This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
So, to set the ball rolling. I really don’t think there is any dispute that the Welsh Government and associated bodies engage in extensive overseas activity. Their 21 offices abroad are clear evidence of this. This is common for any large economic unit. London does it, so does Manchester; so, I am sure, does Texas, or Bavaria. But, for me, to describe this as “Foreign relations of Wales” is misleading. As User:Sionk, and others, have pointed out, Foreign relations of Fooland (at least in Wikiworld) refers to the foreign policies of sovereign states. Wales isn’t a sovereign state and does not, and cannot, conduct its own foreign policy, any more than England can. Assuming others agree, we could either rename the draft as something else, External relations of Wales / International relations of Wales / X of Wales; or we have a separate section on the topic in a related article; if we followed the Scottish approach, we could have a section in the First Minister of Wales article; or we take the useful content and place it in appropriate related articles, e.g. Wales, Economy of Wales, etc. Personally, I’m open to any of these approaches. I think my preference would be for a section in the First Minister article, as Wales’ overseas relations are part of their portfolio, but can certainly be persuaded that another option would be better. As an aside, the relevant post within the FMO is titled Director of International relations and trade, and has a clearly economic focus, [1]. KJP1 (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although I think the current title is acceptable as long as the lead is clear about the devolution settlement, "External relations of Wales / International relations of Wales / X of Wales" are reasonable suggestions and ones I could get on board with. Thank you for a bringing a reasonable approach in this opening paragraph, @KJP1. I don't think that fitting this into another article such as Politics of Wales or Economy of Wales would be appropriate since there's too much interesting and notable content to squeeze it in.
I think I will make a comment or edit on Wikipedia:WikiProject needing more clear criteria could be beneficial for the "Foreign relations of..." format of article. Perhaps a specific criteria along with a different title could used for non-sovereign entities? Titus Gold (talk) 16:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said elsewhere, I don't think Foreign relations of Wales is an appropriate title, based on abundant examples of Wikipedia precedent. But I'm willing to believe there is scope for a standalone article - Wales briefly had an International relations minister, the Welsh Government has an International strategy (though I'd want to see reliable secondary sources about that)I also added an article recently by Prof Laura McAllister which argues Wales should assert itself internationally. Maybe a tweek of name to International relations of Wales would help to differentiate it from the other Wikipedia articles about formal diplomatic policy. In my view, the article would need to be laser-focused on government strategy and not become a list article of every minor overseas project involving a Welsh person. Sionk (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable. Maybe we should suggest "International relations of..." as a precedent for non-sovereign semi-autonomous/autonomous nations/countries/dependents. I don't think being laser focused on government policy is essential, but having it as the clear main focus I would agree with. Titus Gold (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article in its current state seems to be a mix of various things that just happen to involve an external actor and Wales, from visits, to offices, to programmes, to think tanks, to region-region agreements and a tropical forest programme. All the trade section would make better sense at Economy of Wales, while the endless listing of visits are really not notable, did they do anything? Rest of the content can be at First Minister of Wales, Welsh Government, Education in Wales or Politics of Wales (where details on the US currently is).
If the article stays, then support a name change at minimal. It was mentioned above, that the minister was removed, so cannot be that, nor does Wales have a relevant ministry. Not sure if the director or Trade and Invest Wales are notable but if they are, it could house some content from here. External/International relations sometimes do serve as redirects to Foreign relations or the main subject (i.e. Wales), External is solely used by the crown dependencies for some reason, but I believe Jersey uses it for its department. International is used for the Slovakian capital Bratislava, while technically setting a precedent for Cardiff, could work for Wales although that article seems potentially non-notable too. But international relations are too without precedent, but if deemed this article should stay then I guess the more acceptable one. (Plus what is going to happen to the London one). DankJae19:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Need to maintain a strong focus on governmental international strategy
Need to reduce general text on international visits and focus more on any agreements or schemes started etc.
(More secondary sources are needed for general improvement)
I agree that the Trade section would go well in Economy of Wales, but I don't think it would be wise to remove all mention of international trade from here.
Really the article should rewritten a core of high-quality sources, and reflect what they say. I provided two papers in the other discussion, which I found very easily. There are many others, especially if more time were spent looking, but I'm not seeing anything in the current article better than news reports. CMD (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A good point although, to a degree, are they interchangeable? The WG acts on behalf of Wales, and represents the country’s interests in its international affairs. KJP1 (talk) 11:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We'll see how much this article focuses on the Welsh Government, and whether other information is suited here or in other articles. If it is mainly on the Welsh Government, and nothing about any relevant UK Government policy if it applies or other non-government aspects, then probably "Welsh Government" in the title, kinda inline with the London one (if this article is published under int. should the London one move too?, just for consistency) The existence of the London one under Mayor could also justify Welsh Government if meeting the conditions above.
It is probably best to focus on the Welsh government, which is a coherent topic. Introducing the actions of other governments, or other organizations, muddles whatever information is here. CMD (talk) 01:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And there is good reason not to, and that reason is that terms like "country" are easily equivocated on, or at east the term does not completely capture the rich range of difference in arrangements between each. Of the other places that editor mentions, Denmark administers Faroe and Greenland in a different manner from the UK, and significantly allows them to conduct foreign relations to make international treaties on areas that lie within the powers of their governments. They thus have treaties and FTAs and some diplomatic representation. Hong Kong and Macau are separate customs territories that again require treaties and play a role in the WTO etc. Niue acts as an independent state in foreign policy despite having a shared head of State with New Zealand and being New Zealand citizens etc. The UK is a unitary state that has devolved government with reserved powers. It is quasi federal but not federal, being very much wedded to the unitary state model. Wales cannot make international treaties, nor create diplomatic missions. What it does have is an international strategy, which is primarily about trade, tourism and raising the profile of Wales on the world stage. This is not foreign policy. And why are you asking the question there, rather than simply inviting interested editors to join the discussion here? Forking the discussion never ends well. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was attempting to draw editors to this page who are experienced with these types of articles. I also wanted to raise the topic of article title precedence. I'm happy with your reasoning. Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The section was empty and I was not clear as to what we would say regarding International Relations of Wales and language. If you have sources and a subject to discuss, I have no objection to it going back in. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I brought the source up in the previous discussion as the sort of high quality source the draft lacked. While the sources didn't make it in before publishing, I was hoping the empty section would stimulate addition. CMD (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While the sources didn't make it in before publishing - yes, I was surprised by the sudden unannounced publication too. Sorry for missing the source in the previous discussion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]