Talk:Wales/Archive 11

Map in Government section
Why is there a huge map of administrative areas which appears to be mostly in Welsh. It is hardly ideal for people on the English speaking wikipedia to have to search through the key to try and understand what an area is called. Is there no map that exists putting English first or in larger text? BritishWatcher (talk) 13:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Although the map is graphically very elegant and well designed, I personally think a smaller map using a more orthodox typeface would be clearer and preferable. I also think that an attitude of outright hostility to the Welsh language and culture is really not the best way to engage in a process of consensus-building here.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I don't think BW was being offensive there, it is an issue. On the subject of the map, it is inconsistent because the legend and the sidebar text give both names but the map itself only has the Welsh names. Probably a new map is needed. On the actual names themselves, I will incline to the view that local authority names are notable enough to have both names, maybe not at all times everywhere in the text, but some of the time. I don't know where the boundary of notability is exactly, but I doubt this applies to every organisation. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I will drop a note to the map-maker and ask if he can draw up a revised version with more prominent English placenames.--Pondle (talk) 17:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I got Pondle's note, thanks (I am the creator of the map). A brief read through of the discussion shows that there seem to be several opposing views on the subject of Welsh/English place names. I take the point about the font though and will make some changes to improve legibility. I don't agree with numbering map areas with a key as it prevents you from taking in the map as a whole as you are eternally referring to the key. In reference to the Welsh/English names issue, the map is fully consistent with the sidebar. Names are given in Welsh and English for each UA, town on both. What may be confusing some users is that there are certain areas (Ceredigion for example) for which the English name is officially now the same as the Welsh so only one is shown (I edited the map previously to remove a reference to Cardiganshire the old name for the county that covered roughly the same area). So, I will produce a new version of the map using a less graphical font so that both Welsh and English names can be distinguished more easily. XrysD (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for the explanation and help XyrsD. If the names on the map are the official ones in all languages, they need to stay. The sidebar is for explanatory purposes. I tend to agree the script is old-fashioned. :) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Changed map is uploaded with (hopefully) clearer fonts. I have also rationalised the way the names are presented so that now English appears over Welsh for both the UA and town names (now consistent with the sidebar). I have also adopted the convention used for some railway station signs of having the Welsh name (where different) in green. XrysD (talk) 22:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The lead...
Hi folks,

Haven't been around much, and certainly haven't read the Wales article for some time. It's looking good, but I think the lead needs some adjustment - only in terms of grammar and technicality rather than the spirit of its contents. For instance, we have:

However, I'd be more inclined to be a bit more choppy and drop some of the poor wording ("norm" and "recent" years, whatever that may mean):

I think we also need to change from:

...to...

...reason being that "city" is used twice in close succession; "largest" may mean by area (in which case it needs to be specified); "for a period" is ambiguous; "Caerdydd" is Welsh whereas this is the English language Wiki. --Jza84 | Talk  23:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to begin a new sentence after "The Welsh language is an important element of Welsh culture." rather than link with "although". The citation from the BBC says "Cardiff was once the world's biggest coal-exporting port, according to historian Brian Lee who said the Coal Exchange had cost £40,000 to build." Do you think it should mention "according to historian Brian Lee ... ", or find the direct reference? Daicaregos (talk) 08:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm just thinking that we need to explain it: do we mean biggest in size, biggest as in busiest, biggest by area, frontage, amount of ships, amount of cargo, biggest by workforce etc? The whole lead is good but just needs tightening up in terms of its wording in my view. --Jza84 | Talk  10:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I can throw some light on this. According to the Encyclopedia of Wales (pages 116-117), in 1907 Cardiff docks had total quayage of 11km, "one of the largest dock systems in the world". However, trade figures for the Port of Cardiff included Barry (which eclipsed Cardiff as a coal exporter in 1901) and Penarth - so "the role of Cardiff itself as a coal port can sometimes be inflated".--Pondle (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Id agree with those changes especially removing " are the norm throughout the land" bit, although i do still think the lead whilst it should rightly make clear the two languages have equal status, it also needs to make clear English is primarily used still, this must be the case when the following sentence goes on to state 20% of the population are fluent Welsh speakers. Legally English and Welsh are equal, but that is not the reality on the ground as far as im aware and at present that sentence does not make it clear. Infact it is rather odd for it to say Wales is officially a bilingual country and then point out less than 30% can speak one of the languages fluently. Oh and welcome back Jza84, hope you had a good break. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The "reality on the ground". :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont dispute that there are bilingual signs everywhere and that all children are now learning Welsh in school and that some parts of Wales use Welsh as the primary language rather than English. But we need to make it more clear than just saying they have equal status, which is true officially but not in reality when it comes to daily usage. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Lmao i just got the joke! very good BritishWatcher (talk) 10:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We do need to be careful about the words we use. It is true that more people speak English than Welsh, and we should make that clear; but the fact that the two languages have equal official status is important in itself, "in reality", for instance in terms of signs, the official names of places and organisations, legislation, and so forth.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We agree! =) BritishWatcher (talk) 11:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So something like.... "The Welsh language is an important element of Welsh culture. Although Welsh experienced a decline in the 20th century, a revival reinstated its popularity, to the point where fluent Welsh speakers were estimated in 2001? to be around 20% of the population, the remainder predominantly using English.".... If you read the present lead it jumps in with a very poorly worded statement about Welsh recentism and doesn't stress its importance why it's in the first paragraph. --Jza84 | Talk  12:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer: "The Welsh language is an important element of Welsh culture. Its use declined before the late 20th century but has recently increased. It is now spoken by 22% of the country's population, and as a first language by a majority in some areas; however, most residents of Wales speak English for all or part of the time."  I'm not happy with words like "revival", "popularity", or "the remainder predominantly using English".  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Fully support something along those lines which explains use. I presume that is to come after the proposed: "It has a population estimated at three million and is officially bilingual; the indigenous Welsh language and English have equal status, meaning bilingual signs for navigation are standard." Is the signs bit needed (i know its true, but its implied by saying its officially bilingual/having equal status and seems an odd explanation to have in the introductions first paragraph)? How about something like.. "It has a population estimated at three million and is officially bilingual with the indigenous Welsh language and English having equal status. The Welsh language is an important element of Welsh culture. Its use ......." BritishWatcher (talk) 12:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is very worrying. We agree again. :-0 Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * lol dont worry, we can still disagree on an issue further up this page. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We still have a "recently" in there - how recent? Last century, last decade, last year, last 5 minutes? It needs to be more precise. --Jza84 | Talk  14:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Would saying "recent years"? be ok? or recent decades? BritishWatcher (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The Welsh language article has figures showing an increasing proportion since 1991. I would have thought that "recently increased" is perfectly acceptable for the lede, with a more detailed explanation in the main text. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a guideline against the term, but having not been about for some time I forget its location. I'd say it's acceptable, but not perfectly acceptable, meaning it could be done better. --Jza84 | Talk  15:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "...increased over recent decades"....? This report says: "Caution must be exercised when comparing the results of the 2001 Census with those of the 1991 Census as such comparison is affected by three factors: Changes in definition..; Changes in the geographic base..; Adjustment for under-enumeration..".   We should be careful not to over-interpret the information that exists.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Are we not able to say "since the 1990s"? That's what evidence seems to suggest. I'm only here to make suggestions, but it does let the article down the fact that there are weaknesses in the lead. --Jza84 | Talk  21:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The Welsh Language Board has published this 'statistical balance sheet' which appears to show that more people speak the language than in the 1990s, but fewer do so fluently.--Pondle (talk) 22:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That study is an excellent find. The problem is, it doesn't give us a simple answer, and (surprisingly) there don't seem to have been any news items about its publication, summarising it or commenting on it, which would have helped.  My assessment of the figures is that the numbers and proportion "able to speak Welsh" have risen since the early 1990s, but the numbers speaking fluently, particularly of older people, have fallen, as have the numbers of entirely Welsh-speaking households.  At the same time, bilingual classes, Welsh language theatre performances and so forth seem to have increased.  As a first step, I'll check to see if that source is ref'd on the Welsh language page, add it there if not, and see if there are further comments here.  It may, in my view, be a neutral position that Welsh usage overall has stabilised in recent years, rather than either risen or fallen.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I've just been incredibly bold and enacted much, but not all of the matters raised above. I've done so on the basis that there seems to be a fair bit of acknowledgement that some of the wording could've been improved. I am conscious that leads for such huge and beloved articles are very close to people's hearts so I'm treading boldly but diligently.

The changes are illustrated in this diff. In addition to some (but not all - there are a few issues unresolved) of the matters above, I've altered some of the wording in respect of "many", "today", "recently" and "Welsh population" (Welsh people could be resident outside of Wales). Hopefully all is good, but please tweak away. --Jza84 | Talk  23:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I went on to remove the bit about the signs and added with / having, the sentence flows better like that in my opinion and see no need for the example of the signs, which is implied by having equal status. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I kind of understand that, but I think the following sentence ("the Welsh language is an important element of Welsh culture"), reads out of place as a bit of unscientific filler. Although I personally agree with the "truthfulness" of the statement, it may need tweaking/revisiting/removing as per consensus. --Jza84 | Talk  23:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * May be rearrange it so its at the end of the first paragraph. "'and remains an important element of Welsh culture'. after mentioning the decline / fluent speakers rather than the single sentence which does look a bit out of place. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that what is important is to set out the details and refs in the main body of text, and then summarise that in the introduction - see WP:LEADCITE, though I defer to Jza84's greater experience in GAs. I do think it's important to mention the cultural importance of the language in the lead - as well as, in the text of the article, making a ref to the road signing (see Road signs in Wales, a newish stubby article). I would oppose BW's use of the word "remains..." - that implies an unwarranted degree of surprise at the situation (perhaps it should be worded "English is still spoken in Wales in spite of devolution..."  ;-)  )   Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Given the role of the language in the history of modern Wales (The Welsh not, the bilingual road signs campaign, S4C arising from a campaign of civil disobedience, growth of Welsh language teaching in ares of Wales etc. etc.) its important that it is in both the main body and the lede. Its unique among the celtic nations in this respect.   I agree with Ghmyrtle that "remains" is unfortunate language).  While historically the language was simply a part of the ideation culture of Wales, in the modern day its preservation and the campaigns and activities around that have been a more explicit aspect of its identity.   Linked to this we have the dialectic between a nationalist, welsh speaking rural north and an industrial, socialist, internationalist south.  Something well reflected in the novels of Emyr Humphreys (and article crying out for some work by the way) as well as elsewhere.  I say dialectic, as in the modern age there has been a growing together of the nationalist and socialist traditions.  I need to hunt around for some sources on this -- Snowded  TALK  07:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well just "and is as important element of Welsh culture". I agree that it is very notable and needs to be in the introduction, i just think a single sentence on it in the current position looks a little odd, adding it to the other sentence, so the first paragraph ends with that flows better in my opinion. Just needs rearranging a little. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the way forward should be to ensure that the article sets out a full, balanced and referenced story, and the introduction should then summarise that. Changing the intro without making sure it complies with the main text (as often happens!) seems to me like putting the cart before the horse.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * When I came to the article, it struck me immediately that, unlike any other country article on the rest of WP, Wales jumps straight in about how one of its languages is spoken fluently by about 20% of its population. OK, Wales has some brilliant and unique qualities, but imagine: "France is a country in western Europe. French is an important element of French cultur. It is currently estimated that French is spoken by about X% of the French population."... It's a little odd. Clearly, consensus and past editting has converged to place the Welsh language in the first paragraph - if that is the case, then surely we should stress why? The alternative is to adjust its position. --Jza84 | Talk  10:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We need to have a balanced view, which takes into account the needs of a global readership. Some exposition is needed in the introduction, as readers coming to this article will not necessarily know whether everyone in Wales speaks Welsh, or whether everyone speaks English.  Unlike in, say, France, there is likely to be some uncertainty. The explanation of the history of the current situation can, in my view, come later in the article if it has the potential to become unduly weighty in the lead.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My view is just a nudge different - yes have a balanced view for global readership, but principally go with what other reputable sources do; ambiguous wording that is open to interpretation should be eliminated/minimised wherever possible, including the lead. I suppose I didn't make that entirely clear - that the lead in its present format is good, but typically Wikipedian in its unorthodoxy in promoting some facts without explaining their context. In that spirit I have the following extracts which may help us get a more clinical wording that I was thinking would advance the article:
 * Not sure if you good guys can extract anything of use? --Jza84 | Talk  15:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you good guys can extract anything of use? --Jza84 | Talk  15:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that the ONS quote contains one big ambiguity, in the use of the words "more widely used" - more than what, English, or use in the past? (I do know the answer, by the way.) How about: The last part, about being "an important part of Welsh culture", will need to be expanded with refs in the article text (as may other parts of the statement). Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I like it!--Pondle (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good yes. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Modern Wales
The section entitled 'Modern Wales' has very little to do with modern Wales, it only focuses on the rise of Modern Welsh nationalism. I agree that the flooding of the Tryweryn valley is of importance, but there is nothing of the World Wars, the Depression, the ruination of areas casused by the Beeching Axe, etc. FruitMonkey (talk) 07:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, it's very unbalanced. In the discussion section above I proposed a rewrite; we need to decide how we treat the whole history section - do we adopt a chronological narrative or focus on themes, e.g. industry, nationalism, etc etc.? Either way I think it should be much shorter. --Pondle (talk) 07:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it should be essentially chronological, summarising the key points in the History of Wales article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the Welsh Nationalism section is so large (and not really about Wales) that it warrants it's own article. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 07:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * See Welsh nationalism....? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And Welsh independence.--Pondle (talk) 08:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It does seem like overkill and some of it would be better placed in the two main articles mentioned above. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * At the moment, the history section is half as long (3,500 words) as the main History of Wales article (6,500 words) - probably is room for some trimming down. The nationalism section contains mostly notable elements, it and other sections probably just need some simplification. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, that section would be best not called "Modern Welsh nationalism" - to fit with the rest of the main history section, it would be Modern Wales, with a subsection on "Welsh nationalism" or similar. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Completely agree, find a better title. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Date formats
One of the first things that gets checked during a review is the date format of the citations. In past GA articles I have used dd-month-yyyy as the format (e.g. 6 September 2010). Although the majority are of the American standard (e.g. 2010-09-06), I feel as a British article we should use a British format. Any thoughts. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the British way is also so much clearer rather than a horrible bunch of numbers all jumbled together. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I expected nothing less BW, but it is appreciated none the less. But we are using several formats at the moment which is of course unacceptable. Which ever format is decided upon, I will change the cites to the agreed format. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As a fan of the YYYY-MM-DD system, I feel obliged to point out that it's not American - they use that 'orrible MMM DD, YYYY system. YYYY-MM-DD is an ISO format, typically used to keep machines (and masochists like me) happy. That said, you should probably use DD MMM YYYY everywhere, even in the odd places (like accessdate) that only machines look (humans still look occasionally, and may need to change dates etc). TFOWR 22:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the mistake, but now it is nameless I can really state how much I dislike it. Again, what is the preferred format? FruitMonkey (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh! You're wrong, it's great ;-) Seriously, though, I'd recommend sticking to UK dates ("6 September 2010"): I'm not aware of any reason why we'd need to use ISO dates (or any other date format). TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 22:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this just about possible Bot uses TFOWR, or are there live bots that use accessdate? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I was actually thinking less about bots, and more about the mediawiki software - I think there used to be an idea that we should use ISO dates for, e.g., accessdates because then the server software could render the date easily into whatever format the reader wanted (American readers would get September 6, 2010; Commonwealth readers would get 6 September 2010, etc). That's been deprecated, and we all get whatever date the page uses. But I guess bots should be smart enough to work out what's going on. I'm sure there's a template somewhere that says "use this date format" or similar, maybe bots use that? <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 22:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to come late to the party. One of my article reviews recommended the 6 September 2010 format (using a non-breaking space between the number and the month), rather than using DDMMYYYY (or variations thereof). It is completely unambiguous and I have used it ever since. Daicaregos (talk) 13:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd second that - DD MM YYYY and MM DD YYYY are both evil. 1 2 2010 - 1st of February or 2nd of January? Who knows! Spell out the month and the Atlantic language barrier disappears (well, as far as dates are concerned. "Pop" is always going to be the noise my colour television makes, not some paternal figure...) <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 13:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought pop came in a bottle! We live and learn! -- Derek Ross | Talk'' 04:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Colonisation
Not sure that "colonisation" is the right title for the Roman >> onwards section. Most debate amongst professional archaeologists and historians these days focuses on continuity of populations and culture - I suppose the title refers to incoming Roman, Anglo-Saxon and Normans, but maybe a better title would be "Roman and Early Medieval" or something. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. We could also improve language like "The Romans were ... busy ..." (!)  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well spotted, yes, I've modified that. One had a picture of lots of little Romans frantically keeping themselves busy in and around Gwynedd. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

If nobody objects then, I will change the titles discussed here and in the related section above with Modern Wales and Roman and Early Medieval. Let's do that tomorrow if no further points at issue. Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Good thinking Guiltlessgecko (talk) 03:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

20th Century Wales
As mentioned before the review, the section 20th century Wales has historically only mentioned Welsh nationalism, which to be honest is a far too big a slant on the history of the country. I am presently expanding the section to include the economic switch around of Wales plus the countries involvement in the two World Wars. Would anyone have any objections to replacing the Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg logo with the Welsh Dragon Memorial Mametz Wood picture? The Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg logo is non free use, while the Mametz Woods memorial is. I also feel it would balance the chapter to have a picture not relating to the rise of the Welsh langauage. And a final point is that I am really proud of that monument. FruitMonkey (talk) 12:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I like what you've done so far. There's some interesting stuff in all that GA review material as well, but no mention of Wales' most important 20th Century politician, Lloyd George and not much about the pivotal role of South Wales in the union and labour histories. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There are some strange balances in this article. The Music and Art section name drop important figures all the time, but then like you say, where is Lloyd George, or Aneurin Bevan. Who do people outside Wales expect to find when they open a Welsh article? Dylan Thomas, Richard Burton, John Charles, John Dee or Michael Sheen? The England article sells Shakespeare, Churchill and Newton. I suppose the Welsh article can do the same. FruitMonkey (talk) 13:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, also the nationalist material is too lengthy compared to other issues, unduly raising its relative notability and needs to be reduced in this main Wales article. A good example of a sentence in it that could come out altogether is this one: "In 1966 the Carmarthen Parliamentary seat was won by Gwynfor Evans at a by-election, Plaid Cymru's first Parliamentary seat.[72] In the following year the Wales and Berwick Act 1746 was repealed and a legal definition of Wales, and of the boundary with England, was stated." Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I've shifted some of the political talk out of History and into politics. I have then added a big chunk to the Modern History regarding the political landscape of Wales. By flicking through the article I had noticed that there is much about the recent Welsh Assembly, but there was no mention that for the greater part of the 20th century Wales has been a red Labour landscape, with many areas being a 'stick a red rosette on a donkey' seats. Hopefully that is now addressed. I'll start adding cites soon.FruitMonkey (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Rugby competitions
I've just updated the Anglo-Welsh Cup sponsor's name (from EDF Energy to LV Cup) and it occurred to me that only rugby followers would know what it meant. There is a case for calling the competitions by their original names and referring to the sponsor name too - perhaps something like ".. the Anglo-Welsh Cup competition (LV Cup) ...". Thoughts? Daicaregos (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Its been discussed before on Rugby sites - controversy over Celtic League v Magners League. Determination is by common use I think, so Anglo-Welsh better here, but Magners for the main one -- Snowded  TALK  16:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Roman and "post-Roman"
I wasn't sure about "post-Roman" as a replacement section title, but I am pretty sure we don't need a large text about Macsen Wledig's prophecy and Magnus Maximus filling out the whole section - it's mostly mythical apart from (one sentence?) in Gildas. There is lots of better material about Roman Britain and Roman Wales we could use. Is there any chance of it being discussed? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that those sections need a considerable improvement. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and I'll be happy to help out when the real world allows me some time. Not "huffing and puffing". Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Introduction, second paragraph
It says: "In the 13th century, the defeat of Llewelyn by Edward I completed the Anglo-Norman conquest of Wales and brought about centuries of English occupation. Wales was subsequently incorporated into England...." Are the words "and brought about centuries of English occupation" really necessary or helpful? I'm not sure what they are supposed to mean, in that context. Clearly the English monarchy sought to control Wales, and English people settled parts of it (such as the Gwent levels), but is that clause supposed to reflect that, or make a longer-term point about English settlement more generally, or political control, increased use of the English language, etc. as might be implied by the word "occupation"? The words seem to me to be unnecessary in that paragraph, and reading the History section (which the Introduction is supposed to summarise) doesn't really clarify it for me. Can those seven words simply be deleted? Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The last few days I've been going at the article like a blind surgeon with a meat cleaver; I don't think losing seven words will cause any more harm. But 'occupation' is a very touchy word and is probably unhelpful. The initial 'conquests' were peasemeal and the main invaders were probably the Normans rather than 'English'. And like you say 'occupation' conjures up thoughts of standing troops rather than the actual top down control, mainly held by ancient Welsh families. Get rid. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

History section
We've discussed the inadequacies of the history section before, but it's more pressing now that we're going for GA. The coverage here is pretty idiosyncratic: most of Welsh social and political history gets short shrift. We have a lot on 18th & 19th century economic history, and a very detailed section on the rise of nationalism in the 20th century. But there's nothing at all on cultural or demographic changes, or even Welsh politics before the foundation of Plaid Cymru. I think we need a radical re-write. Any thoughts?--Pondle (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There do seem to be several notable absences from the history section, most importantly, the important labour/trade union history of 19th and 20th century, the coal strikes, etc. Currently also no mention for example of Tonypandy which is surprising. Strangely absent also is David Lloyd George (apart from one mention - he introduced the love of daffodils!). I would also have put in some more recent things such as the Aberfan disaster (absent) and more than just an undabbed mention of the investiture in the nationalism section. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I notice that in the history section there is no mention of the Welsh Marches which played an important role in medieval Welsh history. A paragraph or two should be added to remedy this lack. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite right. It should be noted. Though sadly, a sentence or two is all that could be devoted to it, rather than a paragraph or two. Daicaregos (talk) 14:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actioned, hopefully to an acceptable level. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Won't be needing this then: "Within four years of the Battle of Hastings England had been completely subjugated by the Normans. William the Bastard established a series of lordships, allocated to his most powerful warriors along the Welsh border, the boundaries fixed only to the east. This frontier region, and any English-held lordships in Wales, became known as Marchia Wallie, the Welsh Marches, in which the Marcher lords were subject to neither English nor Welsh law. The area of the March varied as the fortunes of the Marcher Lords and the Welsh princes ebbed and flowed. The March of Wales, which existed for over 450 years, was abolished under the Acts of Union in 1536. ". Oh well, Daicaregos (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yours is better. Replace it with your research. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It is up for discussion. Any disagreement/amendments anyone? Daicaregos (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think your version sufficiently covers Welsh Marcher history, Daicaregos. Any reader seeking more details on the subject can link to the Welsh Marches article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. Please feel free to make any improvements. Daicaregos (talk) 10:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I made just one change. Bastard sounded too perjorative, and he's probably better known to history as The Conqueror.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess history is written by the winners. He'll always be William the Bastard to me. Daicaregos (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the Saxons treated the Welsh no better. Look at what King Harold II of England did to this girl's husband. Killed Gruffydd then forced her to marry him!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Royal Badge of Wales
Why isn't the royal badge of Wales featured next to the Welsh flag at the beginning of this article? It used to be, and I think it should be again. It was approved in May 2008 and is used on all Welsh Assembly Government measures. Therefore how is it different to any other coat of arms, seal or badge used in articles on other countries and regions. In the article for England the English royal banner is featured next to its national flag. I am a Welshman who has lived in England all my life and I have never once seen that banner flown. I do not know if that banner has any official status in modern England and I suspect it does not, it is merely cultural. If that banner is featured on the England article then why isn't the Royal Badge of Wales featured on the Wales article? Especially as it is common for the badge or coat of arms to be displayed next to the national or regional flag in Wikipedia articles on nations and regions. I'm sure there is probably some reason why it was taken away but could someone explain to be why it was and why it shouldn't be restored. Because I think it should. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterCheifz (talk • contribs) 22:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The subject has been discussed before. Most recently here, but also here, here and here. There is no consensus for which standard to show, if any, that represents Wales. Daicaregos (talk) 07:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Image for Climate subsection
Any opinions as to whether or not this image would be appropriate for this article (at Wales): Daicaregos (talk) 10:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say not - it shows weather rather than climate, over a much wider area, and extreme weather at that. I'll see what else I can find.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A couple of possibles from Geograph here or here. "Climate" is not easy to illustrate photographically, but these are certainly pertinent (and pretty).  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Take your point about climate v weather. Problem with showing extreme weather is that unless you see a before and after (or during) shots, you can't tell it is extreme. I prefer the second image, and Aberystwyth is mentioned in the text - as the latitudinal mid point. I suppose any 'normal', or everyday, outdoor image would be an illustration of Wales' climate. Rather than an extreme weather shot. Daicaregos (talk) 10:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The flooding would illustrate the wetness factor! Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If it were wet all the time, there would be no floods! Daicaregos (talk) 10:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Changes to explanation of principality in the Lead
Firstly, the statement “although this has no modern geographical or constitutional basis.” was placed in the lead as a direct response to a 'drive-by Tagging', as discussed here and, therefore, has consensus. Secondly, the citation quotes the Counsel General for Wales saying “in relation to Wales, Principality is a misnomer”. We chose to use our own words to sum this up, followed by a direct quote placed in the reference section, which adequately conveys the meaning and explains the reason for it. That the Principality of Wales is not the same size or shape of the modern country does not need a direct citation, and neither does the fact that no prince has a constitutional involvement in the country, per WP:BLUE. And thirdly, you must have realised the changes you made would be controversial. Please explain why you chose not to discuss them on the Talk page first. Daicaregos (talk) 08:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Use of references in lead

This edit was reverted with the request to bring it to the talk page.

The essential issue I see is that the following statement is not supported by the given reference: "...although this has no modern geographical or constitutional basis."

The reference appears instead to indicate a debate around the use of the term (specifically with the UK central govt. using it in a UN report and a Welsh Assembly member raising a concern over it). "Some politicians would say there’s nothing wrong with the term", the reference says, "Others recoil in horror". Fair enough. But that is a long way off from supporting the statement that the term "has no modern geographical or constitutional basis".

The first part (no modern geographical basis) would also appear to be at odds with references given immediately before (Reader's Digest:1999, Oxford Illustrated Dictionary:1976), which describes Wales as a "principality" in modern times. (Not the mention the submission to the UN, which gives "principality" in the definition section.)

There is also the relatively trivial use of the definitive article (the), where the supporting references use no article or the indefinite article (a). --RA (talk) 09:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Not sure what's happened to your post RA, but when you repair it would you mind looking at the previous section which refers to the same point. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 09:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppsie! Fixed now.
 * I didn't spot your post above, Dai. I've combined the two sections now.
 * It's the, "We chose to use our own words to sum this up", that's the problem. Those words aren't supported by the reference. They are an original interpretation. At best, they sum up one view given in the source (and appear to be at odds with other sources).
 * Yes, I appreciate that this is a prickly issue for some. However, that doesn't provide a license for OR or to avoid WP:V or NPOV. --RA (talk) 10:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't know if this would merit a mention, but the Guardian newspaper's Style Guide notes:
 * principality
 * do not use to describe Wales
 * --Rhyswynne (talk) 10:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

This site, run by WAG, seems to offer an appropriate reference. It says: "Wales is not a Principality. Although we are joined with England by land, and we are part of Great Britain, Wales is a country in it's own right.

We have a long history that goes from the old welsh kingdoms and the middle ages. We have had a 'Prince of Wales' from 1301, when Edward I created the title. The title is given to the eldest son of each English monarch.

Our Prince of Wales at the moment is Prince Charles, who is the present heir to the throne. But he does not have a role in the governance of Wales, even though his title might suggest that he does.

On 18 September 1997, we voted in favour of devolution in Wales. Before that, we were run entirely by the UK government in London. We were then given the powers we need to make secondary laws that affect us by an act called the Government of Wales Act 1998.

In 2006, we expanded on this act and have gained more powers for our country with the Government of Wales Act 2006. Our government's document 'One Wales' refers to us as a country or nation in it's own right." Apostrophes and capitals, sadly, sic.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The point was covered above: That the Principality of Wales is not the same size or shape of the modern country is not original research and does not need a direct citation, and neither does the fact that no prince has a constitutional involvement in the country, per WP:BLUE. Further, articles are not meant to be direct copies of other people's work. We are supposed to use our own words, per WP:C. The quote from the cited reference ("Some politicians would say there’s nothing wrong with the term", the reference says, "Others recoil in horror") seems to be the journalist's attempt at a humourous introduction to the subject, which culminates in the Counsel General for Wales saying “I agree that, in relation to Wales, principality is a misnomer and that Wales should properly be referred to as a country.” The direct quote is in the reference section. If the reference from WAG is added as a citation (excluding ”it's” and capitals), would you accept the wording that principality "... has no modern geographical or constitutional basis" ? Daicaregos (talk) 11:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course there's no constitutional basis at this time. People do use that term, but it's just that - a term. There's a guy who has the title of "Prince of Wales", but he has no role in the government of Wales or the UK. The Principality hasn't existed in a real way since the Laws in Wales Acts, by which time the March and all other parts of Wales were merged with the Principality and thence into the English legal system. I found this from John Cannon's A Dictionary of British History, published by Oxford, which may be useful here. I don't think we need to say "geographical... basis"; none of the borders are the same as they were seven hundred years ago.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Stepping back
OK, this has disappeared down the hole of "Wales is a pricipality" vs. "Wales is not a principality". That is not the issue that I am raising.

The issue I am raising is that the reference cited does not support the statement appearing in the text. The current ref and the ref given above by Ghmyrtle support a statement to the effect that the Welsh Assembly Government reject the term, which would be important to say IMO. It would also be much more powerful statement than the one currently appearing IMO.

Clearly the term is used, as the Readers Digest and Oxford refs (and the infamous UN ref) support. Outlining the "controversy" around the subject is important; but over statements of fact don't do justice to any subject. Often more mundane statements are more powerful and more convincing statements of fact.

(About WP:BLUE - come now, we all know WP:V is policy.) --RA (talk) 12:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the WAG reference does match the issue. Its sensible to note that Wales is sometimes referred to as a Principality, but it needs to be clear that this has no particular significance, is an anachronistic reference supported by some common use.  -- Snowded  TALK  12:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Snowded - the term has no constitutional meaning but is occasionally used to describe the whole of Wales. On that theme, there was once a local government body called "the Council of the Principality" - I think it was some kind of forerunner of the Welsh Local Government Association, but I can only find two internet references to it.--Pondle (talk) 14:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps RA could come up with a possible wording. I take the point that there's no need to retain the reference to "geographical", but stating that it has no "modern constitutional basis" seems to me to be an assessment supported by the refs.  I think RA is wrong to suggest that there is any "controversy" about this - it's just a question of agreeing the most succinct form of words.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

How about:

Wales is sometimes described as a principality,123 however the term is rejected as inaccurate by the Welsh Assembly Government, who say the correct terms are country or nation.45



--RA (talk) 18:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we could be a little bit simpler, using the same references as before why not "Wales is sometimes described as a "principality",[12][13] although this has no constitutional basis.[14]" -- Snowded  TALK  18:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem with that in principle, it just takes us back to the original problem of referencing: where do ref say anything about a "constitutional basis"? WRT to other terms used (e.g. country or nation), what constitutional basis do they have? --RA (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Setting aside the referencing question, might the latter part of the sentence not read better "although this has no modern constitutional basis." Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And on the refs front, John G Edwards seems clear it ended in 1967 - "The principality of Wales:1267 - 1967; a study in constitutional history", 1969. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Or is the 1967 reference just so he could bring a book out on the centenary, and it was thus a 700 year study, as it was published in 1969. FruitMonkey (talk) 19:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there's a blurring in this discussion of the ("actual") Principality of Wales (as a separate jurisdiction) and simply the use of the term principality to refer to Wales (regardless of its "legal" status). The legal status of Wales as (or actually, not as) a principality is something that might deserve clearing up. As the Wales.com ref supports, the Prince of Wales has no role in the governance of Wales. However, regardless of this, the term is (for good or for bad) still habit owing to a sense of identity that was more profound than the legal separateness of Wales from England. Example:
 * "Wales, principality of: The term refers to the territorial dominion of the last Welsh princes of Wales; the estate granted to English princes of Wales after 1301; and the entire land of Wales following the Act of Union (1536). … The concept of the principality of Wales within the United Kingdom survived because of the distinctive culture, language, and sense of identity of the Welsh. Although in modern times prior to the 20th cent. princes of Wales visited their principality rarely, both prince and principality were a focus of Welsh sentiment."
 * 1967 (I presume) refers to the year when England and Wales came into being (as opposed to simply England, as it was before then). --RA (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD should be both an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. Just want to point out that this subject is not discussed in the body of the text, where it should be introduced in a little more depth. But the lead (as it is currently) should stand as a summary. Any views as to which section should contain it? Daicaregos (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally I would bring this up in the history section. Mention the term Principality during the expansionist attempts of the princes of Gwynedd, and then a mention linked to Edward II. But if I'm not mistaken the Marches and the Principality were two separate geographical bodies, that only came together after the Act of Union. Which when the term Marches was jettisoned, Wales by default became known as the Principality. So all mention of it maybe should be noted in Medieval Wales. If we wanted to then mention the defunct usage of the title, it could be added at the end of Modern Wales and then a brief mention that Prince Charles is the incumbent Prince, as I think having an article on Wales without mention him, even if you are not a lover of the royals; is a bit of a disservice. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added information to the article's body text (here), in Medieval Wales and Modern Wales, as suggested. I also moved the references to principality and prince of Wales that were in the intro, to the body text, where relevant. No refs have been lost (or changed), just moved. Any comments/suggestions are welcome. Daicaregos (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Wales reassessment
After all the changes to this article since the last GA Review I presently see this as a very good article. Please could anyone with any complaints regarding the article please inform this article so we can address the issues before they are picked up by the GA. Thanks 01:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 90.195.216.91, 7 November 2010
Technically Wales is not a country, but a principality of the United Kingdom The same goes for England, Scotland and North Ireland

90.195.216.91 (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether England, Scotland and North Ireland [sic] are principalities is a matter for those pages. That Wales is not a principality is dealt with on the article page, which I suggest you read. Daicaregos (talk) 15:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau
A sound file of an 1899 recording of Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau has been added to the infobox. My feeling is that the recording, while of academic interest, is of poor quality. It is perfectly suitable for the article on the national anthem itself, but is not representative of the anthem in the modern country. Any thoughts? Daicaregos (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds pretty awful to my ears. The recording, not the anthem. I don't think it belongs on this article. Jack forbes (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Although I believe the article would gain from having a recording of the anthem, I think this one is a misrepresentation due to the low quality. FruitMonkey (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Visual arts
In the Visual arts section we have the sentence, "But in the 18th century, the growing popularity of landscape art allowed them to stay home". Is there a reference for this somewhere in the article, and if so, do we have an example of a Welsh painter who did stay at home? Jack forbes (talk) 20:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyone is, of course, welcome to make improvements to the article. Nevertheless, I have made amendments which I hope will clarify the paragraph (well it's my home). Daicaregos (talk) 08:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops. I hadn't realised that you had already made several edits to the section. My apologies. Daicaregos (talk) 11:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I did think it was a strange post at the time. Apology accepted of course. Jack forbes (talk) 11:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Welsh not
I have removed the 'Welsh not' from the education system as it has been given a completely unfair slant. Hardly 5% of schools used it, it was never used in state schools and in private schooling the parents were informed of the Welsh not before sending their children to the schools. By mentioning it without these statements makes it seem as if there was a systematic punishment of using Welsh in schools which never happened. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you must include those statements, and reference them. The three sentences noting the practice were accompanied by a RS reference. If you dispute that reference you must take it to the RS/N. The 'Welsh Not' happened. The Welsh Academi Encyclopaedia note that "Welsh patriots view the Welsh Not(e) as an instrument of cultural genocide ...". It is an important aspect of Wales' history and culture and should be mentioned on this article. I will revert the edit removing adequately referenced and important information. Daicaregos (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This has come up before (though I can't remember where}.  John Davies' A History of Wales (ISBN 0-140-28475-3, p.443) says: "To a certain extent, Welsh had been employed in the elementary schools before 1889; it is unlikely that the use of the 'Welsh Note' was as widespread as later mythology maintains."  That is corroborated by this BBC Wales page: "There is strong evidence of the Welsh Not in Carmarthen, Cardigan and Meirionnydd before 1870, but it was never official government policy. A number of school organisations used it, from the national schools of the Anglicans to the British schools of the nonconformists, but attendance at these schools was voluntary and if a headmaster had a Welsh Not policy it was with the approval of the parents."    Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have placed one reference, plus once I can get to a library I can cite some more. The Welsh not has been blown out of proportion. The Welsh Encyclopedia does state that "Welsh patriots view the Welsh Not(e) as an instrument of cultural genocide" but it does not state who or how many. If we state "Welsh patriots view..." Wikipedia would ask "Who", but the same article also follows up by stating that the best known recorded experience of the Welsh not by O M Edwards is counter-argued as the "subject to a modicum of mythology". We must be ultra careful of anything used as propoganda, the Welsh not is one of them. Welsh in the industrial heartlands of the valleys and Merthyr faded not because of the Welsh not or the incoming English immigrants, but the expanision of transport links and the availability of new media. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting opinion. Do you have any evidence to support you contention that the expansion of transport links and the availability of new media was the cause of the Welsh language's demise? If so, it should be included in the article (I assume it isn't, as I don't recall seeing it), it would certainly be of interest. You appear to assume that I want to include the Welsh Encyclopedia's statement that "Welsh patriots view the Welsh Not(e) as an instrument of cultural genocide". You are mistaken. I didn't say so and, had I wanted to include it, I would have. Nevertheless, your view that the Welsh Not has been blown out of proportion does not disguise the fact that it is not just propaganda; it happened. Qualifying it by an unreferenced negative statement ("There is no evidence that the intermediate schools, in which instruction was almost universally in English, made use of the "not".") is downplaying it to give a specific POV. Please consider whether another sentence should be added: "There is no evidence that the intermediate schools, in which instruction was almost universally in English, didn't make use of the "not".". Or perhaps, neither should be in the article. Daicaregos (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The Welsh 'Not' info in the article was "To ensure Welsh children spoke English at school, the Welsh Not was used; a policy seen as a hated symbol of English oppression. The "not", a piece of wood hung round the neck by string, was given to any child overheard speaking Welsh, who would pass it to a different child if overheard speaking Welsh. At the end of the day, the wearer of the "not" would be beaten." No part of that statement is unsupported by the reference. No part of that statement is POVy:


 * to ensure Welsh children spoke English at school, the Welsh Not was used.
 * the policy is/was seen as a hated symbol of English oppression.
 * the "not" was a piece of wood hung round the neck by string.
 * it was given to any child overheard speaking Welsh.
 * it was passed it to a different child if overheard speaking Welsh.
 * At the end of the day, the wearer of the "not" would be beaten.
 * Please advise exactly what it is you dispute, or which part you consider to be unreferenced. Daicaregos (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That it was used as a blanket tool in Welsh education, and that the English langage was hated. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It says neither of those things. Please read it again. Daicaregos (talk) 23:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

How about:"In some schools, to ensure Welsh children spoke English, the Welsh Not was used; a policy seen as a hated symbol of English oppression. The 'not', a piece of wood hung round the neck by string, was given to any child overheard speaking Welsh, who would pass it to a different child if overheard speaking Welsh, and at the end of the day the wearer of the 'not' would be beaten. However, after the school boards were absorbed by the county councils following the Local Government Act 1888, instruction in Welsh in elementary schools became the norm in Welsh-speaking areas..." There is no need to make too much of this in this article - linked articles cover it in more detail. The tag would be filled by the Encyclopedia ref details. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The sentence is supported by the BBC reference. Daicaregos (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Suggestion There is an article on the Welsh not already. That would seem to be the correct place for any detailed discussion of the subject. I think, if I were trying to demonstrate article stability and neutral point of view (for whatever reason), I would simply mention the practice, mention that it fueled nationalist feeling (as it appears to have) but that the extent of the practice is difficult to determine. And leave it at that.

This would seem to be a suitable reference:

Catfish Jim  &#38; the soapdish  10:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally I would be happy with "in some schools" so we are explicit in stating that this practice was not country wide. Though I still have a knot in my stomach (no pun intended) over the English oppression statement. As far as I have researched there is no evidence that this was a British government edict from Whitehall, but a localised practice engaged by certain schools. Though even if this was the case (An anti-Welsh language tool used by the Welsh schools against the children of Wales) it could still be seen as a symbol of English oppression, and I have no referenced works to hand that state this was not how the Welsh not was perceived. FruitMonkey (talk) 19:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Good suggestions. Would there be any objections to: "In some schools, to ensure Welsh children spoke English at school, the Welsh Not was used; a policy seen as a hated symbol of English oppression. The "not", a piece of wood hung round the neck by string, was given to any child overheard speaking Welsh, who would pass it to a different child if overheard speaking Welsh. At the end of the day, the wearer of the "not" would be beaten. The extent of its practice, however, is difficult to determine. " Daicaregos (talk) 20:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "Beaten" is a little emotive and is stretching the neutrality a little, given that the BBC reference simply states that the wearer was "punished". Catfish Jim   &#38; the soapdish  20:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I hadn't spotted that. (I'd be no good as a reviewer.) "Punished" is better.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The word can be referenced if necessary: here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Daicaregos (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Point taken... I would use one or two of those at most, and would tend to avoid opinion pieces by politicians. Catfish Jim   &#38; the soapdish  21:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Changes made. Thank you all. Daicaregos (talk) 22:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

History of legislation in Wales
Having just discovered this source, I wonder whether a summary of legislative provision for Wales should be included in this article - particularly covering the section headed "Administrative / biographical background". Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If it can be done concisely, in a sentence or two then I don't see a problem; but considering our position on the cusp of GA status I would personally make as few changes as possible (IMO). The pre-1965 departments can be covered in their relevant sections (Education, Health, etc.) but the creation of the Welsh Office could be mentioned under Government and politics. The information would be very relevant to the Politics in Wales article which does not cover several of the major points brought up in the reference you have found. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair point - I've been trying not to interrupt the process so far, though I'll suggest one or two tweaks to the intro tomorrow. I'll look at the Politics article as well.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ghmyrtle, your input in the lead would be gratefully received. More voices will aid the article at this important point. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been hoping for input from interested editors. It seems unlikely to me that only FruitMonkey and myself would have been able to cover everything relevant. We've been looking at this for weeks now, and are bound to be too close. Sometimes it takes a fresh pair of eyes. Also, with more editors having input in the final version, the more likely it is that the article will remain stable. I look forward to your comments. Daicaregos (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Welsh variants of non governmental bodies
Not wishing to upset the effort being put in to raise Wales to GA status, I wondered whether there was space for a mention of the various Quangos that are particularly Welsh contrasted with those that are UK wide but have a presence here. I had in mind CCW and Environment Agency Wales as examples. The former gets a passing mention but their existence as Welsh entities is one of the many indicators of the degree of organisational and political autonomy in Wales.  Velella  Velella Talk 23:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is already a large article. Mentioning something in passing is probably as good as it gets. When you consider the massively important articles that are missing, many very personal to me, such as Tonypandy Riots, Aneurin Bevan and Aberfan disaster, you must make a decision of where to stop. And these are not major factors in autonomy, and may take longer to explain than their mention requires, we must ensure that recent history does not overpower the article. I believe these issues should be addressed in the Politics of Wales article which is already linked in the article. FruitMonkey (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Lead section
I don't have any problems with the content, but have three questions. Firstly, should we - or do we need to - have references in the lead section? I thought they were discouraged. Secondly, although the language issue is clearly important, I question whether it is sufficiently central for the last three short sentences to be needed in the very first paragraph. Should they be moved, either to a new para in the lead section, or to one of the other paras? Or... Thirdly, is the para about the "principality" really needed in this section at all? I know it's a frequently asked question by people who don't know the history or administrative arrangements, but mentioning it in the lead section seems to me to give it undue weight and be almost a tad defensive, when the lead should be describing Wales as a real place, not dealing with relative minutiae over the historical background or royal connections. Just a thought (or three). Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think we should listen to the reviewer and follow the advice given. The lead reflects the article. Four paragraphs is probably fine. Though I feel they should be split into


 * Opener: what is it, where is it and geographic facts.
 * Brief history: in a nutshell from Celtic nation, Roman withdrawl, Celtic Briton, Glyndwr, Act of Wales, industrialisation, Assembly.
 * Demographic facts: including in this part the language.
 * Culture: Distinct differences from rest of Britain.


 * The references in the lede argument appears to be give and take. There is discouragement towards them but it doesn't impact GA status. If someone wants to move them (rather than delete them) then I see no issue. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It was noted in the GA review (above) that the lead should be an "... introduction and overview of the main article, summarising its most important aspects.". It will fail GA as it stands. A suggested rewrite is here: User:Daicaregos/sandbox . Any suggestions, amendments or improvements would be welcome. Daicaregos (talk) 09:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No problems from me. It's a big improvement. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it's an improvement, but I'd also like to see a more open (easier-to-read) intro which might be achieved by reducing the barriers posed by undue emphasis on language (compare Canada and New Zealand, both good articles about bilingual countries), and the stats of geography and climate. Remember, most readers by far are non-Welsh (even non-UK)!! Can most of the stats be moved to the infobox? and can we have a good version of Hen wlad fy nhadau in the infobox like they've done for Ukraine? Daicaregos, you've done well, and it's far from easy, but I will try to come back with a constructive alternative draft. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 06:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We need to be careful about comparing one article to another. Concessions have already been made and the language section reduced and lowered in importance in position in the lead. New Zealand has a different issue regarding language as Maori is spoken by about 5% of the population and as far as I am aware is not a central part of the education system. Welsh is presently given the same weighting in Primary education as English, Maths and Science, and in Secondary education it is compulsory until 16. In Canada neither English nor French are indigenous languages. We must take each article as it comes, and the issue regarding Welsh in the lead is normally argued over internally in the Project, the reviewers don't appear to have a problem with its prominence. FruitMonkey (talk) 07:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Points taken. OK, I'll leave well alone. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 14:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with Dai's draft - and congratulations to all those who have but the work in -- Snowded TALK  09:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, on behalf of us all. The introduction has now been replaced. It is a major re-write. Editor input would still be welcome. For example, would anyone else prefer the 'stats' (or some of them) to be removed from the Lead, or should they stay? Daicaregos (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think, to be honest, it would be stronger without the numbers. Catfish Jim   &#38; the soapdish  21:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I am late to this, and its overall an improvement. However I think the stats are excessive and I would remove "and the island of Great Britain",  it adds nothing -- Snowded  TALK  12:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. The Lead para without the stats could look like this:

Wales ... is a country that is part of the United Kingdom and the island of Great Britain, bordered by England to its east and the Atlantic Ocean and Irish Sea to its west. Generally mountainous, the highest are in the north and central areas, especially in Snowdonia (Eryri), which contains Snowdon (Yr Wyddfa); Wales' highest peak. Its offshore islands include Anglesey (Ynys Môn); the largest island in the Irish Sea.


 * An improvement? I understand from Ghmyrtle that he wanted "... the island of Great Britain." in the Lead becasue "The first para is what is shown in pop-ups". He says he will be offline for a few days. Do you want to wait to discuss it with him on his return? Daicaregos (talk) 13:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't see any reason in the prior discussion (aside from some indirect conversation about Snowdon) but I'm happy to wait G's return -- Snowded TALK  13:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It was discussed at User talk:Daicaregos/sandbox, while we were knocking the Intro together. Shall we amend the Lead now, to the one just above? Or do you want to suggest any improvements? The mountains sentence could be "It is generally mountainous, the highest in the north and central areas, especially in Snowdonia (Eryri), which contains Snowdon (Yr Wyddfa); Wales' highest peak." for example. Daicaregos (talk) 13:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree with Snowded's point about GB. It seems to me to be a basic necessity to mention, in the opening paragraph, the island on which Wales is located.  It can't be assumed that readers will know that the full name of the UK includes the name of the island.  As a comparable example, you wouldn't start off an article on Sarawak mentioning Malaysia, but not Borneo.  Re the stats, could there be a compromise which sets out the area and the length of coastline - both of which, but particularly the area, are core to understanding the country - but not the length and breadth (which are less important than giving the total area), and not the information about Snowdon?
 * Another thought - why does the lead not mention the total population anywhere - which I think is important, especially given that the number of Welsh speakers and the populations of the cities are stated.
 * So:"Wales... is a country that is part of the United Kingdom and the island of Great Britain, bordered by England to its east and the Atlantic Ocean and Irish Sea to its west. It has a population of 3 million, and a total area of 20,779 km2 (8,023 sq mi). Wales has over 1,200 km (746 mi) of coastline, including its offshore islands; the largest, Anglesey (Ynys Môn), is also the largest island in the Irish Sea. It is generally mountainous; the highest mountains are in the north and central areas, especially in Snowdonia (Eryri)."
 * Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * All fine, but I would add 'Snowdon', to give a final sentence of: "It is generally mountainous; the highest mountains are in the north and central areas, especially in Snowdonia (Eryri), which contains Snowdon (Yr Wyddfa); at 1,085 m (3,560 ft), its highest peak." (with or without its height). Daicaregos (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK for me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be difficult but I still have a problem with "Great Britain". For a start it is as much the name of a country as an island (in fact the island is as frequently referenced as Britain.  I really don't see what it adds, and given its inconsistent use it could confuse. -- Snowded  TALK  12:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * How can "the island of Great Britain" possibly be confusing? It is necessary, to provide some sense of where in the world Wales actually is.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It is used correctly and appropriately here and the context specifies that it is referring to the island of Great Britain. Catfish Jim   &#38; the soapdish  12:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The location in the world is clearly indicated by the "Country within the United Kingdom" so that is a bit of a red herring. For the bulk of readers "Great Britain" will be an alternative name for the UK (regardless of its accuracy).  The juxtaposition of the term with island will be unfamiliar, difficult to explain in the context of this article and surely unnecessary.  -- Snowded  TALK  12:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree that "United Kingdom" gives any better sense of place to readers worldwide than "Great Britain". And, anyway, it does not provide the information that Wales is, geographically, part of an island - which is undeniably true and, in my view, an essential piece of information for the opening paragraph.  Any further explanation of the relationship between Wales, Great Britain and the UK - which I don't think is "difficult" at all - could go in the main text (as well as through the linked terms).  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * UK may not give a better sense of where it is, but it does locate it. So the argument that GB is necessary for location goes.   If you really think that an island location is key (I don't) then there would be a stronger argument for "Britain" which at least avoids the confusion with a country name.  -- Snowded  TALK  12:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Both are necessary as they formally define its political status and geographical location. Compare with the articles for Scotland and England. Catfish Jim   &#38; the soapdish  12:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that any more people, worldwide, know where "the UK" is than know where "Great Britain" is. Personally I think that using "Britain" (the accepted short term for the UK) is confusing - the "island of Great Britain" is surely more correct than "the island of Britain", which I would have thought is an informal usage at best - but if that is the necessary price of compromise I'd be willing to accept it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * For me, 'the island of Britain' does not clarify the term, which jars like that. I never use Britain in the context of the island. The island is Great Britain, and 'little' Britain is Brittany. Compare Grande Bretange and Bretagne. Daicaregos (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We should try to resolve the Lead paragraph. Is it entirely accurate to say that Wales is 'part of … the island of Great Britain' when some of Wales is not (e.g. Anglesey)? Perhaps: 'Mostly on the island of Great Britain, Wales has over 1,200 km (746 mi) of coastline, including its offshore islands; the largest, Anglesey (Ynys Môn), is also the largest island in the Irish Sea.' Daicaregos (talk) 08:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The only unambiguous word here is "United Kingdom" which is defined. Great Britain has a double meaning, one as a country sometimes as an island.  What is or is not in the island is not clear or defined.  Britian is used sometimes, sometimes not but I do think it has more consistent and unambiguous meaning (plus a reference back in effect to roman britain from which roots comes the welsh nation.  I suggest per Ghmyrtle that its a good compromise. -- Snowded  TALK  10:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)