Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/S. O. Davies/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2016.

S. O. Davies

 * Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I didn't intend to return to FAC with a new nom quite this quickly, but this April we are "awakening the Welsh dragon", and this is my slightly belated contribution to that project. Stephen Owen "S.O." Davies was a political maverick and awkward cuss from the South Wales coalfields whose career spanned more than sixty years, as miner, union official and member of parliament. He went on, and on, and on; no one knew quite how old he was (80? 90? 130?) when the Labour Party finally sacked him in 1970 on the grounds of his age. He merely took them on as an independent, and trounced them. Undoubtedly a pain in the bum to his adversaries, but in his way admirable, and with a permanent place of honour in Welsh working class history. I hope I've done him justice here. Brianboulton (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. I had my say at PR, when it was already at a high enough standard. This is a top-qulity work on one of the lesser-known figures in British politics, and is up to FA standard, as far as I can see. - SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support I did too, and my issues were addressed. Most worthy to be a FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks to both of you for your help. Brianboulton (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Comment I made an edit to the "Labour rebel" section. In the "Aberfan" section, it says "This admission was seized on by Coal Board representatives as a means of implicating Davies": although this conclusion is surely unavoidable, by anyone. Then it says "The tribunal decided...", followed by "According to [his biographer]...", as though the matter of his responsibility for the deaths has been somehow settled or negated satisfactorily in three sentences. zzz (talk) 03:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Before I deal with your comment related to the Aberfan section, the edit you made to the "Labour rebel" section involved the removal of cited  content, without any explanation or justification. Perhaps this was inadvertent; otherwise, would you care to give your reasons now? Brianboulton (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The quote didn't seem particularly interesting or revealing. "Justifying his position" is imprecise (several "position"s are mentioned in the paragraph - democracy, Soviet Union, etc.) So I removed it, with the proviso "Feel free to revert", because it seemed to look worse with than without after my move of the other text. I don't feel particularly strongly about it, though. zzz (talk) 21:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't agree with "Not particularly interesting or revealing". On the contrary, the quote sums up Davies's political position very precisely; he was more interested in representing the masses of the working classes than he was in towing the official party line. I've reinstated the quote Perhaps the word "justifying" is too interpretative, and I have replaced it with "Stating...", but overall the quotation is highly relevant to Davies's stance within the party. Brianboulton (talk) 10:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Re Aberfan, this is merely a summary what happened, not an attempt to "settle or negate". Davies admitted prior knowledge of the tip's dangers and gave his reasons for not broadcasting them. The Coal Board's lawyers, who were in a tight spot, used the statement to try and shift some of the  blame for the disaster on to Davies; the tribunal (somewhat patronisingly, you might think) decided that Davies wasn't aware of what he was saying and chose to disregard his words. We then have Griffiths's explanation for Davies's statement. I've tweaked the wording to achieve a greater measure of neutrality. Brianboulton (talk) 10:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "Giving evidence to the tribunal, S. O. Davies said he had long suspected that the Aberfan tips were unstable, but had kept quiet for fear that if tipping was stopped on the mountainside the Coal Board would close the colliery, devastating the local community." - "devastating the local community" is not neutral, or necessary; also, the phrase (or equivalent) does not appear in the "evidence to the tribunal" as implied.


 * "if tipping was stopped on the mountainside" - this pointlessly deviates from the source, which merely states "...it was the continuing fear of closure that prevented him from taking any action in regard to tip stability unless he was expressly asked to do so."
 * I'll deal with the above two points together. The sentence beginning "Giving evidence..." etc is cited to two sources: the tribunal report para 61, and Griffiths p. 274. In my summary I have drawn on both these sources, and also used paraphrase. Thus, although Griffiths doesn't say "devastating the local community", he does say "an alarming prospect in a valley which had suffered greater unemployment, poverty and migration than any other area of England." Griffiths also says "Were tipping on Merthyr Mountain to be stopped or impeded..."  I don't think my paraphrases are inaccurate, or unnecessary; I think they fairly represent the substance of the sources taken together. However, I've altered the "devastating the community" wording, and clarified that not all the wording is from the evidence. Brianboulton (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "unless he was expressly asked to do so" - not mentioned in the article.
 * I have added that phrase amid other modifications. Brianboulton (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "Coal Board representatives suggested thst "[i]f Mr Davies is to be accepted as truthful and accurate in his recollection ... then he bears what must be one of the largest personal burdens of responsibility for the disaster"." - you mean, Gibbens - singular.
 * Altered accordingly. And Gibbens represented the NUM, not the NCB. Shame on me. Brianboulton (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "suggested" - not neutral with respect to his responsibility for the disaster, implies some underhanded legal tactic. The Tribunal used the word "indicated" (and fully agreed with Gibbens about Davies' responsibility, if Davies' evidence was to be believed). If my understanding is correct, Gibbens did suggest that the tribunal reject Davies' evidence, which the tribunal agreed to do for the reasons suggested by Gibbens (although, the opposition of the NUM was also mentioned). From reading the article, you would think that the tribunal came up with the reasons and the decision to reject Davies' evidence unprompted.
 * I've replaced "suggested", although I don't personally think it implies any underhand legal tactic (maybe your experiences with lawyers are different from mine). I agree that I had perhaps over-condensed and even misunderstood this part of the story and have I think remedied this. Brianboulton (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "The tribunal decided that Davies had "allowed hindsight and a faulty memory to affect his recollections", and had "not appreciated the gravity of his words"." - Where do these quotes come from?
 * My fault again - they were paraphrases from para 62, and the quote marks shouldn't have been there. This extract has been redrawn.Brianboulton (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Introducing the statement by Gibbens, it says "Inviting us to reject this evidence, which was strongly challenged by the National Union of Mineworkers, Mr. Brian Gibbens, Q.C., said" - Why is there no mention of this?
 * There is now, as part of the rewrite. Brianboulton (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The reasons why Davies (if his evidence is taken at face value) bears "one of the largest personal burdens of responsibility for the disaster" need to be explained: "he was in a special position: he was not only well-known and highly regarded in the Borough but he was a Member of Parliament and had been for thirty years and if anyone could have exercised influence to overcome an obdurate or ignorant monolith like the Coal Board he was well placed to do so. But he has said that he knew of the dangers better than anyone else; he could see them plainly. He worried about them for years, but apart from mentioning the subject to miners he met about the place he appears to have never mentioned it either to the Borough Council or even to the Union, or even to the Ward Labour Party..."
 * I think that's now covered in the rewrite. Brianboulton (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "According to Griffiths, Davies was merely voicing the dilemma that had faced Merthyr Vale miners for years: ignore the dangers of tipping and keep their jobs, or speak out and risk the loss of their livelihood." He wasn't "voicing the dilemma..." - he was stating the facts pertaining to this specific incident, as is plain to any neutral observer, however the cited biographer may wish to spin it. This sentence should be removed in its entirety as it serves no purpose other than to portray Davies in a more positive light than the facts permit.
 * The words "According to Griffiths..." are important here, a specific attribution of the statement that follows. The exact wording in the source is: "It (the judgement of the tribunal) misses the tragedy at the core of S.O.'s testimony, namely that the system as a whole had put the people of Aberfan, the miners of Merthyr Vale and their representatives, in a cruel dilemma: that they accept the menacing tips on one hand, or risk losing a major source of employment on the other". That's pretty much what my sentence says, in slightly more neutral language. It is clearly Griffiths's opinion and needs to be on record; what we personally think of it or of Griffiths's motives is neither here nor there. Brianboulton (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The cited source says "We have thought it right to quote from the evidence of Mr. S. O. Davies, but he was the only witness to give such testimony and, like Mr. Gibbens, we doubt that he fully understood the grave implication of what he was saying. Were we convinced that he did, and (further) that his recollection was accurate and unaffected by hindsight, he could not, for the reasons indicated by Mr. Gibbens, escape censure." Overral, you have failed to accurately, or neutrally represent this. zzz (talk) 01:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with you on this final point, in relation to the former text, hence the significant amendments. Thank you for your careful review of this section, which has thrown up some important issues, now rectified I think. Brianboulton (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * continued
 * "Giving evidence to the tribunal, S. O. Davies said he had long suspected that the Aberfan tips were unstable, but had kept quiet for fear that if tipping was stopped on the mountainside the Coal Board would close the colliery." - pointless synthesis: impossible to tell what was said and what you added
 * Paraphrase is at the essence of WP articles provided it accurately represents the source. If rather than "pointless" you mean inaccurate, then please specify in what way the wording is misleading. Brianboulton (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * By "pointless", I mean that it I don't know what the point is, mixing in Griffiths' words with Davies' words.


 * "This, Griffiths says, would have been a heavy blow to an area that historically had suffered much economic hardship." The narrative is interrupted here. The economic hardship of the area can be mentioned in the introductory paragraph of the section (without having to say "Griffiths says" and then back to "Davis added").
 * I don't think that works well. I'm more inclined to omit the "Griffiths says" sentence altogether, as the historic hardships of the South Wales coalfields should be clear to readers of the article. That the pit closure would be a heavy blow to the community is self-evident. Brianboulton (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly.


 * "Gibbens QC drew attention to Davies's position of authority and influence in the area" - this may be too weak to make sense of "then he bears...". Watered down to almost nothing (why?) from this:"he was in a special position: he was not only well-known and highly regarded in the Borough but he was a Member of Parliament and had been for thirty years and if anyone could have exercised influence to overcome an obdurate or ignorant monolith like the Coal Board he was well placed to do so. But he has said that he knew of the dangers better than anyone else; he could see them plainly. He worried about them for years, but apart from mentioning the subject to miners he met about the place he appears to have never mentioned it either to the Borough Council or even to the Union, or even to the Ward Labour Party". The decision to ignore Davies' testimony hangs on this, it should be quoted in full.
 * I don't think that such a chunk needs to be quoted in full, particularly as it's only a part of what Gibbens said. The source is available to all readers. However, I have extended and reorganised the material in the article, towards meeting your objection.Brianboulton (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "His testimony was strongly repudiated by the NUM"..."Gibbens submitted that Davies's testimony should be rejected" - repetition. Could just mention repudiation after the above, instead of before and after.
 * No repetition, these are two separate things: the NUM repudiated Davies's testimony,  then  Gibbens invites the tribunal to do the same. Brianboulton (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "Gibbens submitted that Davies's testimony should be rejected, on the grounds that he "never appreciated what in fact was the import of his words"" - could mention that the tribunal had made every effort to ensure that he did appreciate it, though - instead of:
 * I think this point has been sufficiently covered. Brianboulton (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "According to Griffiths, Davies was merely voicing the dilemma that had faced Merthyr Vale miners for years: ignore the dangers of tipping and keep their jobs, or speak out and risk the loss of their livelihood." - Still don't see why this is added. Looks to be to be included here out of bias, to minimise Davies' responsibility, hence "merely". Your non-explanation was "It is clearly Griffiths's opinion and needs to be on record" (it's not even Griffiths opinion, which was "It (the judgement of the tribunal) misses the tragedy at the core of S.O.'s testimony, namely that the system as a whole had put the people of Aberfan, the miners of Merthyr Vale and their representatives, in a cruel dilemma: that they accept the menacing tips on one hand, or risk losing a major source of employment on the other"). I now notice Griffiths is the leader of the Communist Party of Britain, which is not mentioned in the article, he is just described as "biographer". Which is, technically speaking, true - he has written one biography - but this is a political opinion about a historical event. How is he a reliable source for neutral commentary on a historical event such as this? At least people reading his book or the Morning Star know what they are getting, it's not dressed up as neutral and objective.
 * It is there for the reason stated, and is not different in sense from the verbatim extract from the source I provided you with. Whatever your opinion of Griffiths and his politics, his is the only full-length biography of Davies, and it can't be ignored as a source. You say:  "How is he a reliable source for neutral commentary on a historical event such as this?"  One comment on Davies's evidence is hardly "commentary on a historical event", and  the comment is not "communistic" – it provides  a possible alternative explanation for Davies's failure to speak out, as against the tribunal's apparent view that he was too muddled and senile to know what he was saying. I will drop the "merely" as it isn't in the source, but I stand by the rest. Brianboulton (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The reason stated:- "The words "According to Griffiths..." are important here, a specific attribution of the statement that follows."? But, I'm already aware of what "According to" means. Or "It is clearly Griffiths's opinion and needs to be on record" - stating Griffiths opinions automatically takes precedence over any other considerations? No - I don't agree. Griffiths is fine for biographical info, but there is no justification here for adding this type of commentary, regardless of his obvious bias. And it is simply incorrect to claim that it "provides a possible alternative explanation". It is a biased, left-wing view of the obvious (not "alternative") explanation, namely that in his capacity as a workers' representative Davies made a judgement that continued employment should take precedence over safety - a common enough theme in worker-employer relations that requires no explanation, whether neutral and objective, or a far-left slant. The only difference being that in this case, it was not the safety of the workers that was at stake. But - no surprise, given his extreme political viewpoint - Griffiths has no comment on this, the distinguishing feature of the case, which might actually merit comment.


 * Just before Aberfan section: "In 1961, at the request of the Labour Party leadership, Davies was investigated by the British security services as a possible Communist Party member. The MI5 report stated that "if not of the Party he is at least very close to it indeed"." - biased/misleading zzz (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Since you offer no explanation to support this accusation, I can't help you.  Brianboulton (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The source is available online, so I am not sure how else to help you. The article significantly distorts what it says by omitting relevant information given in the source to avoid such distortion.

Generally: I was initially appreciative of your help in improving the Aberfan section, but there is a hostility prevelant in some of your later remarks which doesn't augur well for further discussion and resolution of issues. Please keep your comments polite – a review  should be a dialogue, not an inquisition. Brianboulton (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It is unfortunate that you think that, since there is certainly no impoliteness or hostility prevalent on my part. It is incongruous, but I suppose not surprising, that you elect to sit in judgement, given the carefully cultivated disdain and contempt you have put on display here, right from your first response, and including the remedial English lesson you saw fit to dispense as another self-justification. I have thus been strongly inclined to give up on more than one occasion - with the obvious result that your article would have been rubber-stamped, making a mockery of the encyclopedia. In future, I suggest you submit articles for review by lesser mortals at WP:GAN. zzz (talk) 05:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I see no point in engaging with you further, and will not do so. Brianboulton (talk) 09:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose nomination - well written, but fails to cover important aspects with factual accuracy or objectivity zzz (talk) 07:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment As you haven't clarified what your point actually (re the MI5 report), I am also mystified by your comment. As you are not prepared to provide that clarity, I suspect the FA coordinators will not take your oppose into account (as a coordinator of FLCs, I ignore similarly insufficient opposes). Your final comment is an unworthy one, and it would be best if you were to strike it. – SchroCat (talk) 09:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply to SchroCat On the contrary, if anything the support votes - which inexplicably (personal allegiance to the nominator notwithstanding) overlooked the extremely serious factual errors I already pointed out, above - are "unworthy" and should be struck. If you mean I should strike "disdain and contempt", please note that this was my strong impression of the tone of his comments, which seemed entirely relevant to mention, since he raised the issue, choosing to make a totally unwarranted accusation of "hostility" in the tone of mine. If you read the source about the MI5 investigation and report, the discrepancies will immediately become apparent. Perhaps the most glaring of these is the fact that he was just one of 25 reported (not by the "Labour Party leadership" but by the deputy leader); but the article misleads the reader into believing that he was the only one. Also, "The MI5 report stated..." misleads the reader into believing that this was MI5's categorical judgement - the MI5 report actually merely stated that there was "evidence from LASCAR [an intelligence agent or source within the PLP] to show..." Reading the same source, I notice: "Especially in the wake of Hitler's accession to power, he warned in 1934 that the Communist Party's policy of violent revolution could open the door to fascism and, instead, he urged unity around the Labour Party. For similar reasons, he rejected the ILP's turn to the left in the early 1930s..." This is just a random selection from a large amount of crucial information about Davies' political ideology and affiliations that has been inexplicably overlooked; since the nominator has chosen not to continue addressing issues, however, the nomination appears to be closed. zzz (talk) 11:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "personal allegiance to the nominator notwithstanding": please see WP:AGF before you insult swathes of editors again, it's the sort of comment that is likely to spark a blast of base Anglo Saxon in response. Still, at least you have now clarified your point about now the MI5 report: that was unclear to everyone before you explained yourself. – SchroCat (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, SchroCat, for taking this up. Any objective reader of the above exchanges might wonder where the supposed "disdain and contempt" is to be found in my comments, and  might also notice that I took seriously and genuinely tried to accommodate many of the issues raised by this reviewer. His true animus comes out in his reply to my mild request that he showed less hostility in a review which struck me at times as unnecessarily confrontational. Had he restricted his reply to its first line, I would accepted this without demur; unfortunately he decided to add personal attacks on me and other reviewers, thus creating a battlefield mentality. When that happens, I tend to withdraw from the fray and leave others to decide where reason lies. At your prompting, Zzz has provided a few more details to support his "biased/misleading" assertion, and I will deal briefly with these.
 * The "most glaring" omission, Zzz says, is the failure to mention that Davies was one of 25 MPs and other party members under investigation. This article is about Davies, not about witch-hunts in the Labour Party of the early 1960s. The words "one of 25" etc can be added to the text for further clarity, and I've done this, but in the context of this article the point is very small
 * He says that it was the party's deputy leader (George Brown), not the Labour Party leadership, that instituted the enquiry. Brown was the agent of the party's leadership, and the wording in the source is "George Brown and colleagues"
 * According to Zzz: "The MI5 report stated... misleads the reader into believing that this was MI5's categorical judgement - the MI5 report actually merely stated that there was 'evidence from LASCAR [an intelligence agent or source within the PLP] to show...' etc." That LASCAR was,  as Zzz's parenthetical addition suggests, an intelligence agent or source within the PLP, is news to me – perhaps there is a source that says this? As far as I know, LASCAR   was a code-word for illegally placed listening devices (see, for example, here.  I don't think the wording in the article is  misleading in any significant sense, but for extra clarity I will amend to: "The MI5 report stated that there was evidence from surveillance to indicate that..." etc.
 * I believe that the article adequately shows general Davies's general political stance: pro-Soviet, anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist, yet convinced that the Labour Party, not the Communist Party, was the appropriate means for effecting the political changes he wanted. It's obviously possible to add more examples from the sources to underline this or other points,  but this is a summary encyclopedia article, not a detailed treatise and I don't think further detail is necessary.
 * Zzz's contention that my refusal to engage further with him closes the nomination is silly and presumptious. I'll happily engage with good-faith reviewers, but Zzz's personal attacks have in my mind made his further participation in the review impossible. I'm not worried about his oppose; the coordinators will decide what value to place on that, and I'll be happy to accept their decision. But I'm not going to be dragged into endless bickering over trivial points or differences of opinion, however much he puffs these up as "extremely serious omissions".  Brianboulton (talk) 00:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "perhaps there is a source that says this?" - Yes, the source currently cited in the article.
 * "personal attacks" - Examples, please.
 * Signedzzz, I've already quoted one instance to you, and there are others, however I don't think that listing them separately here would be at all constructive to the FAC. – SchroCat (talk) 12:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "extremely serious omissions" - Please don't misquote me: I said "extremely serious factual errors". (However there are also serious omissions.)
 * It is sad to see you resorting to childish abuse and describing my efforts as not "good-faith". That is a good reason why you should iron out fundamental issues before having an article reviewed. zzz (talk) 10:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I hardly think that Brianboulton is complaining about a comment I made to you (which you unconvincingly claimed to have misunderstood). So you can't actually find any of these "personal attacks" right now - because it wouldn't be "constructive"? It's more "constructive" to just pretend they exist, then? zzz (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please don't misquote what I have said: I did not say I could not find any, I said that providing them would not be helpful to the FAC. I don't follow what I am supposed to have "unconvincing claimed to have misunderstood" (and yes, that is another personal attack on another editor). If you refer to the comment I made above that I didn't understand your MI5 point, I didn't, and I don't think most people would have understood it because you provided none in the first instance, or when Brianboulton said he didn't understand either. As to other personal attacks, if you really want to play that game this is one, your comment to which I am replying is another, the one I pointed out to you earlier is another. I really don't want to continue this thread as it's fairly pointless to indicate what should be self-evident, and I see little possibility in anything constructive coming out of continuing. – SchroCat (talk) 16:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, if you want to claim I have made personal attacks, I think it would be constructive to actually quote one for me, which you still haven't been able to do, so I suggest you drop it. zzz (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have given the diffs. If you are unable to see that you have made personal attacks that are clear to everyone else, there is no point in continuing. – SchroCat (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no point in you continuing make allegations you can't substantiate, I agree, or claiming to know what "everyone else" thinks. zzz (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, for crying out loud:
 * Accusing an editor of "carefully cultivated disdain and contempt"
 * To the same editor: "you elect to sit in judgement"
 * To numerous editors: "personal allegiance to the nominator notwithstanding"

If you are unable to see that you have breached the WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF guidelines then yes, there is little point in continuing, particularly as you have tried to misquote me above. I have nothing further to say, as anything nothing constructive will follow. – SchroCat (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Accusing an editor of "a hostility prevelant in some of your later remarks which doesn't augur well". Just drop the personal attack routine, already. You claim to know what everyone is thinking, so you must realise that no one is buying it. zzz (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are talking about, but that's not really some thing that will cause me a lack of sleep, considering I've provided you with the diffs of the behaviour you asked for. Toodle-oo. – SchroCat (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Now I see it in black and white, I have to agree. Please consider the offending phrases struck. zzz (talk) 23:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. – SchroCat (talk) 09:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Zzz: in view of the above exchange I'd like to proffer an olive branch. Can we agree to set aside all previous accusations and counter-accusations of hostility, personal attacks etc, and try to resolve our remaining differences within a framework of collegial discourse? And if we can't ultimately agree, to at least "agree to differ" on a civilised basis? If we have the shared objective of improving the encyclopeadia, this should be possible. In the review I have tried to answer your points, albeit not always to your satisfaction. In a summary encyclopaedia biography I believe it is a matter of judgement as to what detail should be included to support the broad themes (take a look at Davies's ODNB entry and see what's omitted there). The objective is to remain neutral and reflect what the sources say; this is what I've tried to do. If you think that the article does not at present meet this objective, then we can discuss how this can be achieved. I'm prepared to give it a try. Brianboulton (talk) 10:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I agree, it is mostly just a matter of judgement. As far as I can see there are just two points. "The MI5 report stated that there was evidence from surveillance..." - "from surveillance" should be removed, as per the source cited in the article. The source you cited above on this page is not authoritative enough to counter the opinion expressed in the article source, which is more reserved about the attention level of MI5.
 * Text adjusted accordingly. Brianboulton (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "Especially in the wake of Hitler's accession to power, he warned in 1934 that the Communist Party's policy of violent revolution could open the door to fascism and, instead, he urged unity around the Labour Party. For similar reasons, he rejected the ILP's turn to the left in the early 1930s..." This jumped out at me from the Griffiths source. It seems important to me for two reasons. It explains his politics regarding the war. And, there is very little in the article, I think, about the ideological divide between Davies and the far left, particularly the Soviet Union. zzz (talk) 11:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you give me the page number in the Griffiths source where this wording occurs? I couldn't find it in a quick run-thrpough. but I do miss things sometimes. Brianboulton (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Page 20. With more about the ILP (and Welsh nationalism) on 19. I don't know if you think it's worth adding any of this, though. zzz (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, I still think " According to Griffiths, Davies was voicing the dilemma that had faced Merthyr Vale miners for years: ignore the dangers of tipping and keep their jobs, or speak out and risk the loss of their livelihood" should be removed. It just expresses a left wing opinion, the opinion of the leader of the Communist Party of Britain, about worker-employer safety disputes which is not specifically relevant to this particular incident, and reads like somewhat like an attempt to minimise his responsibility and involvement on purely subjective grounds. zzz (talk) 11:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This warrants further discussion. First, biographies tend to be full of biographer's opinions, left-wing or otherwise; are we entitled to assume that Griffith's motive  was merely to protect  a fellow left-winger's memory? You emphasise Griffiths's leadership of the "British Communist Party", which despite its name is a tiny splinter group in the British Communist movement, with less than 1,000 members nationwide. And Griffiths didn't become leader until 1998, long after the book was written, at which time he was principally a  Welsh Nationalist. There is no worker-employer safety issue here; the question is more one of local employment versus public safety. As I said earlier, regardless of who gave it, it's a plausible explanation for Davies's silence, and no other explanation is on offer. If you wish, I will try to find a way of rewording to achieve greater neutrality – perhaps a verbatim quotation – but at present I believe that the information ought to be retained in some form. Brianboulton (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said earlier, the only difference, and obviously the extraordinary feature of the case, between this and any typical industrial safety issue (besides the very high death toll), is that it was not the safety of the workers that was at stake in this case. But Griffiths' opinion does not address this point. This is could be for ideological reasons, as I believe, and also to protect Davies' reputation as you mention. You could replace the words "of tipping" and "Merthyr Vale miners" (and replace "Davies" with a union boss) and apply the sentence to any other dangerous industry (where only the workers are at risk). zzz (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand the above comment, but the core of your argument still seems to be your conviction that Griffiths's opinion was ideologically inspired and therefore unacceptable. This is not at all how I see it, and don't think we are going to find a compromise. On the basis that your view that Griffiths's opinion should be deleted  is possibly more strongly held  than mine that it should be kept, I have deleted it, though with some regret. Brianboulton (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, for me that was a major obstacle, it really seems much clearer now. Thanks very much for dealing with all this! I have changed my vote at the top of the page to support. zzz (talk) 19:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I am glad that this has been resolved satisfactorily. Brianboulton (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments by the Dr

 * Apologies for the delay on this, been busy with Dragon. Re-reading again shortly.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Lede
 * "After leaving school aged 12 and working for some years in local pits, Davies studied mining engineering and later took an Arts degree at University College, Cardiff." - is it worth mentioning a date here?
 * Dates, so far as we know them, are given in the main body of the text. We mention here his return to the coalfields in 1913, which is probably enough for the lead. Brianboulton (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "and in 1924 was appointed SWMF's chief organiser and legal adviser, and its vice-president." -if he was appointed all of these at the same time you don't need two "ands".
 * Tweaked. Brianboulton (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "Davies was a consistent advocate for the interests of Merthyr Tydfil and the Welsh mining community." -a little vague, could you afford to be a bit more specific and add an extra line here, or do you think it would affect flow?
 * I'd say it's sufficient for the lead – detail in the text. Brianboulton (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "He had not reported his suspicions, for fear that an enquiry would cause the closures of local pits. He did not" -the "he" and "not" repeats a little on me here.
 * Duly tweaked. Brianboulton (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Early life
 * "His ambition and intelligence were quickly recognised by his superiors, and he was encouraged to study mining engineering, at first locally in Aberdare" -do we know the name of the school that he studied it in Abedare?
 * Not mentioned in sources. Brianboulton (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * " with a view thereafter to entering the nonconformist ministry." -did you mean "enter" or "entering"?
 * I think "entering" is correct. Brianboulton (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "However, Davies's religious beliefs underwent a change under the influence of R.J. Campbell, a noted preacher who was minister of London's City Temple.[4] Campbell was the author of The New Theology (1907) which rejected much traditional Christian teaching and asserted that socialism was the practical expression of Christianity.[n 3] Davies's association with such supposed heresies was unacceptable to the Brecon college, which withdrew its financial support.[4]" -superfluous I think, why not something like "Brecon college later withdrew their financial support due to Davies's sympathies with the religious beliefs of R.J. Campbell, a noted preacher who controversially asserted that socialism was the practical expression of Christianity. If that's not agreeable to you at least a little trim? I think some of the detail could go in a footnote with that.
 * Text duly trimmed & f/note extended. Brianboulton (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Mineworker
 * "Dowlais district" -is there really no electoral division article to link?
 * Dowlais wasn't an electoral division. It was a division of the SWMF (see first line, para 2. Brianboulton (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * " Davies led the continued resistance from the Welsh coalfields through months of lockout, before capitulation on harsh terms in December. Dowlais was the last district to return to work.[17] In 1931 Davies was elected to Merthyr Tydfil Borough Council.[4]" -him continuing to lead the resistance for me would certainly be something worth elaborating on, I think that 1926-1930 period might have a little more detail, is there nothing worth saying about it?
 * Surprisingly, perhaps, the sources (even Griffiths's blockbuster) provided few details of Davies's activities in the years following 1926. There was a lot of in-fighting on the Left during this period, and I've added a couple of sentences dealing with Davies's role in this internal struggle, but gthere's not a lot more. Brianboulton (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Member of Parliament
 * "in the 1931 general election" -shouldn't you link this at the end of the previous section where you say he was "elected" in 1931? Or do you find this more convenient?
 * He was elected to the Borough Council in 1931; that's nothingb to do with the parliamentary general election of that year. Brianboulton (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "An uncompromising approach on any questions affecting Merthyr Tydfil or the mining industry generally, became Davies's parliamentary hallmark. " -is the comma needed here?
 * I think the case is that there's a comma required after "Tydfil", which I've added. Brianboulton (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "In 1934, Margaret having died in 1932, Davies", to avoid the repetition of dates and improve the flow, perhaps "In 1934, two years after the death of Margaret,"
 * Reworded Brianboulton (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * " Hunger March" -no article on this?
 * Now linked Brianboulton (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "In 1945–46 he served as Merthyr Tydfil's mayor, remaining on the local council until 1949.[16]" -I think I would expect a bit more detail on his term as mayor. What were his main accomplishments and actions?
 * Again, the sources record nothing of any consequence. The only thing I can find is that he presided over the ceremony that awarded the freedom of the borough to Attlee, and I didn't think that warranted inclusion. Brianboulton (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * What is "NUM"?
 * see third para, "Mineworker" section Brianboulton (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Link CIA?
 * I don't think we link in quotations. Brianboulton (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "Davies pressed on, and on" -rep of "on" can be avoided here with a rewording.
 * Fixed Brianboulton (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "According to Griffiths, when Soviet troops suppressed the Hungarian uprising in October 1956, Davies was troubled, but refused to join in the general censure lest this give comfort to the enemies of socialism. He was to be equally silent during and after the events of the Prague Spring of 1968[49]—in sharp contrast to his condemnation of the "criminally dangerous and irresponsible heroics" of the United States during the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962.[50] In 1961, at the request of the Labour Party leadership, Davies was investigated by the British security services as a possible Communist Party member. The MI5 report stated that "if not of the Party he is at least very close to it indeed".[51]" -is there nothing more to say about his work in 1960-65 period?
 * Not that stands out. He fulfilled his parliamentary and local duties but, but created few headlines. That's not uncommon in a career as long as his. Brianboulton (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Aberfan
 * This section reads a little strangely as it partly reads more like something you'd read in the article about the disaster or its politics rather than from the biographical perspective of Davies. Is there a way do you think that it could be rewritten a little more from his viewpoint?
 * I take your point and have sought to address it. I think it's necessary to give the basic details of the tragedy, but I've added information to the first paragraph giving details of Davies's immediate reactions and his on-the-scene presence. I've also incorporated most of the final paragraph into a footnote. Brianboulton (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * 1970 election and Final years
 * "Davies's campaign was initially very low-key." -can you think of something more sophisticated here than "very low-key"?
 * Bit puzzled by this – the term is not slang and is in wide general use, so I don't see a problem. Do you have a suggestion? Brianboulton (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * True, I don't know, it's one of those terms which I don't take well for something reason! I guess you could have always used South Wales slang and said "Davies's campaign was initially not tidy-like". Hehe.


 * "the confidence of the people recently shown him was", is this intentional or would "the confidence that the people had recently shown him was" fit better?
 * My feeling is that either does as well. Brianboulton (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

In excellent shape, look forward to supporting once addressed.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this detailed review and for the helpful comments. I've done what I can to address your concerns – let me know if you have any outstanding issues. Brianboulton (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * A pleasure BB. Sometimes frame of mind helps when reviewing critically, I had too much on my mind the other day to really give this a grilling haha. Always difficult to find anything above nitpicking with you though.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Support An excellent article which clearly covers what is available on the subject well and passes the FA criteria with flying colours. Hope to see this promoted by the end of the month in coordination with this month's Dragon because Brian has worked very hard to get this where it is which I greatly appreciate.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Image review

 * File:Sodavies.jpg: BBC credits this to the National Library of Wales - have you tried to contact them to ascertain authorship? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have established that the original photograph was taken by Geoff Charles, and added this detail. Brianboulton (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I see that Commons has Commons:Category:Photographs by Geoff Charles in the National Library of Wales and there is an article on the photographer at Geoff Charles. It may be that the NLW only released a small number of images under a free license for that category. The creator of that category is Jason Evans (Wikimedian in Residence based at the National Library of Wales) who may be able to help clarify things here (though maybe you are already satisfied with the response you got when contacting the NLW direct). It is worth adding death year when known for a photographer, as that allows future calculation of when the image enters the public domain (I've added this to the image). It was also cropped from here, and the exact date is there (also now added to the image page). Carcharoth (talk) 12:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The National Library of Wales have very kindly agreed to upload the image in question to Commons on a CC-0 license (as it owns copyright for this collection)I have replaced the Fair Use Image with this new version in the article.Jason.nlw (talk) 13:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for your efforts here – most useful Brianboulton (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Support – A quick exception to my current Wikibreak in view of the April deadline for wakening the Welsh dragon. I am old enough to remember Davies and his combative relations with his own party, and it seems to me that this article does the subject justice in every respect. The information that Ted Rowlands won the seat back for Labour seems slightly out place under the heading "Tributes", but I am bound to admit that no better title for the section leaps to mind, and it is a point of exceedingly minor import. The sourcing of the article is excellent and remarkably broad; the prose is polished and a pleasure to read; the balance is impeccable, and the illustrations are as good as one could expect. Very happy to support, and I hope this will become a Featured Article in time for the Dragon's late breakfast. –  Tim riley  talk    07:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Tim, for taking the time to look at this. At your prompting I've shifted the news of Rowlands's victory to the previous section, which I agree is more appropriate. Brianboulton (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Questions. One quick set of questions relating to trade union roles he held: at the bottom of the article are two succession boxes for two of the trade union offices he held. Both are vice-presidencies, one for a year (National Union of Mineworkers) and the other for eight years (South Wales Miners Federation). The VP of South Wales Miners Federation is mentioned in the lead (where it says he was appointed) and in the main body of the article (where it says he was elected in 1924 - the succession box says 1925). The article does not mention his vice-presidency of the NUM. Should it? I read somewhere that the NUM sponsored him as an MP, whatever that means. Did he give up these posts when he moved into Westminster politics? Also, do we know who preceded him in the VP of the SWMF role? The succession box has a question mark (it was William Brace from 1898–1912 and James Winstone from 1912–1915). I think it was Enoch Morrell, but cannot verify that with certainty. Carcharoth (talk) 12:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I did not compile the succession box, but can provide the following  answers to your queries:
 * Davies was elected to the SWMF vice-presidency in 1924. It is possible that his term of office began in 1925, but I think for consistency the navbox should indicate 1924 and I've altered it. None of the sources I have mention who he replaced, and I don't see anything in the link you provide to suggest that it was Enoch Morrell – maybe you have other evidence?


 * As to his vice-presidency of the NUM, this should read "Miners' Federation of Great Britain", the precursor of the NUM before 1945; I have altered accordingly. None of the sources, even the detailed Griffiths biography, give details of his MFGB vice-presidency during 1933–34. I suspect that this might have been an honorary appointment reflecting his lengthy service on the MFGB executive, but I don't know. It would be good to have this appointment confirmed.


 * Trade union support or "sponsorship" of parliamentary candidates was common in industrial constituencies, although the choice of candidate remained with the local party association. Davies was originally supported by the MFGB, later by the NUM; I have added a brief note to this effect. Such sponsorship did not affect Davies's independence, as Lawther discovered after his spat with Davies in 1953. Brianboulton (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clearing that up. There is a source that is not easy to link to that says Morrell was VP of the SWMF in 1922. While trying (and failing) to verify aspects of that, I came across this source: Rebirth of a Nation: Wales, 1880-1980 (1981) by Kenneth O. Morgan, Oxford University Press. On page 284 there is mention of the election, noting that Davies was "elected by a large majority over the right-wing Arthur Jenkins" (possibly this Arthur Jenkins (politician) who was elected VP in 1934). That source has a bit more on Davies (a nice description on page 281), from the perspective of someone who looks to be a good source on Welsh history (you have him in the sources already with his ODNB article on Keir Hardie), but you may have enough already. Some of the phrasing Kenneth Morgan uses might add a bit more (e.g. "sombre-clad", "eccentric", "much-revered", "distinctive figure", "powerful personal following"). Carcharoth (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the first line of the "Tributes" section adequately records Davies's distinctive, eccentric appearance, but thanks for providing the additional information. Brianboulton (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Source review
 * Standardize: ISBNs 10- or 13-digit
 * Done - 13-digit


 * Check alphabetization in Hansard (Parliamentary debates) (I see you're going by volume, but none of the other sections are organized like that)
 * The Hansard sources are arranged in chronological sequence, which seems the most sensible way of dealing with them - essentially they are all pages from one vast online source. I don't see any great advantage in putting them in alphabetical order. Brianboulton (talk) 10:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright. As I said, I saw what you're doing, but people may consider it a lack of consistency. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Missing URL in "Wallhead, Richard Collingham" — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Added

Thank you for the review. Brianboulton (talk) 10:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sources look good. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Just to let you know that Awaken the Dragon is ending on 2 May evening now to allow a three day finale, so if a little extra time is needed on promoting this it's there.♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. An excellent well-written article. The only thing I could find wrong was a typo (fixed). While staying on subject the article also illustrates the roots, development, and dilemnas of welsh radicalism from religious non-confirmity into socialist radicalism as personified by an awkward bugger! Robevans123 (talk) 08:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your interest and support. Awkward bugger notwithstanding, he appears to have beem much loved by his people. Hard to think of a modern day equivalent. Brianboulton (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. I know zilch about politics, but this article is very well-written and quite informative, even to someone living on the other side of the world. It was very interesting (and inspiring) to read about such a rebellious personality, and I find no reason to believe that this does not meet the FA requirements. Cheers! -- Krimuk | 90 ( talk ) 07:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your  support. I'm glad you found the article interesting. Brianboulton (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  23:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.