Good morning Wedensambo, It may not have been your intention, but one of your edits, specifically one that you made on Wales Coast Path, may have introduced material that some consider controversial. Due to this, your edits may have been reverted. When adding material that may be controversial, it is good practice to first discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them, in order to gain consensus over whether or not to include, phrasing, etc. If you believe that the information you added was correct, please initiate that discussion. Thank you. – – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 09:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Boroda Gareth. Actually, my intention was to avoid controversy. You will probably be aware that the question of whether Wales is indeed a country in the widely-recognised sense is an inherently political one. The term 'country' can be seen as Welsh-nationalist, whereas the older term 'principality' can suggest subservience to England. 'Devolved administration', while admittedly less than elegant, reflects the current constitutional position accurately and hopefully allows readers to get past the politics and focus on the important thing, which is the truly impressive achievement of the Cymru Coastal Path. 'Hope that makes more sense. Diolch yn fawr, Wedensambo (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sh'w mae Wedensambo, That is good reasoning. Unless you object, I shall copy 'n' paste this thread to the article 's Talk page. THen we should wait for reaction.
Yn gywir – – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 22:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No objection at all Gareth - it will be interesting to hear other editors' views too.Wedensambo (talk) 22:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This has been discussed multiple times on other pages. I've provided a link to the article on Country; it is a common fallacy that a country is necessarily a sovereign state - it isn't. Wales is not a principality (though it is sometimes wrongly or at least very misleadingly called that); it is one of the four countries of the UK as shown, for example, here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I understand your point, Ghmyrtle. I hope I don't suffer from that particular fallacy myself, though. It appears that an argument from documentary evidence can be made for either 'country' or 'principality' being officially sanctioned descriptors, in fact - but my rationale was that neither term is ideally neutral, simply because both have indeed been contested. I don't have an especially strong preference for or against either myself, but neutrality seems helpful in an article that is intended to be about a walking route (and one which will hopefully attract walkers from all nationalities). Perhaps such discussion is more appropriate to articles specifically covering such political questions, rather than this one?Wedensambo (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The term "...only devolved administration" is meaningless - it excludes from consideration all countries that do not have devolved administrations. The term "country" is used in multiple reliable sources, and is explained in articles here. That is ample explanation. The discussion that you seek has been held many, many times, and the outcome is consistent. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK Guy, it sounds like you have a fairly strong political point of view there, which you're entitled to, of course, but I wonder if this article is really the best place to exercise it? I'm specifically not 'seeking a discussion', as you put it, but suggesting an uncontroversial form of words which may prove less of a distraction from the actual topic of the article in question. I agree that 'devolved administration' is a bit of a mouthful, but it's hardly meaningless if there's a whole (rather detailed) Wikipedia page about it. Perhaps unfortunately, from your point of view, there will be many readers who would see the country in this case to be Great Britain or the United Kingdom - and a debate about which level of territory has the best claim to be regarded as a country could be a distraction from the fact that Wales is the first part of either to achieve a full coastal path. The path is a substantial achievement, whatever variety of nationalism, federalism or devolution that you or I may most favour. Why limit the audience?Wedensambo (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please withdraw your accusation that I edit with a political viewpoint. That contravenes WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies. I wasn't levelling any accusation against you, or indeed any comment upon how you edit - just acknowledging the point of view expressed in your comment above. That point of view does appear (to me) to have a particular emphasis as regards a specific political point, but that is not, in and of itself, a criticism; you have every right to your opinion. If you have taken offence - much as I may assure you that none was intended - it perhaps underlines the value of neutral phrasing in the article.Wedensambo (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have an "opinion" in the sense that you appear to mean - that is, a bias. I've explained why the term "country" in relation to Wales is not contentious; it is normal, neutral, and further explained through a link to the country article. There's no need for me to labour the point. If the article wording helps to remove misconceptions, about the meaning of the word "country" as much as anything else, we are fulfilling our purpose. If any other editors agree with the point you are trying to make, I may return to the discussion - otherwise, that's it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You weren't being accused of uncontrollable bias either, don't worry. What I was, maybe not so diplomatically, trying to draw attention to is that the use of the term 'country' is contentious. Your answer to the the question of whether or not Wales is a country may quite conceivably be the right one - but the existence of the question, and of answers which differ from yours, means it is not completely neutral. I don't wish to labour the point either, so let's agree to differ and see what others have to say, as you suggest.Wedensambo (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It looks as if we have now explored this issue fairly comprehensively and not found a conclusive argument against the proposed edit. Do we now have a consensus for change? I'm happy to do it, but of course it would be preferable to have the support of fellow editors.Wedensambo (talk) 12:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course not. You have no support for your proposal. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your dislike of the idea is understood, Guy, and although you have not presented a conclusive argument to the contrary, I respect your right to an alternative opinion - maybe we'll just have to agree to differ on this one.Wedensambo (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I really think you should withdraw the suggestion (for a second time) that I'm motivated by anything other than WP policy and guidance. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Two comments: the opening words of Wales are "Wales [pronunciation] is a country that is part of the United Kingdom and the island of Great Britain, bordered by England to its east and the Atlantic Ocean and Irish Sea to its west." The whole "is Wales a country?" has been debated to death at the Wales talk page over many years and the current wording there using "country" is a consensus viewpoint, as I understand it. I see little benefit in reopening the debate here when there is no reason to do so. Secondly, the source used to support the sentence uses "country" not "devolved administration". If someone wants to claim that it is the first devolved administration to have a full coastal path, then that needs a different source, one that uses the words "devolved administration". I saw this mentioned at WT:WALES, incidentally, but am not Welsh. Stick with "country", in other words. BencherliteTalk 14:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for both points, Bencherlite. I can well believe that the issue has been 'debated to death' as regards the specific Wales and country articles in order to achive a workable compromise - but unfortunately the same cannot be said of wider society. If the passing mention of the path going around a country, so early in this article, causes unnecessarily furrowed brows, there seems a good reason to find a more neutral alternative. Perhaps we're drifting towards a fruitless dichotomy and an entirely alternative form of words is the solution?Wedensambo (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to be the only one so far with a problem with the phrase as used here: Conde Nast and the Ordnance Survey are quite happy with it, for instance. Your proposed alternative is unsourced, so far. Do you have a source which uses "devolved administration" in the context of coastal paths? If not, and other editors are happy with "country" then consensus is against you. BencherliteTalk 14:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I see your point re references, Bencherlite, but that wassn't where we started, and I'd hesitate to go there as it could probably just re-open old controversies - for instance, I suspect we both know how easy it would be to find plenty of official references to Wales as a 'principality' instead. If I just had a personal 'problem' with the term (and I don't, really) I wouldn't have bothered proposing the change, rest assured. As to whether other editors are happy, there doesn't appear to be clear evidence of that here; there are some individuals who are understandably unhappy that their own point of view is not unanimous (that's an observation, not an accusation of bad faith, by the way), but as yet no positive argument in favour of a politically-loaded form of words rather than a neutral one.Wedensambo (talk) 14:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, we have to start from the sources. The sentence which you wish to alter is "Wales is the first country in the world to provide a dedicated footpath along its entire coastline". It has a source, which uses "country" (not principality or devolved administration, note) and I have found two other reliable and non-Welsh sources that use the same phrase. You have not produced a source which uses "devolved administration". To change the wording to use "devolved administration" instead of "country" without finding a new source would be wrong, since it would not be reporting accurately what the existing source says and would instead be inserting a POV (that Wales is not a country) which is unsupported by the balance of the sources. To remove the sentence because some people (although not, you say, you) might have a problem with Wales being described in this article as a country (even though that's how Wales is described in its own article, based on a wider analysis of the sources than you've undertaken) would really be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. BencherliteTalk 15:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict)Wales is commonly described as a country, in the media and official sources. It has a national identity and a national anthem and a language, for example. To deny this is bizarre and adding unnecessary controversy. Sionk (talk) 14:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry we found ourselves editing at the same time, Sionk. I don't think anyone's denying that this has become more common usage in recent years. But why deny that it will also confuse, or even annoy, others who see a differently-defined territory (i.e. GB or UK) as their country? This article just doesn't seem the ideal place to invite, or respond to, such differing perspectives, as some elements of this discussion have shown. Nobody (well, at least not me) is knocking Cymru; the point of the suggested change was to leave politics to one side so that people could see what Wales has achieved in establishing the coastal path - and hopefully, to my mind, to be tempted to come and use it! Giving people the impression that they're only welcome if they sign up to separatism probably isn't a great sales approach - not that Wikipedia is a sales platform, of course, but maybe you can see the point?Wedensambo (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No idea what the last sentence is meant to imply. But looking at the article (rather than talking abstractly about Wales) it would seem better to remove the claim altogether, about being the "first country in the world to provide a dedicated footpath along its entire coastline". It seems to be cited only to a niche travel website, rather than a widely recognised, reputable source. Some people will find the claim questionable so, if it remains, it should have multiple reliable sources backing it. Sionk (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- BBC and Ordnance Survey sources to the same effect added. BencherliteTalk 19:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, problem conclusively solved! Sionk (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What the 'last sentence' implied, Sionk, was the starting point of this very proposal - the observation that being drawn into a distracting debate about whether or not Wales should or should not be described as a country is essentially irrelevant and unhelpful for this specific article. Whatever cartographical preference one may have personally, this is inescapably political language. The discussion on this page has started to reflect the heat rather than light that touching upon political or national loyalties can generate, and as such your earlier suggestion to simply remove the sentence under consideration may indeed be the wisest approach.Wedensambo (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that it is supported by reliable sources, and is notable. Please consider the possibility, in the light of the evidence in front of you, that the views that you express, about whether or not the term is contentious or confusing, may simply reflect your own personal opinions, not any that may be widely held, or that need to be considered further. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I take your point about potential notability, were the references reliable, but unfortunately the sources turn out not to have been well-referenced or robustly evidence-based themselves. A quick bit of research shows that the claim that it was the first country/state/administration (whichever term one prefers) has missed rather a lot of predecessors, like the Netherlands (definitely a country), California (most certainly a state) and Madeira (a semi-autonomous region), to cite a just a few examples. I'd argue that the Wales Coastal Path is better-organised and more accesible than all of them, of course, but I am indeed biased in this respect! The very evidence of this conversation does rather underline the contentious nature of the phraseology which triggered the initial proposal. It is sounding rather like the safest course now may be to remove this point (or drop it to later in the text, to report an interesting claim rather than make a bald assertion) and then let the impressive nature of the path speak for itself. However, if acceptable, we could safely say in the introduction is that this is the first part of the UK to have a complete coastal path, and it shouldn't be too hard to find references to back that up, but I'm open to challenge should anyone consider this similarly politically-loaded terminology. Wedensambo (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The only reason why this discussion is continuing is that one editor - you - is pursuing a point in direct opposition to that expressed by every other editor here. It's really getting quite tedious. If you have sources that show that other countries also have footpaths along their entire coastline, can we see the sources, please? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the England, Wales, Scotland and United Kingdom articles make the equally political (but hardly controversial) assertion that the UK is made up of a series of countries. It is the widespread consense of Wikipedia. Any editor that disputes it should take it up at the appropriate place, not here. Sionk (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find Wedensambo disputing that anywhere here or elsewhere – – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 19:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- He is disputing that Wales should be described as a country, and asserting that those who say that it is are "nationalists" or have a "strong political point of view". Multiple reliable sources describe Wales as a country and, in particular, support the statement that "Wales is the first country in the world to provide a dedicated footpath along its entire coastline" Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Quoting Sionk writing above – '... it would seem better to remove the claim altogether, about being the "first country in the world to provide a dedicated footpath along its entire coastline". It seems to be cited only to a niche travel website, rather than a widely recognised, reputable source. Some people will find the claim questionable so, if it remains, it should have multiple reliable sources backing it.' (7:16 pm, Yesterday) seems sensible. I had not considered that any of Wedensambo's conversation here denies the fact that Wales is a country.
There is nobody alive that is a more hawkish Welshman than I, and I am immensely proud of the achievement – – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 21:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Gareth - You've missed the OS and Condé Nast refs provided by Bencherlite, which have now been added to the article. To which, I could add the BBC, the Guardian, the Telegraph, the Independent... etc. It's not the lack of reliable sources that's the problem, it's one editor's refusal to accept them - not helped by personal attacks on other editors' integrity. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I did. There can be no disagreement now that we don't have multiple sources –
– Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 23:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh dear, this has dragged on a bit. The original starting point was the observation - I think a fairly common-sense one - that different people have different definitions of 'country'. Individual political perspectives do tend to be deciding factor, although we can't see that so clearly in this discussion as no editor with a strong alternative view has come forward. Observing that another editor has a particular political perspective is no insult, by the way; actually, a compliment, in my book. We could, if we all really wanted to, drag this out further by digging for references to Wales being a principality rather than a country (which wouldn't be that hard) or providing references to other coastal paths for those not willing or able to search for themselves - but doing so could be a fearful waste of everyone's energy, and seems unlikely to achieve anything positive for the article itself (or for external impressions of Wales, sadly). The added references were the result of some impressive rapid detective work by the looks of it, but unfortunately it's likely that they originate from the same unreferenced phrase in a press release - regrettably, it happens all the time in journalism. Repeating an unsubstantiated claim does not, in and of itself, make a reference more credible. If we want to see this article have the greatest credibility for people coming here to find out about the coastal path - a brilliant achievement which I look forward to walking, if I put my cards fully on the table - perhaps we have to be willing to put propaganda value to one side. As suggested above, picking up Sionk's idea, there is a sensible solution available: remove this point altogether from the introductory text and let the nature of the path speak for itself, or drop the material to later in the text in a way that reports an interesting claim rather than makes a bald assertion. It would be great if another editor could see to this. Diolch, Wedensambo (talk) 11:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ha Ha! You're so right, Guy. 'Same applies to both of us, though, doesn't it? 'Hence the suggestion that another editor to should now attend to this... Wedensambo (talk) 12:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a shame you couldn't have used your time more fruitfully to improve the article itself. It's a mess. I'm addressing it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The demand to remove the sentence from the article is yours, not mine, Wedensambo. My earlier suggestion that the claim needs additional sources has been addressed. On Wikipedia we refer to reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking. The BBC is without question such a source. You can hardly dismiss it as shoddy journalism simply because it disagrees with your view. You evidently have a fundamentally different definition (from the majority) of the concept of 'country', which isn't going to be solved here. Sionk (talk) 12:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That Wales is a country, and that the Wales Coast Path is “the first coastal network in the world to cover an entire country” (to quote Ordnance Survey), are supported by numerous, impeccable reliable sources. There is no reason not to say so in this article. Indeed, not to say so would be remiss. Daicaregos (talk) 13:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, but that's your opinion, Sionk, not a 'fact'. I haven't demanded a cut or edit, I've just proposed one, in good faith - and suggested, in order to avoid an edit war, that someone else does it rather than me. The Beeb is certainly a wonderful institution, but not impecccable or beyond question. No news media source is perfect, and few are immune from copying and pasting from a press release on a busy day; I wouldn't go as far as describing that as 'shoddy' journalism really, but it's a syndrome worth being aware of if you want any article to be as robustly-referenced as it could be. 'Enough time and energy now spent discussing this subject, to my mind - over and out. Wedensambo (talk) 16:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|