Talk:Little England beyond Wales

We need some references
I removed what looked like unsourced opinion from the article. Then I took a second look at what was left, and realised most of this article is unsourced. We could do with some sources. In particular, I don't think this is true: "Until the nineteenth century, the region was the only English-speaking area of Wales away from the English border." There was an "Englishry" on Gower, too. And is it really "the most fertile area of south west Wales"? I didn't know that. By what standards? Who says it? Et cetera..

Telsa (talk) 08:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I have deleted all unsubstantiated and contentious statements. NPOV is difficult to obtain, since the term itself is an admission of partisanship. It may well be that the article can be re-expanded, using suitably cited sources. However, even the well-worn written sources tend to be highly partisan. For example, read the Laws book for an example of unreconstructed racism..

LinguisticDemographer 15:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I decided to re-write it. I believe the article is now neutral, and adequately sourced. I've left the tags, but some kind person might want to remove them, or fix up any remaining inadequacies with a quick edit..

LinguisticDemographer 01:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The other side of the coin
Is all this really quite true? A look at the Scottish Lowlands, indicates a number of Gaelic placenames, particularly on the northern, western and south western fringes... likewise this "Little England" has plenty of Welsh language names (as do some areas of the Welsh Marches partly due to a shifting border. A look at the list of Welsh principal areas by percentage Welsh language today shows that Pembrokeshire is in fact 8/22 (29.4%) - ahead of Cardiff and Conwy, while Carmarthenshire (63.6%) is no. 3! The only indicator of low Welsh usage is in Gower and Swansea, but this probably has more to do with the fact that it is a) a major urban area, and b) has had substantial immigration during the 20th century.

Also - "During the Middle Ages, the colony was strengthened by immigrants / settlers from Devon, Cornwall and the Welsh Borders". Fine and well, until you realise that Cornwall, and much of the Welsh Borders were Brythonic speaking. Some people even think Devon may have been.

Amongst the Welsh placenames currently in use, in some form, in English in this "Little England" are - Narberth, Llangwm (a stereotypical Welsh looking name if ever there was one), Pendine, Llanddowror and Pembroke itself. While in Gower, you have Gower itself, Port Eynon, Llanmadoc and Pen-clawdd amongst others.

My conclusion is that while there may well have been a colony here, calling it a "Little England" is a bit of a myth now, and probably to a large extent historically. --MacRusgail 20:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC) p.s. I notice that one of the editors of Landsker Line rightly points out that there are a few other fishy things about this tale, e.g. that there's little evidence of many Flemish survivals there. p.p.s. "The area first became distinct from the rest of Wales when it was settled by Vikings." - another fishy one, most of the Welsh coast, esp in the west and north had some Norse settlement. Is there any evidence of it being more extensive here than elsewhere?


 * I don't find that a nickname is generally a good subject for an article. I would prefer to see it merged into Landsker Line, rather than the other way around. Deb 22:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that this subject is drawing some interest. "Little England Beyond Wales" is a valid term at least in the sense that it was used by most of the early Antiquarians (initially as Anglia Transwalliana), and because it is used almost universally by people in the area today. Honest, it is!! Not withstanding the conclusions drawn above, the area is extremely distinct today, and characterized by very high degree of animosity between communities on either side of the border. The historically attested attitudes of old (each side labelling the other as drunks, thieves, and of lax sexual virtue) are at least subliminally still present, and are visible in the workings of local politics. The term may be a "nickname", but given that it is the name of a real entity, what alternative is suggested?

The presence of Welsh placenames in the English zone is a perfect example of why placenames are a particularly useless guide to cultural history. The placename examples given above are rather poor. For instance Llangwm (which may "look Welsh" to someone who knows no Welsh) is in fact the impeccably anglo-saxon Langham, is pronounced as such, and means just that. The pseudo-welsh spelling is a modern antiquarian affectation. (See also Llangstone in Gwent.) Llanddowror, Penclawdd and Narberth were north of the border in the Welsh zone, and the first two still are.

I came late to these articles, and attempted to add some neutral and sourced data. It's a typical wiki problem. As I said above, those who use the term Little England tend to be members of one or the other warring community, and the subtexts of their contributions to a wiki article are necessarily weighed down with the folklaw of their own group. Folklaw that has been written down in the past and becomes a "citable source" is still folklaw. If solid Gradgrindian facts are required then perhaps the only recourse is to delete the articles altogether. However, although Little England and the Language Frontier may be pronounced "mythical" (albeit by non-experts), they still exist, if only as an artifact of the folk imagination, and as such, they deserve to be described, as imagined, for the critical reader to accept or reject as preferred. . . . LinguisticDemographer 13:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I ahve to agree with the assessment. It is valid term used to describe the area. OHOH, the scope of the article is not identical with the Landsker Line, like Iron Curtain would not describe any countries attached. On that grounds I don't think a merger is needed. Agathoclea 14:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

A small comment on the Census data mentioned above. Take 5 seconds to look at the map in the article. Little England is NOT Pembrokeshire. Pembrokeshire consists of a solidly English speaking south and a solidly Welsh speaking north. There are about 30% Welsh speakers in Pembrokeshire OBVIOUSLY because 30% of Pembrokeshire people live in the north. The Carmarthenshire Englishry is very small, so it's hardly surprising that the data for Carmarthenshire as a whole show it to be predominantly Welsh. Recommended reading: Welsh Language Census Reports (data given by parish) 1921-1981. These demonstrate the absolute, Gradgrindian reality of this cultural zone. In case I gave the wrong impression above, it ABSOLUTELY IS NOT a myth. I think that census data amounts to "common knowledge" and does not require citation. But you do need to take a quick swatch of it before you can say too much on this subject. PS - bad news - it's not on the net!! . . . .LinguisticDemographer 15:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is a "valid term", but it is a term that I have heard many a time, so regular usage merits its inclusion. As an entity, its boundaries seem to be far less fixed than is claimed. It isn't a myth, so much as a legend. Legends have some basis in fact, but are hazy. The settlers in the area were often not even "English", but included Flemings, Cornish, Bretons and Normans.


 * It seems to be an odd quirk of English that where Celtic countries are concerned, it regularly uses the Norse form instead of that used in the local Celtic language - amongst examples of this I can think of Wexford (Loch Garmain), Dublin (Baile Atha Cliath (but from "Dubh-linn" no less)), Anglesey (Ynys Mon), Swansea (Abertawe), Waterford (Port Lairge) etc. The trouble with this, is that while Norse died out in Ynys Mon probably a millenium ago, Welsh has been strong there ever since. Likewise, the Isle of Man, and Hebrides, both heavily colonised by the Norse, were strongholds of the Gaelic language long after the Landsker Line was constructed. Even Cumberland, one of the most Norse areas of England retained Brythonic much longer than other parts of that country. All this should be considered when looking at south west Wales.


 * I know from experience that language boundaries are not quite as sharp as people would like to make out sometimes. In Scotland there are such cases of boundaries moving backward and forward (especially in the 20th century), and in Ireland, many Norman colonists ended up speaking Irish within a few generations. --MacRusgail 15:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC) p.s. I am well aware that Pembrokeshire and "Little England" are not one and the same. However the Pembroke Pale (a much better name) does not directly correspond to any current political regions.


 * "Pembrokeshire consists of a solidly English speaking south and a solidly Welsh speaking north." - and of course the Welsh population has never ever migrated or moved to the next parish. It's only Flemings and English folk that did that, right? Sorry, but I find that argument somewhat unlikely. The Landsker article claims an influx of Welsh speakers after the Black Death. Historical experiences elsewhere in Wales, and also Scotland, Ireland and even the Isle of Man also present another problem - namely that English (and Norse) speakers were often assimilated into Celtic language communities, even quite late on in the Middle Ages. That's why the last Manx speaker was called "Maddrell", an "English" surname, or in more recent times, we have native speakers of Scottish Gaelic whose surnames are Frater and Storey.


 * Sorry, I don't buy it. Was there a forcefield along the Landsker Line which stopped people learning one another's languages? --MacRusgail 15:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think that you are seriously proposing using "Pembroke Pale" as a term, except as an illustration of the nature of the area, but note that it appears to be a neologism. Warofdreams talk 16:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I was not aware of the term before, but it appears to me to be a "Pale" of the Irish variety anyway. --MacRusgail 19:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I was brought up in East Carmarthenshire, but can confirm that the existence of "Little England beyond Wales" was well known. As a visitor to the encyclopedia, I'd probably prefer the Landsker Line article (a phrase I never came across) to be melded into this one, rather than have this article melded into the other. TomRawlinson 18:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

References, etc
In response to the initial, justified point, I have looked at the available sources concerning the subject. I noticed that there are already three perfectly good references in the article which, if read, would be sufficient to persuade the most critical reader of the uniquely interesting nature of this cultural phenomenon. Nonetheless, I have added a list of references (by no means exhaustive) which, once read by all interested parties, should draw some more informed comment.

The above discussion contains some very perceptive points. For instance, "was there a forcefield along the Landsker Line which stopped people learning one another's languages?" The implication is that this is a reductio ad absurdam that proves that this phenomenon is mythical. A more scientific approach is to first enquire whether this fascinating linguistic isolate does in fact exist (reading list provided - it does, and how) and having convinced oneself that it does indeed exist, it's then time to pose the question: "by what mechanism has it preserved itself, for at least nine centuries?" Some of the answers are actually given above. Migration across the boundary (in both directions) took place all the time, and people (of either language) were assimilated by their new communities. In generation one, all the family are bilingual. In generation two, the parents are bilingual and the children are monoglots. In generation three they're all monoglots. When mass-migration took place, the boundary moved, but always remained sharp, because of the natural tendency of people to use only one language. When I mean sharp, I mean language affiliation passes from 95% A to 95% B over a distance of 5 km or less.

I'm not clear on whether the comparisons with Scotland and Ireland are meant to negate or reinforce this argument. If such sharp language boundaries are not observable there, that's a pity. Come to Wales and see one! However, I suspect that they did (and I use the past tense deliberately) exist in exactly the same way there. I'm sure if I turned my laser-like attention on them I could find some. It may well be that census information arrived too late to draw unambiguous conclusions in those areas - the languages were already on their knees before the census started. The important point is that these boundaries can indeed be identified and quantified in Wales. And not only in the southwest - the sharpness of the linguistic boundary is characteristic all the way north to Flintshire. These being the only authenticated examples of such boundaries in modern times, they serves as a model (and an enormously significant one) for all other informal linguistic boundaries, past and present. . . .LinguisticDemographer 14:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you talk about sharp linguistic boundaries in Wales, I take it that you mean historical boundaries. To my knowledge, the Celtic divide has become a lot less marked since the 1950s, due to the people on the Welsh side abandoning their historical mother tongue.
 * By the way: You need only turn your laser-like attention on Scottish Census data of the late 19th century and you will find very sharp divides in most places. The same is true for the German/French language boundary in Alsace: To the west, people were monolingual French speakers, to the west very few people had a working knowledge of French up to the 1950s.Unoffensive text or character 15:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The boundary is indeed very much a historical one, although not necessarily less sharp nowadays. Because the proportion of Welsh speakers in the north has diminished (due mainly to immigration of English people rather than abandonment of the language), it now sharply passes from 5% to 60% Welsh speakers, instead of from 5% to 95% as of old. The more recent censuses have become more politicised and therefore of less value in tracking this. . . .LinguisticDemographer 18:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 'The implication is that this is a reductio ad absurdam that proves that this phenomenon is mythical.' - Legendary was the term that I used. It was not me who brought in the term 'mythical'.
 * 'If such sharp language boundaries are not observable there, that's a pity. Come to Wales and see one!' - The language boundary in Wales seems to be a mainly temporal one. Areas that spoke Welsh strongly in the recent past are almost Welsh-less now. Now that's a boundary. The Welsh language boundary has shifted over time - and especially within the last two centuries. --MacRusgail 20:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But in Pembrokeshire the language boundary has been stable for centuries. Unoffensive text or character 08:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I just did a search on this page. The first occurrance of "myth" is: "My conclusion is that while there may well have been a colony here, calling it a "Little England" is a bit of a myth now, and probably to a large extent historically." MacRusgail 20:38, 24 January 2007. I also note MacRusgail quoting the 2001 census to the effect that Little England is in fact Welsh. So is it mythical or isn't it? Is it English or isn't it? I'm addressing these questions to anyone who actually knows the answers. . . .LinguisticDemographer 14:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "I also note MacRusgail quoting the 2001 census to the effect that Little England is in fact Welsh." - not quite. Will you read what I actually said, please! --MacRusgail 20:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutral tag
I'm wondering if this is still necessary? Scanning through the current version of the article, and the discussion page, the only dispute seems to be whether the article should exist at all, and the balance of opinion is that it should. . . .LinguisticDemographer 15:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes I think it is. It's still too one sided, although much improved on what it was. --MacRusgail 19:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. If you'd just let me know what side it leans towards, I will adjust it, then we can put this irritating article to bed. . . .LinguisticDemographer 10:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I've been tweaking it here and there. For example, I have pointed out that Pembrokeshire is quite definitely not the only area of Wales to have evidence of Scandinavian settlement, and/or placenames (although funnily enough English tends to pick up the Norse names, and Welsh doesn't e.g. Anglesey-Mon). I believe that this area was also subject to some Irish settlement (not mentioned here), and that oen of the only crannogs in Wales is round here. --MacRusgail 17:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

There was indeed considerable Irish influence and permanent settlement in this area, as witness the concentration of Ogam inscriptions and Irish saints, in the period 300-700 AD. Since these immigrants were not expelled, it can be assumed that they "went native". Contact with them probably catalyzed the rapid rationalization of the proto-Welsh language that took place during this period. However, these did not contribute in any way to the Englishness of the area, which is the subject of the article. . . .LinguisticDemographer 23:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the same could be said about the Flemish who colonised the area. They weren't English! Although some neglect to mention that most of the so called "English" settlement was actually by Flemings. --MacRusgail 13:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's true: the Flemings contributed nothing to the Englishness of the area - how could they? - and are a historical red herring, as are the Irish, Scandinavians, etc. The "Flemings" came in two forms: the mercenaries who accompanied William I in his conquest, and who became part (but not a majority) of the ruling elite in Pembrokeshire, and the "refugee" Fleming artisans who were relocated from northeast England where they had previously lived for several years, and were installed in Roose. But English was brought, by and large, by the English, as is clear from the nature of the dialect and the pre-conquest nature of the English placename elements. There is no evidence that Flemish was ever widely spoken. There seems little point in saying, in deference to folklaw, that most of the settlement was Flemish (for which there is also no evidence), unless the article is re-christened "Little Flanders". I have had a look for reliable references saying that English was brought to Little England by the Irish, but no luck. If you have any, please supply. . . .LinguisticDemographer 22:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have seen Flemish settlers used as the explanation for "Little England" before. It doesn't wash. Far more likely that English was introduced by mariners or people from the West Country. --MacRusgail 19:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC) p.s. I did not say the Irish introduced English to south west Wales, why would they?

We're trying to identify the ways in which this article is "too one-sided". You must have had something in mind when you put the neutral tag in. The original neutral tag was added (5/5/2006) in response to the addition of a piece of polemic which has long since been removed from the article. We agree that the Irish are not mentioned here because they had no role in the formation of Little England. As for the Flemish, the story of their plantation is given (one point of view), and is balanced by evidence which shows that their influence may have been minimal (other point of view). So the article is neutral regarding the Flemish.

There are two ways of resolving a neutrality dispute: if a statement is one-sided, one can add a balancing "on the other hand" statement, supported by reliable citations. If editors can't be bothered to do the research necessary for this, then alternatively one can establish neutrality simply by deleting the offending one-sided statements. Clearly we have exhausted option one. So please identify the statements that are non-neutral, and delete them, then remove the neutrality tag. . . .LinguisticDemographer 09:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Not all of the material you removed was unreferenced. I think the mention of the Norse and Flemish is highly important, since it shows how the area may have become differentiated originally. The inclusion of Deheubarth, also puts it into context. --MacRusgail 13:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we get rid of this neutral tag now? I don't see any sensible reason for questioning the neutrality of this article as it stands. Suggest the tag is dumped -- it will still be open to people to tweak the article if they feel strongly about something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.103.48 (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Remove OR items and summarise
I have removed two items identified as Original Research, which is prohibited in Wikipedia. These are: I have tagged a number of assertions that are not supported by references. These are subject to immediate removal, as per Wikipedia policy. However, as only 16 months have elapsed since the Neutrality tag was added, editors may need a little more time to come up with references. Accordingly, I shall wait for one week before deleting these statements.
 * the map, since it includes data based on the St David's Lay Subsidy, which is not in the public domain.
 * the reference to the St David's Lay Subsidy personal name survey, which is not in the public domain.

I have not tagged the mention of Scandinavian settlement, because it is covered by the Charles reference. However, Charles did not discuss Scandinavian settlement in the context of Little England (rather in the context of Pembrokeshire in general) and the mention of Scandinavian settlement is unrelated to the article for the following reasons:
 * Little England is defined in terms of its language, which has been English (hence the name) since 1150 or perhaps much earlier. Clearly Scandinavians spoke Norse, and so had no role in the formation of Little England.
 * As stated, Scandinavians settled in many other areas, including North Pembrokeshire, the Llŷn and Anglesey. No "Englishry" formed in these areas, so there is no reason to suppose their effect was any different in South Pembrokeshire.

Because details of how the article departs from neutrality are still lacking, I have reviewed the previous discussions and am summarizing the criticisms of the article as follows:
 * "calling it a "Little England" is a bit of a myth now, and probably to a large extent historically." MacRusgail 20:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC) (no reference supplied)
 * "Pembrokeshire is in fact 8/22 (29.4%) - ahead of Cardiff and Conwy, while Carmarthenshire (63.6%) is no. 3! The only indicator of low Welsh usage is in Gower and Swansea, but this probably has more to do with the fact that it is a) a major urban area, and b) has had substantial immigration during the 20th century." (same comment, unreferenced conclusion)
 * "much of the Welsh Borders were Brythonic speaking. Some people even think Devon may have been." (same comment, no reference, no quantitative survey of opinion provided)
 * "there's little evidence of many Flemish survivals there" (same comment)
 * "p.p.s. "The area first became distinct from the rest of Wales when it was settled by Vikings." - another fishy one, most of the Welsh coast, esp in the west and north had some Norse settlement. Is there any evidence of it being more extensive here than elsewhere?" (no such evidence provided then or subsequently)
 * "I don't find that a nickname is generally a good subject for an article. Deb 22:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC) (not strictly related to neutrality issue)
 * "it appears to me to be a "Pale" of the Irish variety anyway." MacRusgail 19:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC) (unreferenced)
 * "I was brought up in East Carmarthenshire, but can confirm that the existence of "Little England beyond Wales" was well known" TomRawlinson 18:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "As someone brought up & living in Haverfordwest, I can certainly attest to the existence of "Little England"." Neil in wales 18:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC) (these two I think the only responses to a call for comments)
 * "Areas that spoke Welsh strongly in the recent past are almost Welsh-less now. Now that's a boundary. The Welsh language boundary has shifted over time - and especially within the last two centuries." MacRusgail 20:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)(unreferenced: not clear how this indicates a lack of neutrality in the article)
 * "in Pembrokeshire the language boundary has been stable for centuries." Unoffensive text or character 08:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * (re-inserting Neutrality tag) "It's still too one sided" MacRusgail 19:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC) (way in which it is one-sided not specified)
 * "Pembrokeshire is quite definitely not the only area of Wales to have evidence of Scandinavian settlement" MacRusgail 17:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC) (but it has the only Little England, therefore unrelated)
 * "I believe that this area was also subject to some Irish settlement (not mentioned here)" MacRusgail 17:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC) (unreferenced, and unrelated for the same reasons: Irish settlement was mainly in North Pembrokeshire, and in the Llŷn: these were not Englishries)
 * "most of the so called "English" settlement was actually by Flemings" MacRusgail 13:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC) (unreferenced)
 * "I have seen Flemish settlers used as the explanation for "Little England" before. It doesn't wash." MacRusgail 19:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC) (unreferenced)

As an aid to understanding these arguments (though not as article material), here are the census data for Pembrokeshire, divided into three distinct zones:
 * North of the line - average population 24,000
 * a narrow border zone - average population 2,800
 * Little England - average population 65,000

% Total Welsh Speakers 

% Monoglot Welsh Speakers 

Achieving neutrality in an article does not require that every point of view is represented. The views of insignificant minorities need not be included (Wikipedia NPOV Policy). It says:
 * If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
 * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
 * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

If no further properly referenced edits appear, and there is continued refusal to indicate valid alternate viewpoints that are under-represented, I shall ask for arbitration on the neutrality of the article. . . .LinguisticDemographer 00:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Why don't you simply remove the thirteenhundredsomething-line from the map? I think the article can use a map. Unoffensive text or character 14:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree: it does need a map. I'm sure we'll get one, once the present problem is sorted out. . . .LinguisticDemographer 15:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there any evidence that contemporary natives of this area consider themselves "English"? --MacRusgail 11:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Only those that moved in from Birmingham. Most consider themselves Welsh although they don't speak a word. Nlb42 12:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't believe there has been a quantitative survey in recent years. John's 1971 survey showed around half the people south of the line thought themselves English: getting on for 10% thought themselves neither English nor Welsh. . . .LinguisticDemographer 02:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why the article still has its neutrality questioned. It seems pretty neutral to me, as somebody born and bred in Pembrokeshire. Never mind about references and "authentication" -- the reality of the split of Pembrokeshire into two halves, Welshry and Little England, separated by the Landsker, is something EVERYBODY in West Wales knows about. When I led the student fieldwork in 1971, the Durham students were amazed at the fact that the Landsker was traceable in the field, right across the waist of the county -- and that people could very often identify the line as running along a particular road or river. And the language maps, one census after another, are absolutely convincing. So can we just accept that this article is pretty good as it is, and drop this nonsense about supposed lack of neutrality?

If an "informal" name like "Little England Beyond Wales" is in common usage, and has a good geographical / linguistic basis to it, then an entry in Wikipedia is perfectly justifiable --so can we stop nit-picking? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.103.48 (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The fact that in a month there has been no response to the above polite plea could simply mean that no-one is watching this article. However, working on the assumption that the silence means that the article is now regarded as balanced, you might try removing the Neutrality Tag, and see what happens.  You'll find it's being watched like a hawk!  Wikipedia has no mechanism for resolving issues of neutrality, so anyone who merely forms a casual distaste for a given subject can slap a Neutrality Tag on it, and ensure that it remains there indefinitely.  Even if the article was written by a latter-day Diderot (admittedly unlikely in the case of Wikipedia), the implications of the Neutrality Tag are that:
 * the subject is in some way bizarre or improbable
 * the writer is some kind of nut.


 * And the writer has no redress against this. It's for this reason that I no longer consult or contribute to Wikipedia.  It's best left to Wikipedians - you know the sort of people I mean!

. . .LinguisticDemographer (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

South Pembrokeshire
I removed the "see also" reference to this because: It thus has no more relevance to the subject than, say, Preseli district. . . .LinguisticDemographer 21:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * it included only part of Little England
 * it also included part of the Welshry.


 * Disagree entirely, it includes much of the same area. --MacRusgail 11:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I would be inclined to put it into the article somewhere because people who are not familiar with the differences may have typed in one expecting to get the other. I am not, however, a big fan of "see also" and "trivia" (ugh!) sections, and would rather work relevant links into the article somewhere. The obvious place to me would be right at the top, changing "an area of southern Pembrokeshire and southwestern Carmarthenshire in Wales" to "an area of southern Pembrokeshire and southwestern Carmarthenshire in Wales." Without the italics, obviously. Would that be reasonable? Telsa (talk) 17:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. --MacRusgail 18:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it would not be reasonable. The statement above "it includes much of the same area" is incorrect (wrong tense), because "South Pembrokeshire" no longer exists: it was abolished when Pembrokeshire was re-established. The district of South Pembrokeshire was not Southern Pembrokeshire: it was just part of it. Please look at the map in South Pembrokeshire for confirmation of this. Half of the Pembrokeshire part of "Little England" was not in South Pembrokeshire district: it was in Preseli District. If there is a link to South Pembrokeshire, there should also be a link to Preseli. However, that would be absurd because: If it is really necessary to "work these in", then the text should read "an area consisting of the south-western part of the former district of South Pembrokeshire, the southern part of the former district of Preseli, and the southwestern part of the former district of Carmarthen". If, on the other hand, it is thought preferable to define it in terms of current local government areas, it should read "an area of southern Pembrokeshire and southwestern Carmarthenshire" which in fact is the current text. I realise that these facts are unpalateable, but they are what the map shows. If we could only remove the map, Wikipedians would be unrestricted in the defining Little England any way they prefer!! Another way to deal with this intractable problem would be to simply get rid of this offensive article by defining Welsh Wales as the area where Welsh is spoken by more than 2% of the population (see Scottish Gaelic): that way Little England would be part of Y Fro Gymraeg, as would several parts of Greater London. . . .LinguisticDemographer 02:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * both were temporary local government units that no longer exist
 * put together, they make up the whole of Pembrokeshire, both Welsh-speaking and English-speaking parts.

Recent work
I've tried to do a little recent work here. I was very surprised (and somewhat discouraged) that there was no mention of the Landsker Line in this article, and the mention of Little England in the Landsker article was much of the way down the page. Surely these subjects are intrinsically related, but evidently this crucial detail was swept aside during the neutrality flap that drove the primary contributor away two years ago. I suppose this is just a symptom of a disorder even good articles like this one can have - particularly when when more clamorous concerns demand attention, it is possible to overlook even vital material. It's regretable that the above issues couldn't be resolved to everyone's satisfaction, this interesting subject deserves a great article.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Little England today
The comment below was added to the article page by User:Kay2510 - I've moved it here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC) "* as a 'native' of Pembrokeshire, most despise the term 'little England' and refer to ourselves as South or north pembs. The south being predominantly English speaking and industrious and the north being more agricultural and welsh speaking. Some now feel that pembrokeshire should be promoted as a whole rather than highlighting the 'difference' made by the lansker line."

Original Research
Substantial parts of this article were written by me. I am a well known researcher in this field. I hereby assert that all those parts of the article that were written by me and are not provided with references are the results of my own original research. Wikipedia rules state that information that is the result of original research is prohibited, and where such information is unambiguously present in an article, it is the duty of every editor to remove it forthwith. LinguisticDemographer (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, let's get on sourcing it all properly then. This interesting subject deserves a great article, and you've done some excellent work here.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Size/area
I've just noticed that neither the map nor the article seem to mention exactly how large it is.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

OR Map
I have removed the map from this article for three reasons: 1) it is not referenced 2) it is clearly original research 3) the contributor actually states that it is original research Please do not reinstate this item until it can be shown to comply with Wikipedia rules on original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.223.193 (talk) 09:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I've replaced it with a map of the Landsker Line in 1901. That should be sufficient.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Sir Benfro Saesneg
'Most of the area is known in Welsh as Sir Benfro Saesneg, meaning "Saxon Pembrokeshire".'

Actually, this could equally be translated as "English Pembrokeshire". Saesneg refers to the English language.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Little England beyond Wales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081211154418/http://www.ggat.org.uk:80/cadw/historic_landscape/gower/english/Gower_Features.htm to http://www.ggat.org.uk/cadw/historic_landscape/gower/english/Gower_Features.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Culture
There is little so far in the article concerning culture other than language to justify the weight given to culture in the lead. What more could be added?SovalValtos (talk) 00:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Agreed, but looking through this entire talk page again, and reading Cultural relationship between the Welsh and the English, it is a can of worms. Before I moved here, I had heard the term "Little England beyond Wales" and understood it to mean Pembrokeshire, more or less. It is far, far more complex than that. Some inhabitants (in my experience, having lived here for nearly 15 years) of south Pembrokeshire consider the term disparaging, while others are happy with it. What is clear is that people who come from south Pembrokeshire consider themselves just as Welsh as anyone from any other part of Wales. I don't quite know where culture comes in. But to answer your question, there is plenty out there on culture in south Pembrokeshire (and the Gower, come to that), but finding a way to incorporate it into the article is likely to be difficult. Having said that, I think the term has little relevance today.  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  01:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Nit-picking
Hi,, I've done quite a bit of work on this article, but as I don't feel I "own" it, I'm not worried if an occasional editor wants to nit-pick. None of the incoming settlers spoke what we would recognise as English, anyway, so don't really explain why the area is English-speaking today. As it says in the lead, it's still an open question, probably, maybe, perhaps. Best wishes, Tony. Hope you're keeping well.  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  15:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC) All the best! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this advice. I do like your open question, probably, maybe, perhaps. I am well and hope you are gaining strength.