Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:23, 3 March 2014

	Wales has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 2, 2010 Good article nominee Not listed December 1, 2010 Good article nominee Listed November 22, 2011 Good article reassessment Kept
Current status: Good article

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wales article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. UK geography Top‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Wales Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:V0.5 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United Kingdom Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Celts Top‑importance Wales is within the scope of WikiProject Celts, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the ancient Celts and the modern day Celtic nations. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks or take part in the discussion. Please Join, Create, and Assess.CeltsWikipedia:WikiProject CeltsTemplate:WikiProject CeltsCelts Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry WikiProject Countries to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess.

Archives

2003 – 2006 2005 – 2006 2005 – 2007 Jan–Apr 2008 Apr 2008 Apr–Mar 2008 Apr–Jun 2008 July 2008: Debate and Poll on "country" Jul–Dec 2008 Dec 2008 – Sep 2009 Sep 2009 – Sep 2010 Sep–Dec 2010 Dec 2010 – Nov 2011 Nov 2011 – May 2012

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Government and politics images

I removed the image of First Minister Carwyn Jones from the Government and politics section (since reverted) for two reasons. Firstly, per WP:RECENTISM. Jones has been First Minister of Wales since December 2009 – less than four years. If anyone should be pictured in the section, Rhodri Morgan would be my first choice - he was in office for the best part of ten years. However, while I accept that many articles show their country's current leader, MOS has no requirement to do so AFAIK, and not all country articles do e.g. Ireland and Northern Ireland. The second reason was that the image bled into the following (Local Government) section, making the article look amateurish. The section is too short to accommodate three images (and the image of the Senedd should remain). May I suggest an alternative resolution? Replace the image of the royal badge of Wales with the image of Carwyn Jones. Any objections? Daicaregos (talk) 10:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Certainly none from me.
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 11:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I think an image of the current political leader helps reinforce the message to readers that Wales is a current political entity. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done Daicaregos (talk) 09:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Royal Badge of Wales.

You people are aware that the Welsh government has a coat of arms right? Why isnt it featured next to the flag like all the over government coat of arms from various countries? http://en.wikipedia.org/Royal_Badge_of_Wales — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.13.216.142 (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The Welsh government doesn't have sovereignty over Wales, unlike other states. I'm bothered either way however. Rob (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Please expand "bothered either way"! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 20:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind whether it's included or not, since I have little idea of the extent to which the Royal Badge symbolises Wales. I disagree with the OP's assertion that a symbol of a Government, is by essence, a national symbol. And it may incorrect in this case, since the Royal Badge doesn't represent the sovereign of Wales. Simply, a symbol represents a country, if it is used to represent the country. Rob (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The Royal Badge is not the badge of the Welsh government. It's the badge of the Queen in Wales. "The device introduced in 2008 is accordingly a badge, rather than a coat of arms; Wales currently has no official coat of arms." Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, as ever, to Ghmyrtle for clarifying this! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 21:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think whether it's a coat of arms or not is conclusive, various national symbols are placed along side flags in countries' infoboxes, but I don't think the badge is a national symbol. Rob (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the second par in the main article, this sentence should have a comma added after "century": "Welsh national identity emerged among the Celtic Britons after the Roman withdrawal from Britain in the 5th century and Wales is regarded as one of the modern Celtic nations."

Listserv (talk) 01:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)Listserv

Done Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Commas

If a sentence looks like "(subject) (predicate), and (another subject) (another predicate)" or "(subject) (predicate), (another predicate), and (yet another predicate)", commas are correct. If it looks like "(subject) (predicate) and (another predicate)", commas should not be used. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. So shall we put them all back now? Ian Dalziel (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Okay, I've looked at all of the disputed commas. A few commas, such as the ones in "light and service industries, and tourism" and "governors, and the flower of its youth", are Oxford commas and can go either way. Most of Marimari2k1's removal were correct, and I've fixed the few that weren't. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Revision 593752527

Edits:

• Infobox tidy.
  • Removed translations out of piped links per WP:OVERLINK.
  • Added native phrase template to motto.
  • Removed links next to names of ministers regarding their membership to legislatures, as they're pointless with the (HMG)
  • UK > HMG, Actual abbreviation for British Government.
  • US$ > USD, USD is more correct. ($ is also applicable)
  • Removed (UK) next to +44, calling codes cover a variety of regions, and are not necessarily specific to sovereign states.
  • Removed dividing line, a section of the infobox lacking a heading is inconsistent formatting. Also, the (HMG) clarifies which ministers are part of the British Government.
  • Added soundtrack for anthem.
  • Other minor formatting edits'
• Introduction edits.
  • Irish Sea is part of the Atlantic.
  • Expanded location description.
  • 'bordered by England' > 'shares a border with England' Better wording?
  • 'part of the United Kingdom and the island of Great Britain' > 'part of the United Kingdom. Predominantly located on Great Britain' More correct.
  • Other minor wording.

Issues?

Regards, Rob (talk | contribs) 20:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

A few (thanks for discussing this):

• I have never heard Wales' motto noted in English. It is a translation only and, as such, should be in 'small'
• The national anthem is known as Land of my fathers in English, which should be noted.
• The sound file is not of sufficient quality to appear in the infobox (this has been discussed here)
• The dividing line was created deliberately in order to differentiate between the Welsh Government and the UK Government (this has been discussed)
• The UK Government should be noted as the UK Government.
• Gruffydd ap Llywelyn's name should be noted in full
• No need to note 'UK' after +44
• Dewi Sant should be part of the Wikilink
• The opening paragraph, and especially the opening sentence, has the been subject of extensive discussion. It must not be changed without achieving concensus on the talk page. I would personally prefer some of the changes made (although none of those made to the opening sentence), but they should still be agreed first on talk. Daicaregos (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't explain some things clearly, I'll go though:

• The englishmotto section is for translations, and displays the translation in the same way it was previously (this hasn't actually changed anything).
• National anthem in English - Okay
• Sound file not appropriate - Okay
• Dividing line - I'll look further into this
• UK Government should be noted as the UK Government - I poorly explained this. Currently, next to 'Prime Minister' it states '(UK)', I changed this to '(HMG)', the abbreviation for the British Government, rather then the UK. Ie, it would state 'Prime Minister (HMG)' rather then 'Prime Minister (UK)'. This is because the First Minister is a British (UK) minister, they're just not a British Government (HMG) minister.
• Gruffydd ap Llywelyn's name in full - Okay
• No need to note 'UK' after +44 - I'm guessing this means you agree.
• Including 'Dewi Sant' within the Wikilink is over-linking (WP:OVERLINK). Since it's clearly a translation of the linked text, linking it also doesn't serve any purpose. Although these are part of the same link, it is still essentially linking the same term twice, right next to each-other.
• Introduction agreed first - Okay

Rob (talk | contribs) 23:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Changes to Demography section

I've reverted these changes for several reasons. Firstly, they are poorly written: "According to the 2011 census the population of Wales is...." - no, it was, almost three years ago. "Populace"....."reside"....."Historiclly", etc. Verbosity and poor spelling should be discouraged in articles. More importantly, in Matt's version there was an over-emphasis on, and over-detailed interpretation of, the census statistics on national identity, which seem to be written up in a WP:POINTy manner. Some referenced information seems to have been removed. The previous text was better balanced, and better written, so I have reverted to it - and subsequently tweaked it a little for better flow. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

NO REFERENCES WERE REMOVED BY ME. I removed the POINTY-ness! That's what my edit was about. You could have changed spelling error and the odd word. But you just full-revert. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

If you didn't remove references, I apologise. Sometimes the "compare" function makes it very difficult to see what changes have actually been made. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Dealing with Original Research in the demographics section (the section was also very jumbled)

I don't have much time right now... but made an edit this morning which took me a lot of time last night and this morning too. It improves the oft-jumbled text of the Demographics section, and CLEARS UP ONE VITALLY IMPORTANT AREA OF ORIGINAL RESEARCH AND MISINFORMATION.

The text gave someone's own personal reading of a Census data sheet: I've simply shown the data as percentages: not interpreted and judged on it. The incorrect and 'OR' reading is/was said "34.1 per cent had no Welsh identity. 16.9 per cent considered themselves wholly British and another 9.4 per cent considered themselves as partly British. 73.7 per cent had no British identity." (my underline)

80 percent of people in Wales ticked only one box - mostly ticked Welsh, as they asked to after 2001. That does not mean they are not British. There nationality (the census question) is chosen here as Welsh. That's how it works in the UK. People can choose to say one or the other in the UK (that was the whole point of people wanting it in - I did myself after 2001, not becaise I'm not British!), it doesn not mean they are not the other - ie British nor Welsh! Many (I think most) people in England and Wales think that Welsh, Engilsh etc just IS British by default: that's the legal idea too. The qestion asked "How would you describe your nationality". Everyone knows most people just say their 'sub-nat', not their 'super-nat'. It's just the way it is. Britishness can even be seen as beyond-national anyway. It can also be seen as a simple legal default people accept. The do not have to be mutually exclusive.

We just cannot make these sweeping interpretations. As a side, we actually know that the whole census was actually regarded as confusing by over 50% of people. We also cannot say that 34.1 percent are NOT Welsh. It's pure Original Research. The Welsh gov summaries allude to what people put, not what they ARE. I added information the following 'ethnic group?' question on the census as it expanded (and shed light on) on the very same theme.

All we need offer people is the information. We don't have to tell them what to think.

I put this alternative in instead (which adds relevant missing information, like the first line, and various data.)

(https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wales&diff=next&oldid=596754513#Demographics)

The census of 2001 was criticised by many in Wales for not offering 'Welsh' as an option to describe their national identity. Partly to address this concern the 2011 census offered a list of choices. It asked the question "How would you describe your national identity?" and underneath was a direction to "tick all that apply". 80% of the participants in Wales ticked one box, with 57.5 percent ticking 'Welsh' (65.9 percent in some combination), 11.2 percent ticking 'English' (13.8 percent in some combination), 0.5 percent ticking 'Scottish' (0.6 percent in some combination), 0.13 percent ticking 'Northern Irish' (0.15 percent in some combination), and 16.9 percent ticking 'British' (26 percent in some combination). 3.4 percent filled out 'Other', which included 0.4 instances that are the same as those above. The largest 'Other' was 'Irish', with 0.3 ticking 'Irish' (0.4 percent in some combination).

Identity was also the theme of the following question, which asked "What is your ethnic group?" The most-chosen option was 'White: Welsh/English/Scottish/Northern Irish/British' at 93.2 percent, a fall from 96 percent for the equivalent option of 'British' in 2001. The next most-chosen option was 'Asian or Asian British' at 2.3 percent, followed by 'Mixed race' at 1 percent, 'Black or Black British' at 0.6 percent, and 'Irish' and 'Other' 0.5 percent each. The figure given for 'Total Black and minority ethnic' people was 4.4 percent, a significant rise from 2.1 percent in 2001.

I Have to quickly go out quickly now, I do apologise. But Please read my work (it's always considered). Thanks. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

We really shouldn't be interpreting the raw census results ourselves at all - we should be relying on secondary sources. This is one such source - maybe not the best, but it covers the point. And we certainly should not be overstating the case made on one side or the other. I'd support removing the entire existing paragraph on national identity, and replacing it, thus:

Existing paragraph:

The 2011 census showed that 57.5% of Wales' population considered their national identity as wholly Welsh and another 8.3% considered themselves to be partly Welsh (Welsh and British were the most common combination). 34.1% had no Welsh identity. 16.9% considered themselves wholly British and another 9.4% considered themselves as partly British. 73.7% had no British identity. 11.2% considered themselves wholly English and another 2.6% considered themselves partly English.

My suggestion:

The 2011 census showed that 65.9% of Wales' population described their national identity as Welsh; 26.3% described it as British; 13.8% described it as English; and 4.3 described it as "other". The percentages total more than 100% because some residents declared more than one national identity.

Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree we shouldn't be interpreting the data at all, but for me it's got to be worth giving the actual question, and why not each statistic too? I actually fully-expected to find the section done that way. It's all useful stuff isn't it? We also absolutely need the ethnicity question, as it expands on the identity question. It's the best raw data (and reference, frankly) that there is: a census.

I'd love to give my interpretation underneath it all(!), but I did only give a lot of facts. I know you find what I wrote somehow 'pointy' (was it the order of things?), but I really do try and be aware of that kind of thing. What do you think is actually pointy about it? Maybe we could address that in turn.

Off the record, I think you can actually take something positive from my text whichever 'side' of the emotional dispute you are on: ie whether you'd rather see I'm-nothing-but-Welsh, or I'm-just-British or I'm British-too! If only you knew the hours I've spent here over the years - in my numerous article edits at least - to try and compromise with the emotional positions of others: and specifically not to make anything I write 'pointy'! I always want things to be balanced, objective and well-made. If there is anything 'directional' about it, it's just to convey meaning, and perhaps help other people from making the kind of interpretive mistakes that the writer of the dodgy text I highlighted above made. ie - give full-informative text that can stand the test of time.

Re the sources, I'd agree the one you've found is not ideal. I must have spent an hour at least on that side last night. I think it just happens to be difficult in this particular area. A surprise perhaps, but that seems to be true. Good sources must be out there, but I think that sometimes people here do expect them to be close at hand - ie we take the internet for granted sometimes. In the absence of them - and we'd need a few interpretations to write 'balance' that/this sentences - I think it's even more useful just to give all the raw data, as I have done. And in a way that hopefully no one sees as 'pointy' obviously.

By the way, I've thought the Wales article has been imperfectly-written in parts for more like 10 years, let alone 3! A lot of Misplaced Pages is still like that. If the offending parts here have indeed existed unchanged for 3 years, then for 3 years the article has been promulgating some highly-contentious and decidedly non-policy 'Original Research', albeit rather hidden-away in the demographics section. Perhaps it's no wonder that one or two non-Welsh (or non-Welsh residing) Wikipedians appear a bit confused about these issues. Matt Lewis (talk) 18:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't favour providing percentage figures that don't add up to 100% (excluding rounding), when they could and should. It leads to confusion. Anyway, we don't have to interpret the raw data. ONS have done that for us in this table: see KS202EW Percentages, Row 441 (Wales). That 34.1% of people living in Wales have no Welsh identity (column M), and 73.7% have no British identity (column X) is notable, accurate and informative, and can be cited. Daicaregos (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I admit that source is very pungent (far too much so from my point of view) but if you read the exact wording Dai, you'll see that they are referring to what people put, not what they are. I'm planning to ring them about it tomorrow (I want to see it made clearer), and I'll forecast right now that the reason I've just given is exactly what they'll say to cover themselves. From their point of view, the Welsh Government always had problems with the initial 1998 democratic mandate only being 25% of the total electorate (ie it was passed by 50% or a 50% turnout). In the mini referendum of 2011 even less people voted, so they immediately used this census to effectively bolster what democratic mandate they had - basically by stressing how Welsh everyone felt. In a way, one can hardly blame them. It's just politics essentially, but you have to really look at the wording. Like a lawyer might perhaps. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

It is not the case that the figures "should" add up to 100% - in statistical terms it is perfectly reputable to note that, in cases where one more than option can be chosen, the figures will total more than 100%. My objection to spelling out all the permutations in detail is simply that it is unnecessary, and potentially confusing to itemise them all. We should keep it simple. It may at first glance seem noteworthy, for example, that 73.7% have no British identity - but is it, really, when the figure for the North East of England is 74.3%, for Merseyside 75.6%, and for England as a whole 70.7%? If the Wales figures are included, they should be compared with the figures for England, at least. But, if secondary sources which comment on the figures can't be found, it raises the question of how noteworthy they actually are. Rather than expanding the paragraph, I think a case can be made for removing it entirely - but, I would prefer simply to shorten it as I've suggested. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that listing all the stats as I've done - with the combined votes in brackets, actually shows what you alluded to above regarding England, and the all other evidence regarding UK Britishness: ie that an impossibly-to-know number of people clearly found it sufficient to just tick one box. You look at the 'Northern Irish' stat especially (were most people would expect at least half to say 'British'), as you think: hmm, all these people are following the same pattern: maybe I shouldn't draw too many obvious conclusions? Basically, if we list all the stats, the reader can make up their own mind. I hope that doesn't sound too pointy: I just think by giving it all, people can then read what in it whatever they choose too. Beginning that 80% of people ticked one box is really useful in this regard. We are here to help people attain a balanced understanding of things after all. As there clearly exists a very large figure for people saying they are "Welsh": the 'national pride element' is self-explanatory and automatically covered I think. Most people in Wales clearly identify as being Welsh!

This discussion may be about the tension between 'pointiness' and the kind of elucidation that is necessary for balance and meaning. I've certainly found no way of shortening it all though: condensing this data seems to just retain the various problems over representation to me, so I favour the list. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

"73.7 per cent had no British identity" sounds a very bold statement. Maybe the census figures just prove that some people like to tick more boxes than others. But then I'm always very cynical. Martinevans123 (talk)

Why? It only cost half a billion pounds, and only a little over 50% of people found it confusing in some way. Bargain.

(I think we all in Wales owe a lot to the 'Welsh not' by the way. Teachers of the time found that bilingual classroom were impossible to effectively teach and learn in, just as any teacher would today. It's often said to be a wicked 'English act', but essentially these British/Welsh people of the day (most of them Welsh, being in Wales) did it for our future. The teachers were largely Welsh, but naturally recognised the need for English language learning. It's just a shame that the Welsh language died-back so much out of school, at least in the more-populated south of the country. But that's life, and all reports show they just can't turn that around however much they now try - and they are spending a small fortune pursuing it in my view. I'm just-about old enough to remember the remnants of corporal punishment myself - that side of it pretty unpleasant I admit, but that was how they achieved those kind of disciplinary things in those days alas). English has given us the world, and we can't boast about most of our 'heroes' without it, that's for sure. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

This is an example of where we need to be very careful with words, to avoid the possibility of misleading readers. The census doesn't show that 73.7% "had no British identity". It shows the proportion of the total who did not tick the "British" box under the question on "National identity". That is, it shows the percentage who did not indicate a British identity, rather than the proportion who had no British identity. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

"It's worse that that, he's dead, Jim." Martinevans123 (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

That is exactly my point. It's the same with the line that says "34.1% had no Welsh identity". Can we really say that about people who just put 'British'? As I remember writing in a pretty well-received UK-naming guideline about 7 years ago, UK identity has always been far too complicated to draw simple conclusions about anyone. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Matt, I remember your UK-naming guideline with unremitting fondness. But I refuse to fill in that damned census until they print it in Jedi. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Well I doubt only 29.3% of English people support Murry. The question asked 'How would you describe your national identity?'. I would think many Brits would identify as 'British' likewise to 'European', or 'Welsh' likewise to 'Cardiffian', but not see that as there national identity. Sources use the phrase 'national identity' interchangeably with 'identity' which is misleading. I think stating '73.7% did not describe there national identity as British' or similar is clear. Rob (talk | contribs) 23:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

But technically saying you are Welsh is actually saying you are British isn't it? Most of the time I certainly don't see them as any different. I live in the modern world, not the iron age. I don't think you can extract any 'British only' identity out of this data at all. It's just a flaw within the question. I think that the people filling it in were just trying to be useful as much as anything. What use is it just providing British? Or even doing both? It's the mindset of someone filling a census (already slightly befuddled as people do hate forms don't they - apart from Wikipidians of course!). Welsh, English etc - these are enough to place and satisfy people, and it's what we are. It's like the thing was unintentionally playing with people's heads. Looking around for good sources I've seen some really unpleasant right wing websites making hay with these statistics ("we are English and X people aren't!!"): but it's just flawed data. As I've already said, I actually complained to the guy who picked it up (he had to come back twice for me and was just a touch nervous the second time as legally I had to do it), and over another couple of questions regarding mental illness too: it wasn't a great census it really wasn't.

I think we are actually making the same mistakes the question-compilers made: trying to oversimplify something that can't be this oversimplified. With a little more attention to detail: ie not treating people as idiots, it can be done. Oversimplification to the point of atrophy is a classic form maker's fault. Sorry I'm full of anecdotes, but I was asked to fill in something called a 'carer's assessment form' not that long ago, and the very first question on it was (almost exactly something like) "do you consider yourself to be Welsh?". I found it so impossible to imagine what they could do with any actual answer I could supply that I genuinely refused to fill in the whole form (and they accepted that too, hopefully out of embarrassment). I didn't think of saying this to them at the time, but couldn't they get that from the census? I just don't get it: as I said to them too - a lot of this 'identity building' stuff does creep me out. You're lucky it's not the place for more stories I tell you.

The 2011 census was so obviously flawed in this area I think it's crazy trying to re-phrase any of it at all. We don't need to. Just give the data in percentages and in the most readable way possible. Some of it is fairly useful data: but only as raw data, not in an attempted summary. I hope this doesn't become a giant debate because I don't really understand what the problem is. It's always seems to be a colossal effort to improve anything on the main Welsh articles. I really don't feel comfortable with the current misinformation still up: I know it's been there a long time, but I don't think it's healthy and it's pure 'OR'. Keeping the version that is clearly incorrect makes no sense to me at all: my effort wasn't that bad was it? I basically just noticed a fault in the article, and did the 'work load' to correct what needed to be done. It's not my entry into an art competition. It just needs tinkering at best, a couple more refs maybe. Anyway I'll try and adjust and revise it per suggestions tomorrow. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The danger is that you will be wasting your time. There is no consensus here yet as to the direction any changes to the text should take. Some want that paragraph expanded (for clarification), others want it minimised (to avoid mystification and undue weight). Frankly, if the statistics are to be expanded, it should be at an article like Britishness - where there is already a section on Scottish identity, and which this article could then link to - rather than this one. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

These results are precisely the kind of statistics an encylopaedia should show in a country's demographics section. I take your point, however, that census respondents did not say they did not have any Welsh or British identity. I suggest: “34.1% stated no Welsh identity. 16.9% considered themselves wholly British and another 9.4% considered themselves as partly British. 73.7% stated no British identity.” Daicaregos (talk) 10:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Replace 'identity' with 'national identity' and that wording is okay. I would only describe my national identity as British, but I still identify as English fairly often. I simply don't think the English are a nation. Rob (talk | contribs) 12:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I still prefer my wording (up above at 15:44, 23 February 2014). Dai's suggestion still contains some interpretation of the statistics - using words like "considered themselves" rather than "stated that", which could be misleading, and also in inferring a negative from the residual figures - like "34.1% stated no Welsh identity" when what the figures show is that 65.9% stated a Welsh national identity. I also still think, as I stated before, that some of the figures may be interpreted by readers as having more significance than they actually do, given the figures for other parts of the UK. I can see merit in putting a table in the Britishness article, linked from this article - which would provide some clarity. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Rob: A lot of people do though. Most people just don't think about it on this level: that's a central reason this data came out like it did I think.

Dai: regarding "34.1% stated no Welsh identity", why not just say 'ticked Welsh' like I did, after I helpfully said what the question was, and gave supplied the raw data as percentages? I don't think we should attempt to summarise at all, simply because it's an impossible thing to do accurately here. The word 'stated' sounds like those people actually meant to convey they had no Welsh identity at all, but we know that can not be the case the tune of over a third of Wales. As I've said, if I myself just ticked 'British' it would naturally include 'Welsh', just as putting 'Welsh' would naturally include 'British'. Unfortunately I can't actually remember which route I took now (I can think of four possible ones, including writing something in 'other'), other than to point the question out to the returning collector, as I said. It was only a couple of years ago, and I think the fact that I can't remember actually say quite a lot. I think I'll ask around out of interest - see who else isn't sure now what they specifically put.

Gh: Regarding "wasting time", that is 90% of Misplaced Pages in controversial areas, isn't it? And surely the Wales article is indented to cover all the sub-article information at least to some degree. If this misleading 'OR' is repeated in those articles too, it needs to be addressed and corrected. I can't accept the current content to just remain the same that's for sure. Misplaced Pages's 'consensus' rule just doesn't work in the specific topic discussion pages of these particular areas. People have been saying it for years: Too many socks, too may same old faces, too many jaded ignorers, and too many people saying they just won't go near: four reasons that effectively kill the consensus rule. But it doesn't mean that those present can't still come to an agreement. Anyway: to summarise this particular data will always be Original Research (ie WP:NOR in my opinion. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

That's not the point. The wording of the question was: 'How would you describe your national identity?'. Someone may identify as Cardiffian, Welsh, British and European, but only describe there national identity as 'British', 'Welsh' or both. From that question, you can't conclude that '34.1% stated no Welsh identity'.

To be clear on my position, I don't really think it's too important what terms we use ('ticked', 'described' or 'stated'), but my preference is 'described' as that's what the question states.

Rob (talk | contribs) 13:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Did they answer the question though? They ticked a box, they didn't "describe" anything. It's too far removed. It's just not logical to transfer the wording to this degree. We need one of those 'logicians' here. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I stick to what I said earlier. Rather than placing any interpretation on the census results ourselves, we should rely on what secondary sources say. This, I repeat, is a secondary source that summarises the information and appears to be as reliable as is necessary. We should use the text in that article (and any others that we can find) to present a summary here. Incidentally, I tried to prepare a summary table for the Britishness article, but have given up as the ONS tables are simply too complex to summarise effectively. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

If we must use the raw sources, I suggest this:

"In the 2011 census, 57.5% of Wales' population stated their sole national identity to be Welsh, and a further 7.1% stated it as both Welsh and British. The proportion giving their sole national identity as British was 16.9%, with 11.2% giving their sole national identity as English."

Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Either you haven't read a single word I've written or you are just winding me up. That is ALL interpretation to nth degree! You are being very close to the line with me right now. I'd strike that 7,000 from your watchlist at this minute and give this your full undivided attention if I were you. You can agree to this easily if you want, you just wont. You never, ever have with me. I think I just upset you at some point and that was it. Your premiss has always been that I'm biased, and it's always been the opposite. Can you imagine how it makes me feel? The belligerent on Wikpipedia hold 99% of its bleeding power. You should be wanting the article to enlighten and inform people: that should be a natural instinct for you, not appending your user page every 2 hours with your latest whatevers. Just give this some proper mental thought. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with you personally. I'm simply trying to come up with an improvement to the current wording, that summarises the census results without putting any slant whatsoever on them. So far I've made two specific proposals, either of which would in my view be an improvement on the current wording. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

But the changes you have made in your suggestions are negligible. This is exactly what I've been predicting lately about bringing suggestions to these particular articles' discussion pages. Your suggests are so similar to what we have they are both still totally slanted and entirely Original Research. Like the current text, they develop the context of sourced language where they shouldn't, and interpret when they have no right. Can't you see the inherent OR in interpreting this data? We actually have data we can simply present, and a complete mug (ie me) who has done all the donkey work in presenting it in a perfectly readable way. You immediately shat all over it completely, even (wrongly) suggesting I'd removed needed references. It was an utterly needless knee-jerk attack to a load of hard work, and you've followed it by completely digging your heels in. I did all that work for the one element of this encyclopedia that hardly anyone cares about: the reader. Whatever Misplaced Pages's confused policy might say about accuracy, the reader simply desires it, and as a direct consequence of that the reader becomes devalued by default. Think about it - it's true. Perfect or not, for writing what I did I should have been congratulated, not pissed on. Just try and imagine reading it if an editor you really respected had written it. I think you'd be sending him a cake. Matt Lewis (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't "piss on" your suggestion - I reverted it because in my view it was worse than the previous wording, and then another editor agreed with me. It was verbose, gave the whole issue undue weight (you surely cannot deny that it has become your pet hobbyhorse - and that of no-one else here), and parts of it were utterly incomprehensible to me and, I'm pretty sure, most readers. My intention is to remove any interpretation of the figures, not to add one. If it helps (I don't hold out much hope, but anyway...) I'd be happy to add to the front of my suggestion a slightly reworded version of your explanation, as follows:

"The 2001 UK census was criticised in Wales for not offering 'Welsh' as an option to describe respondents' national identity. Partly to address this concern, the 2011 census asked the question "How would you describe your national identity?", with a list of options that included Welsh; respondents could check more than one option. The outcome was that 57.5% of Wales' population stated their sole national identity to be Welsh, and a further 7.1% stated it as both Welsh and British. The proportion giving their sole national identity as British was 16.9%, with 11.2% giving their sole national identity as English."

Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

You didn't piss on my 'suggestion' (as you put it)?!! At the top of this section is where you pissed on my article edit, and it was a steamer. It was full of falsehoods and 100% designed to make everything I wrote look like total shit. And you outrageously claimed that what already existed was much better, but I don't think you've even bothered to look properly even now. What was there was a bloody mess, and it's only slightly better since some of the usual post attempted-edit tinkering (made as much as anything to save some embarrassment). It was/still-is full of 2001 data and was not coherent: my reorganisation and additions simply made it make sense for readers. And you initially accepted that there was WP:OR, though all you've suggested since is almost identical OR!

You just cynically removed a whole bunch of improvements. You wouldn't get away with that anywhere other than these second-tier UK/NATIONAL articles. The ridiculous rope around them has protected you for years. If you and a few other nationlists were area-banned for a year (gold heart, HK, RA - that would do it), UK articles would blossom into amongst the best on Misplaced Pages, if not the best. The whole miserable pallor around them would lift, and people would come in and do all kinds of good work. Britain is small enough and dedicated enough to make them superb. But this wholly-unrepresentational dislike of the UK itself has made them amongst the worst.

There was nothing positive about what you wrote about my edit at all: it was totally knee-jerk and deliberately-unpleasant horseshit, and you've repeated the same provocative bollocks about it above even now. I find it arrogant and offensive. I have never ever shat on other people's copy. Not once. I've always been proud of my own copy edits, and I've been complimented on them a number of times in the past. I don't spend the hours making them totally word-by-word perfect, as this is meant to be a joint effort (if some people would only allow it to be): I spend the time making them readable, fair and accurate: and most of all trying to consider the local positional brick-wallers like you. Whatever I compose with you in the neighbourhood is a painstaking attempt to work around your entrenched nationalist politics and unbending edit-protectional stance.

But hey, at least your edit-note this time was a different approach to your usual provocative "removing POV"! It was lovely to see you actually take up my suggestion of saying "take it to talk" instead (hmmm). And now you suggest I am biased yet again, and all-alone alas too. Who was this 'other person' who you say agreed with your assessment? Rob?! Your 'revised' suggestion above, as you fully know, is simply patronising: you've simply included the question this time, and carried on with almost exactly the same entirely unhelpful, utterly needless, fully illogical and 'OR' interpretation. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I was just trying to help. But I don't see much point in continuing with this. If you find anyone to agree with your position, I'll rejoin the discussion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

No, because there's nowhere else to go right now is there? As predicted, you've offered 4 barely-differing versions of the existing non-policy text. It's such a waste of my time, but I'll see what I can do. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I've started a new thread down below. Hopefully it will encourage other editors to express a view. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle not out to get you... he's just vigilant. Rob (talk | contribs) 16:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

No because there's nowhere else to go right now is there. It's entrenched, and over nothing but an obvious improvement. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I find the style passive aggressive and always have. I think think with the right will we can all sort this out easily. Matt Lewis (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather think of myself as calm and considered - or perhaps as the lukewarm water of WP. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Small's the word. You've got your "sole" but you've got no soul. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I haven't 'interpreted' anything: I avoided OR other than to point out he "80%" ticked one box. That's acceptable in my opinion, as it aids understanding. You've basically found a single source (from a website that promotes 'stateless nations') which happens to agree with Misplaced Pages's current 'OR'. Basically you are saying that using the source stops it being 'OR'! (I know you are stuck for sources, so was I ). But all my arguments remain, and there are simply too few sources available. This is 'source searching' area in which Misplaced Pages itself can get very dodgy in my opinion - I do hope we can avoid the "not about truth" territory. There is not better solution than to just provide the census data, framing it fairly in a balanced way. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I prefer Ghmyrtle suggestion. I don't think we should present raw data for readers to try to interpret, and I don't agree with your 'ticked box' not 'described' logic. If you tick a box that indicates you describe your national identity as X, then you are describing your national identity as that. By your logic, we shouldn't provide interpretations of any of the census data, which is absurd. Rob (talk | contribs) 14:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The question wasn't as simple as ticking a single box was it! Ghmyrtle uses words like "sole": nobody on the census has used it, and it doesn't logically stack up either. It's 'developing' something too. Thinking of that the ridiculous 'warning' you gave me on my talk page, I'm wondering now you just don't want a suggestion of mine making it to the article frankly. You've just simply ignored all my arguments. I vowed to myself once that I wouldn't be part of something like this again. Put it this way: what is worse about my suggestion? What we currently have clearly HAS to be changed. I have never ever in my all Misplaced Pages days argued against something like this, even if I did prefer the original. What is the point? Part of consensus is being able to listen and adapt, even if you do really think it's little of an improvement. But this is just pure entrenchment if you ask me. Don't you have anything else to do but dig your heals on a clearly useful change to Misplaced Pages? I've added to the encyclopedia. I've made it better. It's as clear as a ringing bell that's what I did (before you needlessly reverted and warned me). If you genuinely can't see that then you are just a hindrance here imo. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Matt, I doubt anybody's going to support wording that is confusing, and repeats to the reader how a multiple choice census question is answered. It's illogical.

And also, it's unionist like yourself make us all look like dickheads. Regards, Rob (talk | contribs) 22:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Unionist? Don't be such a damn fool. I am what I am - someone who exists. How many nationally-contented people outside of Misplaced Pages get referred to as "unionists" for God's sake? The UK is simply here - nobody has to apologise for it. If you see some wording that you find confusing, just change it. That's what you are here for isn't it? Don't throw the enitre baby out with the bathwater. It was a depressingly pointless warn/revert that you made of my edit it really was.

And that's a complete misuse of the word "logic": I added illumination: people forget what this encyclopedia is supposed to be about. Readers. And readers are not gaping fools. The question is important here, as are the results. What ithere is actually illogical as things currently stand (on a number of levels) - what I did was bring in logic. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

National identity section

Matt's national identity paragraph intro, relating to the 2001 census problems, is interesting and notable, and should be included if a RS citation can be found. Having considered editor comments above (in particular, using described and stated in place of considered, and adding national before identity), I suggest this:

The 2011 census showed that 57.5% of Wales' population described their national identity as wholly Welsh and another 8.3% as partly Welsh (Welsh and British were the most common combination). 34.1% stated no Welsh national identity. 16.9% described it as wholly British and another 9.4% as partly British. 73.7% stated no British national identity. 11.2% described their national identity as wholly English and another 2.6% as partly English.

Any further suggestions? Daicaregos (talk) 09:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

My latest suggestion is down below, where I'd hoped we could concentrate discussion. My comment on your suggestion is simply that it goes into unnecessary detail and is over-complicated. I also think the terminology could be more precise. They didn't "describe" their national identity as "wholly Welsh", for example - they simply ticked the Welsh box and no other, which in my view could be better described as "stated their sole national identity to be Welsh". Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

So it is. Sorry. I'd read some of that section and it didn't seem to have anything to do with this topic. These threads seem to become rather messy. May I ask editors not to alter their posts (other than for minor corrections, to spelling etc.) and to post them chronologically. At the very least, it requires them to be re-read. Daicaregos (talk) 09:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Ticking all the non-boxes

"The census of 2001 was criticised by many in Wales for not offering 'Welsh' as an option to describe their national identity. Partly to address this concern the 2011 census offered a list of choices."

I think this is a useful detail that could usefully be included. Or is it just fringe political trivial? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

If it is to be used we should drop "by many", criticised is enough. Also it was criticised inside and outside Wales, as the 2001 Census gave options for Scottish and Irish, but not English and Welsh. There were campaigns to add English as much as the addition of Welsh. It may be enough to just state "in the 2011 Census the option for people to identify themselves as Welsh was added". FruitMonkey (talk) 18:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to drop words like "many" (though a ref could probably be found for that: I was a complainer myself at the time).

I think there is a real danger in trying to pare things down all the time, especially with identity statistics. I think what I eventually came up with was pretty-much what has to be given. I actually went though a lot of different routes. Aside from explaining itself (the best form of explanation I think), it's actually all useful information for readers of the Wales article.

PS should this be merged? Matt Lewis (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Do we have sources that say that the 2011 census form was changed "partly to address this concern"? We may do, but I haven't seen it. If we don't, we shouldn't say it (WP:NOR). Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

There's a mid-90's source which as I remember shows other reasons for developing 'identity' (it's a report on one of the pre-census question polls they made): not least the issue with "English" vs "Scottish" too, as someone already pointed out. I decided to keep the eventual text about Wales. It's unlikely the source uses those exact words, but I assumed that this conclusion can be logically drawn from it. I'll read it though to make sure. Alternatively it's an easy-enough sentence to adapt. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you'd have to remember it with authors, publication and dates. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd run around Cardiff in my pants if I could get more sense into these areas. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

And I'd be very careful not to piss on your pants. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC) token trout

You don't expect this to go anywhere do you? Improving these articles is not allowed on Misplaced Pages. Ghmyrtle has 724, sorry 5 - sorry 726 articles to say otherwise. And he's block-free too! Matt Lewis (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the criticism of the 2001 census for not offering 'Welsh' as an option to describe national identity is a very fair and relevant point that should be made. In fact, I'd see it as a definite improvement. (.. and I think Ghm's lukewarm approach has much to commend it - I've found myself in enough hot water to know). Old Welshy Socks (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not lukewarm from where I'm standing. Either it's a really cold day or it's pretty damn steamy. Gh has already incorporated the obvious 2001 'missing-option' issue. Not even he could say 'no' to that one.Matt Lewis (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think he's taken that one on board. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Demographics section, third paragraph (revisited)

Trying to resolve the discussion above - views are welcome...

Current wording:

The 2011 census showed that 57.5% of Wales' population considered their national identity as wholly Welsh and another 8.3% considered themselves to be partly Welsh (Welsh and British were the most common combination). 34.1% had no Welsh identity. 16.9% considered themselves wholly British and another 9.4% considered themselves as partly British. 73.7% had no British identity. 11.2% considered themselves wholly English and another 2.6% considered themselves partly English.

Matt Lewis proposal:

The census of 2001 was criticised by many in Wales for not offering 'Welsh' as an option to describe their national identity. Partly to address this concern the 2011 census offered a list of choices. It asked the question "How would you describe your national identity?" and underneath was a direction to "tick all that apply". 80% of the participants in Wales ticked one box, with 57.5% ticking 'Welsh' (65.9% in some combination), 11.2% ticking 'English' (13.8% in some combination), 0.5% ticking 'Scottish' (0.6% in some combination), 0.13% ticking 'Northern Irish' (0.15% in some combination), and 16.9% ticking 'British' (26% in some combination). 3.4% filled out 'Other', which included 0.4 instances that are the same as those above. The largest 'Other' was 'Irish', with 0.3 ticking 'Irish' (0.4% in some combination).

Identity was also the theme of the following question, which asked "What is your ethnic group?" The most-chosen option was 'White: Welsh / English / Scottish / Northern Irish / British' at 93.2%, a fall from 96% for the equivalent option of 'British' in 2001. The next most-chosen option was 'Asian or Asian British' at 2.3%, followed by 'Mixed race' at 1%, 'Black or Black British' at 0.6%, and 'Irish' and 'Other' 0.5% each. The figure given for 'Total Black and minority ethnic' people was 4.4%, a significant rise from 2.1% in 2001.

(information on racial groups, currently all over the place in the section, continued underneath: my complete edit (here) unifies the section.)

Ghmyrtle third proposal:

The 2001 UK census was criticised in Wales for not offering 'Welsh' as an option to describe respondents' national identity. Partly to address this concern, the 2011 census asked the question "How would you describe your national identity?", with a list of options that included Welsh; respondents could check more than one option. The outcome was that 57.5% of Wales' population stated their sole national identity to be Welsh, and a further 7.1% stated it as both Welsh and British. The proportion giving their sole national identity as British was 16.9%, with 11.2% giving their sole national identity as English.

Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Matt's proposal is laudably detailed, but I'd say Ghm's version was the more encyclopedic. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

You are making me repeat all my arguments regarding the impossibility of interpreting this particular data, the non-policy use of Original Research (NOR), the dearth of any really-suitable reliable sources to give a balanced this/that appraisal from, the 'developed' use of words from the census (too far removed in meaning), the logical fallacy that British and Welsh are somehow not mutually exclusive (ie for many - and legally too - they mean the same thing), the 'OR' use of "sole" etc (nobody 'stated' any such thing!). The fact that we KNOW that many of the results don't stand up to reality (you've simply ignored the worst offenders!), and that it's down to the way people respond to these kind of questions. I've given some great anecdotal examples above that a fitting for discussion pages in these circumstances per the rules of Misplaced Pages. Also, the flawed nature of the census (over 50% actually found it confusing), basic Misplaced Pages issues regarding chasing sources and enforcing interpretation rather than sticking with first-hand data that should speak for itself. We've found a classic example where the data has to stand up for itself. I did all the donkey work in presenting that in a way the aids the reader. This is ultimately about aiding the reader isn't it? Not considering them to be fools, and interpreting things for them.

It's also only part of the total changes I made in the edit. Completely ignored is the connect paragraph on 'ethnicity'. (in fact, I'll add that too it, as they it's all connected). Now added.

Constantly saying "no" to the arguments is so easy - having to repeat a group of sensible arguments endlessly is hard, hard work. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

NOTE- I've added the 'ethnicity' paragraph. It was connected, as was the whole of my edit. If people see parts that they don't like they can always change them! Matt Lewis (talk) 23:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

NOTE- I've adapted all my percents per ghmyrtle's '%' format. I originally just copied the full-written existing "percent" format, and assumed that was the done thing here these days. Thanks for telling me people. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

@Matt: Please don't interpose your comments here in the middle of my comments. It may confuse other readers. If you want to start a thread about your proposed paragraph on ethnicity, please start a new thread below, and remove your comments from the middle of my comments above. I haven't commented on your proposed ethnicity paragraph yet, because I felt it was necessary to resolve the "identity" paragraph first. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but I wrote it, and for me they are fully connected. I actually improved the whole section taking a few hours, and you removed it all in 1 second flat. One of the reasons for all the staccato prose and oddly-placed information in this section (and ones like it I'm sure) is surely because broader unifying work like mine never even gets properly considered these days, just automatically reverted. People are supposed to adapt improvements, not just remove them. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Daicaregos proposal:

The 2001 UK census was criticised in Wales for not offering 'Welsh' as an option to describe respondents' national identity. Partly to address this concern, the 2011 census asked the question "How would you describe your national identity?". Respondents were instructed to "tick all that apply" from a list of options that included Welsh. The outcome was that 57.5% of Wales' population stated their sole national identity to be Welsh; a further 7.1% stated it as both Welsh and British. No Welsh national identity was stated by 34.1%. The proportion giving their sole national identity as British was 16.9%, and another 9.4% included British with another national identity. No British national identity was stated by 73.7%. 11.2% stated their sole national identity as English and another 2.6% included English with another national identity.

Can we reach agreement on this paragraph first please, before moving on to the one on ethnicity. Daicaregos (talk) 10:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to support that - it's a big improvement on the current version. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The word "sole" is non-policy 'Original Reasearch." We all know that. We also know that around 90% of Wales actually see themselves as British, even much of the full Welsh-speaking community. We all know that well-over 2/3 of people in Wales do see themselves as Welsh! These figures say 34% of them don't, simply because some people just put 'British'! We can't remove some awkward interpretation (like that one) but keep the others! That's not right at all. There just isn't he schism in Wales all this interpretation suggests. That was down to the census question, and we all know it. So we only put what people ticked, and we let people make their own minds up. We cannot say people 'stated' "sole" anything, because they just didn't do or exactly put that.

The census-makers were stuck between a rock and a hard place actually. They were obliged to add 'Welsh', but they didn't want to make it mini referendum. So it ended up being the kind of over-simplistic multiple answer question that everyone hates. They had issues too with sexuality (which they avoided in the end), other points of identity, and they messed up mental illness completely. The 2011 census was actually heavily criticised on a number of levels. The terms Welsh and British are both legally and culturally mutually inclusive: so we can only supply the data that people put on a form, but cannot not state what they categorically are. I do KNOW that Misplaced Pages isn't about "truth", but we are also here to illuminate, and give the most-accurate and informative information possible. In this case it's got to be the raw date. I spent a lot of time thinking about this, and I believe that I've found the best way of presenting the data. I found what I did really useful.

So the figures are also very useful imo, and the census spreadsheets doesn't present them anywhere nearly as well as I did in converting them to percentages (which is fully-acceptable on Misplaced Pages to aid understanding, and not Original Research at all). I found the results interesting. Why can't others be allowed to too? It's only a small paragraph. It does no harm at all, it only adds to the encyclopedia, and effectively enlightens. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The word "sole" is not original research. It is a succinct and neutral expression of the fact that a certain proportion of respondents only (solely) ticked one box on the form. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

That's not how you or Dai express it though is it. You (and he) put "stated their sole national identity to be Welsh". We know that is not the case. What they ticked is one thing. And Welsh and British are mutually inclusive anyway. We cannot conclusively say that people 'stated' anything to be such. We can read from the very data that people took different routes. So we just put what they did, and we do not conclude that people stated they were only one thing or the other. It's an adaptation of meaning, and it's WP:Original Research.

It's actually a really good thing anyway just to give the raw percentages. Nobody is missing out on anything other than this dubious interpretation. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd be happy to change "stated" to "indicated", if it helps:

The 2001 UK census was criticised in Wales for not offering 'Welsh' as an option to describe respondents' national identity. Partly to address this concern, the 2011 census asked the question "How would you describe your national identity?". Respondents were instructed to "tick all that apply" from a list of options that included Welsh. The outcome was that 57.5% of Wales' population indicated their sole national identity to be Welsh; a further 7.1% indicated it to be both Welsh and British. No Welsh national identity was indicated by 34.1%. The proportion giving their sole national identity as British was 16.9%, and another 9.4% included British with another national identity. No British national identity was indicated by 73.7%. 11.2% indicated their sole national identity as English and another 2.6% included English with another national identity.

Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

British and Welsh may be "mutually inclusive" in a legal sense, or in the way that they are defined by Misplaced Pages. But is that necessarily true in terms of an individual's self-perception? If it is, then why didn't all respondents who ticked one of those boxes also always tick the other? Just laziness? We can't go ticking boxes, in retrospect, without their permission, can we? Even if we pretend to know better about what these terms really mean. I wonder what proportion of Scottish people still think that British and Scottish are "mutually inclusive"? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Addressing the slight revision by Ghmyrtle above: one of the many problems is that it still leaves the 'WP:OR' word "sole", and the new "indicate" starts to sound 'weasel-wordy'. It's simply because it's 'complex' data - or flawed data if you decide to interpret it in certain unintended ways. Summarising in this way just isn't possible with this data, not unless you are willing to write a whole critique of the process, including all the variations and criticisms, and then it just isn't a summary anymore. And somehow I don't think that would be found suitable here! This data can always be interpreted by politicians of course, but not by encyclopedia writers.

Saying "No British national identity was indicated by 73.7%." is still 'WP:OR', and the line reads a bit like those people are not British citizens too. It is a simple fact that the words 'Welsh' and 'British' are mutually inclusive: they are both legally and culturally the same thing to all/most/many of us. This literally-singular question was not intended to be an analysis of Britishness, and we can't act like it was. It was just a clumsily-realised answer to a complaint about the census before it. We know that more people than 73.7% in Wales see themselves as being Welsh and British. Whatever you feel about the "truth" motto, that really does need to be taken into account.

Why did they compose the question like this?

The census compilers actually went from one extreme to the other.

In 2001 the census for England and Wales had us both as 'British', but a separate census in Scotland allowed for the option of 'Scottish'. People saw it as both silly and unfair and they complained.

In 2011, while addressing the complaints, the census-makers gave us a 'simple' list, allowing people to tick as much as they want. They began by suggesting that you can only have one nationality in the UK (How would you describe your nationality?), but then allowed for more than one box to be ticked. The problems are to do with interpretation: they effectively presented a question where putting 'British' could (by certain people) be interpreted as not being 'Welsh' or 'English' at all. And where putting 'Welsh' or 'English' could be interpreted (by some people) as not being British by default. Did they actually mean to give an option of 'British' that didn't include Welsh or English? No. Did they mean to say that to be Welsh or English and still be British you have to put them both? No, absolutely not. Where they saying the Britain is not really a nation, but the others are. Of course not!

It really is simple: They simply had to give what people are most likely to put. That meant putting British, Welsh, English etc and allowing them to say if they have two or more, as people often do in Britain: but not to the exclusion of everything else! And not with the focus exclusively on 'British' either. But that created an immediate analysis issues for those who wished to interpret the data more deeply than was intended. I think it could well explain why the compilers of 2001 decided not to go this way in 2001. In 2011 there ended up being a token dumbed-down question to appease all the many people who complained about the the issues with the census before. The biggest fault was in the actual question: how can you ask for "your nationality" then give the option of ticking more? After that they gave options that can mean the same thing both legally and culturally. It makes summarising the data in terms of what people "are" in any exclusive sense simply impossible to do.

Ultimately, it could be argued that both of the censuses has issues in this area to some degree, and the much-maligned 2010 census cost Britain half a billion pounds all told. But they did say they were trying to make the whole census as simple as possible for all types of people to get through, and that isn't an easy thing to do for a census this inclusive and large. As it turned out, over 50% of us still found it confusing and hard to fill.

A way of doing a genuine To what degree are you British? question is to offer a set of direct choices with single answers (along the lines of "I feel Welsh but not British." etc - there are a few ways of doing it). But that just wasn't their intention at all. The question just wasn't about studying 'Britishness', as the way they dealt with the following 'ethnicity' question clearly shows. It was just about being able to say 'Welsh' and 'English' etc, that was all the census question was about. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Nationality does not mean the same thing as identity. I'm English, but I would not describe my nationality as English at all. British is my only nationality. There's no extent to nationality. You either think Wales is a nation or you don't. You either think the United Kingdom's a nation or you don't. Identity however is completely different. A Welsh person may not think the UK is a nation (hence no British nationality), but still identify as British. On the other end, a Welsh person may not identify as British at all, and feel no more related with England then with other European countries. Or they may be somewhere in-between. But nationality is completely black and white. And evidently from the census, you can have two nationalities, and go by the 'nations within a nation' idea. Rob (talk | contribs) 22:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I personally think that many if not most people in the UK are happy to see English and British etc as 'inner' and 'outer' nationalities: they can easily have two and yet still see them as the same as well. In the same way that England and the UK are both 'countries'. People can say "England is my country" and they can say "the UK is my country". So they can pick two, or one, or whatever they feel like when expressing it. But as they are mutually inclusive too, they only have to pick one to also pick the other. This explains why the data came out like it did. We can show what happened, but we can't make judgements (ie talk about "sole" nationality).

But whatever you see the permutations as, surely it's clear that we can't make an interpretive summary from this data? There are too many alternative readings. I spend a long time presenting it in a way that readers can simply peruse it for themselves. What Ghmyrtle has done below (within 30 mins of me writing the above), has to be most outrageous act of gamesmanship I've ever seen on Misplaced Pages. It's his choice - or nothing!! Matt Lewis (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy for you to add your option as a third option, and see if it gets support. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Me creating a new poll wouldn't be your decision even in part. You should have talked first about pitching your version against mine, not losing your patience and creating a poll on yours alone the moment I wrote the above. I may as well do it, but I won't be advertising it in Wikiproject Wales - I'll put it through an unbiased option-asking place. I keep forgetting where they are: I'll have to look at all of that side of things tonight. It's been a few years since I've worked here to that degree. I need to find the buried areas of foundational policy that support me too. It's stronger policy than the likes of 'truth', 'AGF' and 'consensus', it's just less disseminated and consequently harder to find. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

If the Gmh version gets enough support it will be added. There is nothing to stop you then presenting what you think is a further improvement and asking for a straw poll on that. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Well you've found your level now haven't you. You forgot to put the will in bold Martin, and where's the exclamation mark at the end?

These kind of straw polls for are fo straw men I say. Back in the days when Misplaced Pages still made a little sense they used to frowned upon for this very kind of reason. They are supposed to gauge where people are in complex situations, not game the system and stymie debate. It's bullshit all the way. A normal editor would have just put his adjustments into the article - no one would have deleted it would they. Deletion only happens to balanced content in this place. I was the only person who wasn't capable of making a tiny-improvement edit like that, as I'd clearly stated that nothing but the plain stats can avoid 'OR'. What myrtle did in choosing to make his ridiculous one-sided poll instead was try and end the debate for good (he even said as much) and win that hallowed 'protectable consensus'. Just like I predicted he would. I've seen it done in these various pages what must be a hundred times. Like pretty-much everything else in here right now it's supposed to be against the rules. Whatever you think about me, I always know the sodding rules. And not least the two I far too often break: civility and AGF. These places just suck them right out of you. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

What exactly is "my level"? I'd suggest that your incessant and wholly unnecessary incivility is becoming disruptive. I think Ghmyrtle has gone out of his way to be fair and open in this debate, but you seem to want to constantly bring discussion onto a personal level. And what do you mean by "these places"? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Straw poll

Interesting essay, but I don't think that further discussion is going to prove helpful. We must summarise the census results, not try to interpret them. I believe that the words "sole" and "indicate" are entirely neutral. A simple question: is the version below (B) an improvement on the current version (A), or not? If most editors think it is an improvement, it should go in.

Current wording (A):

The 2011 census showed that 57.5% of Wales' population considered their national identity as wholly Welsh and another 8.3% considered themselves to be partly Welsh (Welsh and British were the most common combination). 34.1% had no Welsh identity. 16.9% considered themselves wholly British and another 9.4% considered themselves as partly British. 73.7% had no British identity. 11.2% considered themselves wholly English and another 2.6% considered themselves partly English.

Latest proposal (B):

The 2001 UK census was criticised in Wales for not offering 'Welsh' as an option to describe respondents' national identity. Partly to address this concern, the 2011 census asked the question "How would you describe your national identity?". Respondents were instructed to "tick all that apply" from a list of options that included Welsh. The outcome was that 57.5% of Wales' population indicated their sole national identity to be Welsh; a further 7.1% indicated it to be both Welsh and British. No Welsh national identity was indicated by 34.1%. The proportion giving their sole national identity as British was 16.9%, and another 9.4% included British with another national identity. No British national identity was indicated by 73.7%. 11.2% indicated their sole national identity as English and another 2.6% included English with another national identity.

Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

References

1. ^ "Census results 'defy tickbox row'". BBC Online. Retrieved February 23, 2014.
2. ^ "2011 Census: KS202EW National identity, unitary authorities in Wales (Excel sheet 126Kb)". Office for National Statistics. 11 December 2012. p. 3. Retrieved 28 September 2013.
3. "A Statistical Focus on Ethnicity in Wales" (PDF). National Assembly for Wales. 2004. p. 1. Retrieved 10 February 2012.
4. ^ ""What is your ethnic group?" question from 2011 Census" (PDF). Welsh Government. December 17, 2012. Retrieved February 23, 2014.
5. . CIEMEN. 11 December 2012 http://www.nationalia.info/en/news/1284. Retrieved 23 February 2014. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
6. "A Statistical Focus on Ethnicity in Wales" (PDF). National Assembly for Wales. 2004. p. 1. Retrieved 10 February 2012.

• Support B Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support B Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support B Rob (talk | contribs) 22:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support B (PS Would a formula along the lines of "The outcome was that 57.5% of Wales' population indicated their national identity to be Welsh, and gave no other indication of national identity." resolve the concern over "sole national identity"?) DeCausa (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

At very least you have to remove the word "sole"! Matt Lewis (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support B welsh (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support B Daicaregos (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
• NO to predicted nationalist gaming. How can people "Support B" when there's only one fucking option! Everyone agrees the current wording ('option A') has to be changed! I predicted this would happen. Run to Wikiproject Wales and get an immediate phoney consensus. I've had no say in it at all - ghmyrtle just took it all away. "but I don't think that further discussion is going to prove helpful" Who do you think you are, Jimbo Wales? Does this guy always get his own way on Misplaced Pages?? I made an edit, ghmytle removed it, and has now grown tired of discussing it. 'Enough is enough' he says. He gave people less than 30 flaming minutes to read and respond to my long comment above. I took longer to write it. There is no deadline here for God's sake. This is total gaming - he just does not want too many people involved. YOU DO NOT OWN WIKIPEDIA GHMYRTLE. DON'T YOU EVER GET THAT? People he respects (outside of Welsh nationalism) desperately need to tell him that. This "it's going to be this or nothing" quick 'straw poll' is just a clear abuse of the project. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

You say: "Everyone agrees the current wording ('option A') has to be changed!". Do you think that option B is an improvement, or not? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a very cynical way of looking at it don't you think? The 'policy' approach is to remove the offending part, then work on something that works. You approach is to keep the offending part in at all costs, and just water it down a little. If you poll the watered-down version against the original, then of course it's an improvement of sorts. It's just such a controlling and cynical way of accepting the smallest amount of change possible. The result is still non-policy text. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

"...of course it's an improvement of sorts...". So, that's 8-0 for making the change, which I'll now do. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support B — Matt Let's keep a lid on this: for you to post profanities and to *SHOUT* here does nothing but reduce your credit. credence. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Credibility? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Being small again myrtle? The guy actually put "credit" for a pretty good reason. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Wales is not a state! 88.145.35.122 (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

That is true. The article does not claim that it is. But it is a country. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not a Principality either, just for the record . Martinevans123 (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Matt Lewis has proposed the inclusion of the following paragraph:

I support the inclusion of a paragraph on ethnicity, but would remove any link with "identity" and would greatly prefer the substance to be derived from secondary not primary sources. Any suggestions on wording? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Matt Lewis has proposed the inclusion of the following paragraph:

I support the inclusion of a paragraph on ethnicity, but would remove any link with "identity" and would greatly prefer the substance to be derived from secondary not primary sources. Any suggestions on wording? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

What the ONS figures show is that 57.5% ticked the "Welsh" box and no other, 7.1% ticked both the "Welsh" and "British" boxes; and 1.2% ticked the Welsh box and more than one other boxes. And, the remaining, residual, 34.1% did not tick the Welsh box at all - a response which ONS tabulates as "No Welsh identity". But, that does not mean that they were actively, positively, saying "I do not have any Welsh identity", it means that they simply did not indicate that they had a Welsh identity. The way the text is written now is certainly not "original research" - it's an appropriate and neutral summary of the ONS table of statistics. But, because of the English language (which finds it difficult to differentiate between the two meanings), the current wording can be read in two ways - the correct way, and the incorrect way.
In my personal view, nothing meaningful would be lost by removing those two sentences, "No Welsh national identity was indicated by 34.1%", and "No British national identity was indicated by 73.7%", and leaving the remaining text unaltered. The sentences are open to misinterpretation, and it can be argued that the current version gives undue weight to residual statistics.
So, the revised paragraph would read:

Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Geography and places good articles
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class UK geography articles
• Top-importance UK geography articles
• GA-Class Wales articles
• Top-importance Wales articles
• WikiProject Wales articles
• GA-Class United Kingdom articles
• Top-importance United Kingdom articles
• WikiProject United Kingdom articles
• GA-Class Celts articles
• Top-importance Celts articles
• WikiProject Celts articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• GA-Class country articles
• WikiProject Countries articles