![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 14 April 2023. The result of the discussion was redirect. |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 16:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
The page Welsh Wars of Independence discusses this and so the best way forward may be to trim down those sections on this page? Titus Gold ( talk) 18:48, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
This edit [1] (asserted in other places to) is going to fall foul of a bunch of policies I expect, such as WP:NPOV. Describing a historical action with a modern term is controversial. If sources do it, it can be allowed, but no source review has been conducted so it is WP:UNDUE at least to call this apartheid, but to then link to the "crime of apartheid" page is very clearly editorialising. This is a highly problematic edit and it just should not be there. This raises very clear WP:NPOV concerns for the whole page, and as I removed this once and as it has been re-asserted, I will be adding a template to that effect. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 19:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
What sources are we using here? The term "English Rule" enjoys much attention, but it seems the definition is fuzzy. English rule certainly began with the conquest by Edward I and certainly continued until at least 1542. I expect many sources will also mention English rule from the Norman conquest onwards and after the Laws in Wales Act. From 1707, however, the successor state was Great Britain so "English Rule" becomes very much a point of view (which is to say, there will be sources saying it is, but others that don't or would not use the term). This page does not discuss that at all, but neither does it provide any good sourcing. It reads a bit like original research as it stands. If the page can't provide sources and a clear description of extents, then it is not clear what it's purpose is. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 12:51, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
"Thirdly, by making the Welsh citizens of the realm it gave them equality under the law with English subjects... At last they had had their wish and been granted by statute the full 'freedoms, liberties, rights, privileges and laws' of the realm. By conferring upon them legal authorization to become members of parliament, sheriffs, justices of the peace, and the like, the Act had done little more than give statutory confirmation of rights they had already acquired de facto. Yet, in formally handing power to members of the gentry, the Crown had conferred self-government upon Wales in the sixteenth-century sense of the term."
I have tidied things up a bit. Other than a few tweaks to the lead I have not made any major edits to the substance of the page, but pared it back to the more restricted scope (so deleted British history beyond a summary). The referencing was a mess. It had every kind of reference in there, but mostly it was some kind of paranthetcal reference, and as it is a history article I have regularised it all to sfn. There are also a lot of tertiary sources in there. I pulled out a few where they were clearly just WP:OVERCITE, but the referencing on this article could definitely be tightened up. I will stop there for now, though, so as not to get any possible controversial edits mixed in with the cleanup. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 19:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
I propose the merger of Welsh rebellions against English rule into this article. That article was spun out of this one in August, and coverage of the individual rebellions in that article is somewhat expanded, but this article maintains the exact same headings and could easily accommodate the expanded text. As it stands, editor effort is divided between articles that are largely repetitive of each other. The merger would create a redirect to here under the rebellions title, so could still be found easily. The rebellions themselves are full covered in individual articles such as Welsh Revolt so the intermediate summary article serves no purpose worth the editor effort of maintaining it. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 11:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 14 April 2023. The result of the discussion was redirect. |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 16:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
The page Welsh Wars of Independence discusses this and so the best way forward may be to trim down those sections on this page? Titus Gold ( talk) 18:48, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
This edit [1] (asserted in other places to) is going to fall foul of a bunch of policies I expect, such as WP:NPOV. Describing a historical action with a modern term is controversial. If sources do it, it can be allowed, but no source review has been conducted so it is WP:UNDUE at least to call this apartheid, but to then link to the "crime of apartheid" page is very clearly editorialising. This is a highly problematic edit and it just should not be there. This raises very clear WP:NPOV concerns for the whole page, and as I removed this once and as it has been re-asserted, I will be adding a template to that effect. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 19:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
What sources are we using here? The term "English Rule" enjoys much attention, but it seems the definition is fuzzy. English rule certainly began with the conquest by Edward I and certainly continued until at least 1542. I expect many sources will also mention English rule from the Norman conquest onwards and after the Laws in Wales Act. From 1707, however, the successor state was Great Britain so "English Rule" becomes very much a point of view (which is to say, there will be sources saying it is, but others that don't or would not use the term). This page does not discuss that at all, but neither does it provide any good sourcing. It reads a bit like original research as it stands. If the page can't provide sources and a clear description of extents, then it is not clear what it's purpose is. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 12:51, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
"Thirdly, by making the Welsh citizens of the realm it gave them equality under the law with English subjects... At last they had had their wish and been granted by statute the full 'freedoms, liberties, rights, privileges and laws' of the realm. By conferring upon them legal authorization to become members of parliament, sheriffs, justices of the peace, and the like, the Act had done little more than give statutory confirmation of rights they had already acquired de facto. Yet, in formally handing power to members of the gentry, the Crown had conferred self-government upon Wales in the sixteenth-century sense of the term."
I have tidied things up a bit. Other than a few tweaks to the lead I have not made any major edits to the substance of the page, but pared it back to the more restricted scope (so deleted British history beyond a summary). The referencing was a mess. It had every kind of reference in there, but mostly it was some kind of paranthetcal reference, and as it is a history article I have regularised it all to sfn. There are also a lot of tertiary sources in there. I pulled out a few where they were clearly just WP:OVERCITE, but the referencing on this article could definitely be tightened up. I will stop there for now, though, so as not to get any possible controversial edits mixed in with the cleanup. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 19:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
I propose the merger of Welsh rebellions against English rule into this article. That article was spun out of this one in August, and coverage of the individual rebellions in that article is somewhat expanded, but this article maintains the exact same headings and could easily accommodate the expanded text. As it stands, editor effort is divided between articles that are largely repetitive of each other. The merger would create a redirect to here under the rebellions title, so could still be found easily. The rebellions themselves are full covered in individual articles such as Welsh Revolt so the intermediate summary article serves no purpose worth the editor effort of maintaining it. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 11:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)