prefer them to be styled "National and Regional languages". Ivor Stoughton (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Thinking about it, "National and Regional" is better anyway - Scotland and Wales are not "regions" in the UK sense, NI is disputed, etc. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Exactly right. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry totally disagree with "National". Bill was talking about the casual reader. The casual reader (particularly the casual non-UK reader) will definitely think 'national' means UK (sorry Scots and Welsh, but it's true) rest of proposal fine with me. (Btw with regards to Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005 that's similar to the Welsh Language Act but with less teeth. It contains an objective "to secure" official status but not actually to give it (usual fudge)). DeCausa (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it is similar to the Welsh Language Act, and as such compromises the claim that Welsh is the only language under discussion here to have "official" status. In fact, Scots Gaelic is now used alongside English in all acts and communications of the Scottish Government, appears on roadsigns in Scotland, and features in the U.K passport - alongside Welsh. I do see your point on the "national" question though. We must always remember we are writing for a global readership. Let's see what other editors think. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
No! That's exactly the point. Welsh doesn't, IMHO, get its status from the Welsh Language Act. It gets it from the Welsh Language Measure 2010 where it's declared 'official'! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeCausa (talk • contribs) 19:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I meant the Welsh Language Measure, not the Act. The Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act, passed by the Scottish Parliament, is much more comparable to the Welsh Language Measure, passed by the Welsh Assembly, than the Welsh Language Act, passed by Westminster pre-devolution. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 20:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Not at all! The Gaelic measure is modelled on the Welsh Language Act. A board is appointed to require public sector bodies to put together schemes on how they're going to treat the language. Neither makes the language an 'official' one. The scottish legislation is weaker though - see the press at the time. On the other hand, the first section of the Welsh Language Measure states that Welsh is an official language in Wales. This is the first time that it's been done in the UK> — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeCausa (talk • contribs) 20:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
And in the first section of the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act it says: "The functions conferred on the Bòrd by this Act are to be exercised with a view to securing the status of the Gaelic language as an official language of Scotland commanding equal respect to the English language..." Ivor Stoughton (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Section 5 of the Welsh Language Act states that ‘English and Welsh languages should be treated on a basis of equality’. The Scottish Act is based on this Act but was watered down so that Gaelic (in section 1(3)) was to be given ‘equal respect’ which is a lesser obligation. The difference was deliberate. See this BBC article on the difference. Essentially, the Scottish Act is a paper tiger. The part you quote is merely an objective – it doesn’t confer official status. Section 1 of the Welsh Language Measure, however, is a different ball game entirely and states unequivocally: “The Welsh language has official status in Wales”. DeCausa (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act creates, by statute, a publicly-funded body to "secure" the status of Gaelic as "an official language". Not to pursue the objective of such status, but to secure it - by means that seem quite similar to those in the Welsh Language Measure. (BTW according to the Welsh Assembly website the Measure has yet to receive Royal Assent, having only recently passed the Assembly on December 7th). And generally speaking, surely one secures an objective after one has attained it, not before? No, I am unpersuaded that the Gaelic Language Act is such a paper tiger - not least because of the proliferation of Gaelic street signs I saw on my last visit to Scotland. On which visit I also had dinner with an old friend who is an executive of East Dunbartonshire Council, and who is responsible for making the Council's servces and communications compliant with the Act, a duty she takes very seriously despite the evident lack of Gaelic speakers in the area!Ivor Stoughton (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Ivor, were you thinking that the English language should be National language as in United States box or having the Regional languages parameter re-named to National and Regional languages? Thanks. --Bill Reid | (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Bill, i was thinking about renaming the parameter to National and Regional languages. But DeCausa makes a good point on that. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The infobox looks great, the way it is. Stop trying to fix something, that ain't broke. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_Kingdom/Archive_21&oldid=1157003857"