![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
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)
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:
Wales is a country that is part of the United Kingdom, bordered by England to its east, and the Atlantic Ocean and Irish Sea to its west. Wales has a population estimated at three million and is officially bilingual; the indigenous Welsh language and English have equal status, and bilingual signs are the norm throughout the land. The once-steady decline in Welsh speaking has reversed over recent years, however, with fluent Welsh speakers currently estimated to be around 20% of the population.
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):
Wales is a country that is part of the United Kingdom, bordered by England to its east, and the Atlantic Ocean and Irish Sea to its west. 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. The Welsh language is an important element of Welsh culture; although it experienced a decline in ?????, a resurgence/series of changes/whatever reinstated its popularity, with fluent Welsh speakers were estimated in 200? to be around 20% of the population.
I think we also need to change from:
In 1955, Cardiff (Welsh: Caerdydd) was proclaimed as the capital city and it is the largest city in Wales with a population of 317,500. For a period it was the biggest coal port in the world.
...to...
In 1955, Cardiff was proclaimed as the capital of Wales. It is Wales's largest/most populous city with a population of 317,500. In the 19th century (?) it was the biggest clarification needed coal port in the world.
...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)
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. [1]-- Pondle ( talk) 22:10, 6 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)
In 1997, 21 per cent of the popluation in private households said that they spoke Welsh. In much of the rural north and west, Welsh remains the first language. Welsh is now more widely used for official purposes, and is treated equally with English in the work of the Assembly. It is also used quite extensively in broadcasting, while most road signs are bilingual.... The National Assembly has assumed the main responsibility for enchancing Welsh culture and developing greater use of the Welsh language.
— Britain 2001, ONS, p. 32
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:
Wales is a country that is part of the United Kingdom, bordered by England to its east, and the Atlantic Ocean and Irish Sea to its west. It has a population of about three million. The English and Welsh languages have equal official status across Wales, and English is the most widely spoken language. An estimated 21 per cent of residents speak Welsh fluently; it is the first language across much of rural north and west Wales and is an important part of Welsh culture.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Reviewer: Nikkimaria ( talk) 13:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello! I'll be reviewing this article for potential GA status. My review should be posted shortly. Cheers, Nikkimaria ( talk) 13:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
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'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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Any opinions as to whether or not this image would be appropriate for this article (at
Wales#Climate):
Daicaregos (
talk)
10:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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
- Illustrated Encyclopedia of Britain. London: Reader's Digest. 1999. p. 459. ISBN 0-276-42412-3.
A country and principality within the mainland of Britain ... about half a million- The Oxford Illustrated Dictionary. Great Britain: Oxford University Press. 1976 [1975]. p. 949.
Wales (-lz). Principality occupying extreme W. of central southern portion of Gt Britain- United Kingdom (2007), "Report of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" (PDF), Report by Governments on the Situation in their Countries on the Progress Made in the Standardization of Geographical Names Since the Eight Conferences, New York: United Nations,
The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy consisting of four constituent parts:...
- 2 countries: England + Scotland
- 1 principality: Wales
- 1 province: Northern Ireland
- "UN report causes stir with Wales dubbed 'Principality'". WalesOnline website. Media Wales Ltd. 3 July 2010. Retrieved 25 July 2010.
... the Assembly's Counsel General, John Griffiths, [said]: "I agree that, in relation to Wales, Principality is a misnomer and that Wales should properly be referred to as a country. The Assembly Government is committed to promoting Wales as a country both at home and abroad and we will endeavour to ensure that Wales is not referred to as a Principality in other reports and papers issued by the UK Government."- Welsh Assembly Government (2008). "Frequently Asked Questions". Wales.com. Retrieved 2010-10-17.
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 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. ... Our government's document 'One Wales' refers to us as a country or nation in it's own right.
--RA ( talk) 18:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help))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)
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 semi-protected}}
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)
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)
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)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Catfish Jim & the soapdish 10:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I will be reviewing this article shortly. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 11:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
General comments:
By and large an enjoyable and informative read. Article stability is open to question, but most recent edits have been fairly minor rewording and clarification. Some aspects need to be addressed, largely to do with referencing:
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)
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. citation needed 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. [5] 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... [6]
There is no need to make too much of this in this article - linked articles cover it in more detail. The {{cn}} tag would be filled by the Encyclopedia ref details. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 09:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
This would seem to be a suitable reference:
Fitz, John (2001), Shimahara, N. Ken; Holowinsky, Ivan Z.; Tomlinson-Clarke, Saundra (eds.), "Local identity and national systems: the case of Wales", Ethnicity, race, and nationality in education: a global perspective, Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., p. 248, retrieved November 24, 2010
Catfish Jim & the soapdish 10:39, 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.
[5] 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.
[5] The extent of its practice, however, is difficult to determine.
[7]"
Daicaregos (
talk)
20:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Wales ... is a country that is part of the United Kingdom and the island of Great Britain, [8] 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] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help)), which contains Snowdon ([Yr Wyddfa] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help)); Wales' highest peak. Its offshore islands include Anglesey ([Ynys Môn] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help)); the largest island in the Irish Sea.
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).
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); line feed character in |title=
at position 29 (
help) Cite error: The named reference "Lieberman 1" was defined multiple times with different content (see the
help page).
{{
cite book}}
: |work=
ignored (
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help) Cite error: The named reference "Welsh not BBC" was defined multiple times with different content (see the
help page).
{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
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)
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:
Wales is a country that is part of the United Kingdom, bordered by England to its east, and the Atlantic Ocean and Irish Sea to its west. Wales has a population estimated at three million and is officially bilingual; the indigenous Welsh language and English have equal status, and bilingual signs are the norm throughout the land. The once-steady decline in Welsh speaking has reversed over recent years, however, with fluent Welsh speakers currently estimated to be around 20% of the population.
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):
Wales is a country that is part of the United Kingdom, bordered by England to its east, and the Atlantic Ocean and Irish Sea to its west. 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. The Welsh language is an important element of Welsh culture; although it experienced a decline in ?????, a resurgence/series of changes/whatever reinstated its popularity, with fluent Welsh speakers were estimated in 200? to be around 20% of the population.
I think we also need to change from:
In 1955, Cardiff (Welsh: Caerdydd) was proclaimed as the capital city and it is the largest city in Wales with a population of 317,500. For a period it was the biggest coal port in the world.
...to...
In 1955, Cardiff was proclaimed as the capital of Wales. It is Wales's largest/most populous city with a population of 317,500. In the 19th century (?) it was the biggest clarification needed coal port in the world.
...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)
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. [1]-- Pondle ( talk) 22:10, 6 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)
In 1997, 21 per cent of the popluation in private households said that they spoke Welsh. In much of the rural north and west, Welsh remains the first language. Welsh is now more widely used for official purposes, and is treated equally with English in the work of the Assembly. It is also used quite extensively in broadcasting, while most road signs are bilingual.... The National Assembly has assumed the main responsibility for enchancing Welsh culture and developing greater use of the Welsh language.
— Britain 2001, ONS, p. 32
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:
Wales is a country that is part of the United Kingdom, bordered by England to its east, and the Atlantic Ocean and Irish Sea to its west. It has a population of about three million. The English and Welsh languages have equal official status across Wales, and English is the most widely spoken language. An estimated 21 per cent of residents speak Welsh fluently; it is the first language across much of rural north and west Wales and is an important part of Welsh culture.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Reviewer: Nikkimaria ( talk) 13:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello! I'll be reviewing this article for potential GA status. My review should be posted shortly. Cheers, Nikkimaria ( talk) 13:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
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'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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Any opinions as to whether or not this image would be appropriate for this article (at
Wales#Climate):
Daicaregos (
talk)
10:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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
- Illustrated Encyclopedia of Britain. London: Reader's Digest. 1999. p. 459. ISBN 0-276-42412-3.
A country and principality within the mainland of Britain ... about half a million- The Oxford Illustrated Dictionary. Great Britain: Oxford University Press. 1976 [1975]. p. 949.
Wales (-lz). Principality occupying extreme W. of central southern portion of Gt Britain- United Kingdom (2007), "Report of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" (PDF), Report by Governments on the Situation in their Countries on the Progress Made in the Standardization of Geographical Names Since the Eight Conferences, New York: United Nations,
The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy consisting of four constituent parts:...
- 2 countries: England + Scotland
- 1 principality: Wales
- 1 province: Northern Ireland
- "UN report causes stir with Wales dubbed 'Principality'". WalesOnline website. Media Wales Ltd. 3 July 2010. Retrieved 25 July 2010.
... the Assembly's Counsel General, John Griffiths, [said]: "I agree that, in relation to Wales, Principality is a misnomer and that Wales should properly be referred to as a country. The Assembly Government is committed to promoting Wales as a country both at home and abroad and we will endeavour to ensure that Wales is not referred to as a Principality in other reports and papers issued by the UK Government."- Welsh Assembly Government (2008). "Frequently Asked Questions". Wales.com. Retrieved 2010-10-17.
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 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. ... Our government's document 'One Wales' refers to us as a country or nation in it's own right.
--RA ( talk) 18:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help))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)
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 semi-protected}}
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)
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)
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)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Catfish Jim & the soapdish 10:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I will be reviewing this article shortly. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 11:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
General comments:
By and large an enjoyable and informative read. Article stability is open to question, but most recent edits have been fairly minor rewording and clarification. Some aspects need to be addressed, largely to do with referencing:
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)
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. citation needed 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. [5] 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... [6]
There is no need to make too much of this in this article - linked articles cover it in more detail. The {{cn}} tag would be filled by the Encyclopedia ref details. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 09:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
This would seem to be a suitable reference:
Fitz, John (2001), Shimahara, N. Ken; Holowinsky, Ivan Z.; Tomlinson-Clarke, Saundra (eds.), "Local identity and national systems: the case of Wales", Ethnicity, race, and nationality in education: a global perspective, Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., p. 248, retrieved November 24, 2010
Catfish Jim & the soapdish 10:39, 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.
[5] 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.
[5] The extent of its practice, however, is difficult to determine.
[7]"
Daicaregos (
talk)
20:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Wales ... is a country that is part of the United Kingdom and the island of Great Britain, [8] 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] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help)), which contains Snowdon ([Yr Wyddfa] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help)); Wales' highest peak. Its offshore islands include Anglesey ([Ynys Môn] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help)); the largest island in the Irish Sea.
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).
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); line feed character in |title=
at position 29 (
help) Cite error: The named reference "Lieberman 1" was defined multiple times with different content (see the
help page).
{{
cite book}}
: |work=
ignored (
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help) Cite error: The named reference "Welsh not BBC" was defined multiple times with different content (see the
help page).
{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)