![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
John Davies was cited in 10 different places and citations were a mix of bare Harvard format and duplicates of full references. As Harvard referencing is used on the page I have converted all 10 to Harvard refs with a single full citation (in further reading). This is much neater, and if the change sticks, I propose to clean up other duplicated refs in a similar manner.
However, it could elicit discussion because referencing style is one of those questions. I used Harvard refs rather than the Rp template to regularise these because the page already used Harvard referencing - just not in the appropriate template. If anyone has strong feelings that we should not be using Harvard referencing, please can we discuss now before I spend any more work on the page. Just this one change has taken me over an hour and a half, so I don't want to waste my time if its all going to get reverted. -- Sirfurboy ( talk) 11:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
ETA: It occurs to me that editors may not reply to this if they are not sure what the difference between referencing systems is. To see a Harvard reference, one of the ones I improved, click reference [13] in the second paragraph of the article. See how it has "(Davies, 1994, p.54)" but if you click that you see the full citation for the book, which can be found at the bottom of the page (currently in "Further Reading", but that will probably move into "References" if we are all happy with Harvard refs). Clicking ref [12] in the paragraph above shows the more usual referencing style. One advantage of Harvard refs is that you can re-use refs whilst updating the page number and inserting quotes, and each re-use is quite easy. Re-using the other ref style needs the ref either to be repeated in full when referencing different page numbers, or else adding the Rp template to insert a page number beside the ref.
The disadvantage of Harvard refs is most people on Wikipedia are familiar with the other citation style, and that is what the tools put in for you.
This page was using Harvard style for the Davies quotes but not for just about everything else. So, despite my improving the Harvard referencing earlier, I am not sure I can recommend that we stick with Harvard. If we don't, I will convert all those Harvard refs to a single ref using the Rp template for page numbers and efn notes to insert the quotations. But it would be helpful to get some input as to which editors of this page would prefer.
Do we need an RfC? Or should I just pretend all the Davies quotes were not in Harvard format and go back to the more standard ref style? :) -- Sirfurboy ( talk) 21:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
I've come across multiple individuals of Welsh ancestry who believe someone born in England to Welsh parents = Welsh, even if they grew up in England. And the same individuals believe that someone born in Wales to English parents = English, regardless of whether or not they grew up there. Would someone of non-Welsh ancestry, particularly first gen English "immigrants", consider themselves Welsh? Would they be allowed to consider themselves Welsh? We need more research on Welsh ethno-nationalism, particularly as it's often criticized as being racist towards non-Caucasian people who grew up in Wales. -- 2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:9894:82:6973:5EA4 ( talk) 12:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
I fail to see how people not descended from historical Brittonic populations, who speak only English, likely have names from languages which are not Welsh could in any sense be classed as 'Welsh' whatever they identify as and whatever others identify them as.
However, interestingly, only around 58% of the people in Wales descend from Brittonic peoples. And I'm willing to bet good money many of the people in Wales claiming to be 'true Welsh' today ultimately trace their descent from the Danish-like source interpreted as largely representing the Anglo-Saxons (22%), the Norwegian Vikings (3%), or from further south in Europe, possibly related to French immigration during the Norman period (13%).
Perhaps the Welsh identity is rather flimsy. Like all based on vapid concepts of 'blood'. Perhaps it's more of a geographic identity today outside of the actual Welsh-speaking parts of Wales. Sock of indef blocked
User:92.14.216.40— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
89.242.79.26 (
talk)
08:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM
|
---|
Collapsing again. If anyone wants to suggest a change to the wording of the article, make a proposal and discuss it here. If you just want to have a discussion about your interpretation of the term "ethnic group", take it elsewhere. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 22:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
|
"Native to Wales" - also "includes people of Welsh descent". Pick one - I have a large amount of Welsh descent, but I am absolutely not Welsh. Nobody counts me as Welsh - certainly not census data. I was born and raised in England, so I am English. Nobody in Wales is "claiming" me (not that I care), so where is the lead claims coming from? SinoDevonian ( talk) 22:10, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
I have removed some quite longstanding text from the lead [1] allegedly citing John Davies as saying Wales as a nation can be traced back to the 4th or 5th centuries. It is not altogether wrong per Davies, but it is a poor summary of his argument. It is a nuanced opinion, and I suggest that anyone wishing to restore this should first create a section in the main that discusses the nuances before creating a lead summary. What Davies says is (inter alia):
It is also supported by Gwyn A. Williams, perhaps because of his desire to give a neat symmetry to his interpretation of the history of Wales — that the nation came into existence during the death-throes of one empire and went out of existence during the death-throes of another. If it is accepted that a nation has an organic nature similar to that of a human being — a concept full of difficulties — then perhaps it is not over-fanciful to consider 383 as the year of the conception of the Welsh nation and to accept Magnus Maximus as the father of that nation.
And it was the conception rather than the birth of the nation which occurred in 383, for the word Cymry had not been adopted as the name of the nation and Wales was not its only territory. (Davies, 1994:54)
And he goes on to discuss the old north, the surviving literature etc. as being important to the idea of Wales, but he has already spoken of the above as being the mythology of the foundation of Wales. His point is that we find the ideas of a people here, the conception of an idea of Wales that has its birth later on. Our text {{tq|The historian John Davies argues that the origin of the "Welsh nation" can be traced to the late 4th and early 5th centuries, following the end of Roman rule in Britain)) is therefore, as I say, not wholly wrong, but certainly not a fair summation of his argument. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 16:02, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
Welsh nation has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 13 § Welsh nation until a consensus is reached.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk)
15:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
John Davies was cited in 10 different places and citations were a mix of bare Harvard format and duplicates of full references. As Harvard referencing is used on the page I have converted all 10 to Harvard refs with a single full citation (in further reading). This is much neater, and if the change sticks, I propose to clean up other duplicated refs in a similar manner.
However, it could elicit discussion because referencing style is one of those questions. I used Harvard refs rather than the Rp template to regularise these because the page already used Harvard referencing - just not in the appropriate template. If anyone has strong feelings that we should not be using Harvard referencing, please can we discuss now before I spend any more work on the page. Just this one change has taken me over an hour and a half, so I don't want to waste my time if its all going to get reverted. -- Sirfurboy ( talk) 11:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
ETA: It occurs to me that editors may not reply to this if they are not sure what the difference between referencing systems is. To see a Harvard reference, one of the ones I improved, click reference [13] in the second paragraph of the article. See how it has "(Davies, 1994, p.54)" but if you click that you see the full citation for the book, which can be found at the bottom of the page (currently in "Further Reading", but that will probably move into "References" if we are all happy with Harvard refs). Clicking ref [12] in the paragraph above shows the more usual referencing style. One advantage of Harvard refs is that you can re-use refs whilst updating the page number and inserting quotes, and each re-use is quite easy. Re-using the other ref style needs the ref either to be repeated in full when referencing different page numbers, or else adding the Rp template to insert a page number beside the ref.
The disadvantage of Harvard refs is most people on Wikipedia are familiar with the other citation style, and that is what the tools put in for you.
This page was using Harvard style for the Davies quotes but not for just about everything else. So, despite my improving the Harvard referencing earlier, I am not sure I can recommend that we stick with Harvard. If we don't, I will convert all those Harvard refs to a single ref using the Rp template for page numbers and efn notes to insert the quotations. But it would be helpful to get some input as to which editors of this page would prefer.
Do we need an RfC? Or should I just pretend all the Davies quotes were not in Harvard format and go back to the more standard ref style? :) -- Sirfurboy ( talk) 21:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
I've come across multiple individuals of Welsh ancestry who believe someone born in England to Welsh parents = Welsh, even if they grew up in England. And the same individuals believe that someone born in Wales to English parents = English, regardless of whether or not they grew up there. Would someone of non-Welsh ancestry, particularly first gen English "immigrants", consider themselves Welsh? Would they be allowed to consider themselves Welsh? We need more research on Welsh ethno-nationalism, particularly as it's often criticized as being racist towards non-Caucasian people who grew up in Wales. -- 2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:9894:82:6973:5EA4 ( talk) 12:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
I fail to see how people not descended from historical Brittonic populations, who speak only English, likely have names from languages which are not Welsh could in any sense be classed as 'Welsh' whatever they identify as and whatever others identify them as.
However, interestingly, only around 58% of the people in Wales descend from Brittonic peoples. And I'm willing to bet good money many of the people in Wales claiming to be 'true Welsh' today ultimately trace their descent from the Danish-like source interpreted as largely representing the Anglo-Saxons (22%), the Norwegian Vikings (3%), or from further south in Europe, possibly related to French immigration during the Norman period (13%).
Perhaps the Welsh identity is rather flimsy. Like all based on vapid concepts of 'blood'. Perhaps it's more of a geographic identity today outside of the actual Welsh-speaking parts of Wales. Sock of indef blocked
User:92.14.216.40— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
89.242.79.26 (
talk)
08:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM
|
---|
Collapsing again. If anyone wants to suggest a change to the wording of the article, make a proposal and discuss it here. If you just want to have a discussion about your interpretation of the term "ethnic group", take it elsewhere. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 22:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
|
"Native to Wales" - also "includes people of Welsh descent". Pick one - I have a large amount of Welsh descent, but I am absolutely not Welsh. Nobody counts me as Welsh - certainly not census data. I was born and raised in England, so I am English. Nobody in Wales is "claiming" me (not that I care), so where is the lead claims coming from? SinoDevonian ( talk) 22:10, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
I have removed some quite longstanding text from the lead [1] allegedly citing John Davies as saying Wales as a nation can be traced back to the 4th or 5th centuries. It is not altogether wrong per Davies, but it is a poor summary of his argument. It is a nuanced opinion, and I suggest that anyone wishing to restore this should first create a section in the main that discusses the nuances before creating a lead summary. What Davies says is (inter alia):
It is also supported by Gwyn A. Williams, perhaps because of his desire to give a neat symmetry to his interpretation of the history of Wales — that the nation came into existence during the death-throes of one empire and went out of existence during the death-throes of another. If it is accepted that a nation has an organic nature similar to that of a human being — a concept full of difficulties — then perhaps it is not over-fanciful to consider 383 as the year of the conception of the Welsh nation and to accept Magnus Maximus as the father of that nation.
And it was the conception rather than the birth of the nation which occurred in 383, for the word Cymry had not been adopted as the name of the nation and Wales was not its only territory. (Davies, 1994:54)
And he goes on to discuss the old north, the surviving literature etc. as being important to the idea of Wales, but he has already spoken of the above as being the mythology of the foundation of Wales. His point is that we find the ideas of a people here, the conception of an idea of Wales that has its birth later on. Our text {{tq|The historian John Davies argues that the origin of the "Welsh nation" can be traced to the late 4th and early 5th centuries, following the end of Roman rule in Britain)) is therefore, as I say, not wholly wrong, but certainly not a fair summation of his argument. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 16:02, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
Welsh nation has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 13 § Welsh nation until a consensus is reached.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk)
15:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)