Talk:English rule in Wales

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Llys Llywelyn.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Arfbais Owain Glyndwr arms.png

Trimming down wars of periods 1283-1415
The page Welsh Wars of Independence discusses this and so the best way forward may be to trim down those sections on this page?Titus Gold (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Editorialising
This edit (asserted in other places to) is going to fall foul of a bunch of policies I expect, such as WP:NPOV. Describing a historical action with a modern term is controversial. If sources do it, it can be allowed, but no source review has been conducted so it is WP:UNDUE at least to call this apartheid, but to then link to the "crime of apartheid" page is very clearly editorialising. This is a highly problematic edit and it just should not be there. This raises very clear WP:NPOV concerns for the whole page, and as I removed this once and as it has been re-asserted, I will be adding a template to that effect. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC)


 * The term is used by two sources not me. I will re-add with the omission of the link then? Titus Gold (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not revert it, It is already there. Removing the link helps but I would like wider editor input on the term "apartheid" generally, as it is being added to 4 different articles. Again, I think a source review is in order to see how sources generally treat this. It is usually controversial to apply modern terms to historical actions. I could list various history articles that have seen long debates over these. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The claim made is 'later historians have described as "a system of apartheid"'. This is simply not true: some or a few have, but as it stands, it implies that this is generally the case. Llwyld (talk) 05:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The template has since been removed, has this been addressed? It was a page-wide template, but minimal edits since its addition.
 * Adding a controversial term used by only two historians is probably against NPOV, unless those two are deemed with higher respect and greater weight in academia, if so there should be more sources at least. Best to avoid such terms, but if there is evidence of wider acceptance or recognition of its use, only then it should really be included.  Dank Jae  19:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The qualm was purely about the use of the word apartheid as I understand it, so yes it has been addressed. Sirfurboy are you satisfied with that? Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the discussion is being limited to Penal Laws against Wales 1402 for now @DankJae. If consensus is reached there, then the topic could be expanded in related articles such as this one. Titus Gold (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The precipitating issue was indeed the reinsertion of the term apartheid after I had already reverted it once. Removal of that wording has dealt with that issue and I am content for the template to come off. I have some more minor concerns about the slant of this page, particularly around the history from the Tudor period, through the United Kingdom of Great Britain (1707-1800) and beyond. My concerns were not limited wholly to those edits, but those were the acute concern, especially as that edit was also being applied to Owain Glyndwr, Welsh Revolt and Penal Laws against Wales 1402, and because they had initially been wikilinked to Crime of apartheid. I am satisfied that the template can also come off Owain Glyndwr and the Welsh Revolt page. I remain concerned about the tone and quality of material on Penal Laws against Wales 1402 which appears to be some considerable distance from a neutral point of view. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

English Rule Period
What sources are we using here? The term "English Rule" enjoys much attention, but it seems the definition is fuzzy. English rule certainly began with the conquest by Edward I and certainly continued until at least 1542. I expect many sources will also mention English rule from the Norman conquest onwards and after the Laws in Wales Act. From 1707, however, the successor state was Great Britain so "English Rule" becomes very much a point of view (which is to say, there will be sources saying it is, but others that don't or would not use the term). This page does not discuss that at all, but neither does it provide any good sourcing. It reads a bit like original research as it stands. If the page can't provide sources and a clear description of extents, then it is not clear what it's purpose is. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:51, 4 March 2023 (UTC)


 * No response to this question. I think it needs to be much more tightly focused. Speaking of the Laws in Wales Acts 1535 and 1542, often referred to as the Act of Union, Glanmor Williams writes:
 * So the period of English rule must be understood to be that period where there was no self rule in Wales, where it was administered in a colonial fashion after its annexation by Edward I in 1284, until the Henrican Laws in Wales Acts.
 * If there are no sources that say otherwise, I think this needs a major edit. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but the background of the Norman invasions is essential as well as the context of English/British rule after the act of union. Titus Gold (talk) 14:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Another option is some sort of non-native rule definition which covers the Norman invasion and arguably up to the first devolution referendum because technically there was no choice but the British establishment up until that point. Titus Gold (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Surely what you describe is already adequately covered in Welsh independence. That is to say, the article you want is an article about Wales' lack of independence from (at least) 1284 to the present day. That is already fully covered in Welsh independence, section 1 of which is exactly that history. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * And, to add, also covered in Wales, the history section, and potentially Politics of Wales. A "non native rule of Wales" page looks like a povfork of the history of Wales. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "Non-native rule of Wales" would be a clear WP:POVFORK, and basically a "Colonial"/"Non-independent"/"Occupied Wales" POV article, such details would be best in a period-based article with a general title, summary at HoW and of individual particular events. Such a proposed article would overlap, and/or should instead be in the articles Wales in the Middle Ages, Wales in the Early Middle Ages, Wales in the High Middle Ages, Wales in the Late Middle Ages or Early modern period in Wales.  Dank Jae  01:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think Welsh independence should be about Welsh independence, rather than an in-depth article on English rule in Wales. That's fair enough @DankJae. Maybe sticking to the English rule title is best then, although generally speaking, the Norman rule of the Marches is often considered a part of English rule, but early Norman rule is debatable. Titus Gold (talk) 01:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, the article would need to mention the pre-conquest Norman overlordship. Agreed on that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think Welsh independence should be about Welsh independence, rather than an in-depth article on English rule in Wales. That's fair enough @DankJae. Maybe sticking to the English rule title is best then, although generally speaking, the Norman rule of the Marches is often considered a part of English rule, but early Norman rule is debatable. Titus Gold (talk) 01:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, the article would need to mention the pre-conquest Norman overlordship. Agreed on that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I have tidied things up a bit. Other than a few tweaks to the lead I have not made any major edits to the substance of the page, but pared it back to the more restricted scope (so deleted British history beyond a summary). The referencing was a mess. It had every kind of reference in there, but mostly it was some kind of paranthetcal reference, and as it is a history article I have regularised it all to sfn. There are also a lot of tertiary sources in there. I pulled out a few where they were clearly just WP:OVERCITE, but the referencing on this article could definitely be tightened up. I will stop there for now, though, so as not to get any possible controversial edits mixed in with the cleanup. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Merger
I propose the merger of Welsh rebellions against English rule into this article. That article was spun out of this one in August, and coverage of the individual rebellions in that article is somewhat expanded, but this article maintains the exact same headings and could easily accommodate the expanded text. As it stands, editor effort is divided between articles that are largely repetitive of each other. The merger would create a redirect to here under the rebellions title, so could still be found easily. The rebellions themselves are full covered in individual articles such as Welsh Revolt so the intermediate summary article serves no purpose worth the editor effort of maintaining it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure the argument for merger is made strongly or convincingly enough, so I'd be inclined to keep the split and reduce the information about the rebellions in English rule in Wales even further. The two are distinctly different topics, after all. You're correct to say there was far too much repetition - due to the protagonist of the split not finishing the job or clearing up the mess behind them, as usual. I recently tried to trim the section in English rule in Wales, though quite timidly. As you've pointed out further above, there's questionable POV editorialising and motives here in English rule in Wales which could do with addressing first. Sionk (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't think they should be merged, but rather both improved and hone is more specifically on their respective titles. Titus Gold (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The one thing I'd add is that there is very little here about English rule in Wales, particularly with Welsh rebellions against English rule having its own article. It would be better deleted than having more tangential stuff added back. We basically have a large part about the conquest of Wales and (still) a large part about rebellions against the English, both of which are more than adequately covered in their own articles. Very little about English administration at all. Sionk (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, after spending some considerable time fixing all the referencing and updating sections, my first reaction was "don't delete it now!"😭 But then I was not previously aware of the suite of Wales in the Middle Ages, Wales in the Early Middle Ages, Wales in the High Middle Ages and Wales in the Late Middle Ages, and everything I have updated here could be merged into those articles. The question is whether there is or is not a subject of "English rule in Wales" that is cohesive and distinct beyond those history articles. My reason for spending time on this was that I could well believe schools would assign homework assignments on the English rule from conquest to union. But then, Wales in the Late Middle Ages almost exactly covers that period, and we could easily argue for, and adjust it to cover the period. So, if someone nominates this for deletion, my vote is likely to be for it to merge with that article. As regards this merge, it doesn't look like it will get consensus, and for the reasons you give. I'll withdraw it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)