Talk:Glyndŵr rebellion

Article name

I'm not sure Glyndŵr Rising is the most commonly recognisable name for this. "Rising" seems to be a less heavily used poetical name, and my impression is that it isn't used much elsewhere outside patriotic Welsh poems and recent self-pub websites which are likely to have been influenced by this page over the last decade. I think the most frequently used name within history/academia is likely "Welsh Revolt", with "Glyndŵr Uprising" or "Last War of Independence" as secondary names, but I need to get round to running a Google ngram check. Thought I'd leave this note here for watchers, in case someone else has a view on this, particularly people more knowledgable in Welsh history than I am. A possible page move/requested move is something that's been on my mind for a while, I'll ping WikiProject Wales before taking any action. Jr8825 • Talk 04:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Here is the Google ngrams result which led me to change the name: [1]. It is worth experimenting with the smoothing filter, as it effects the output result. However, "Welsh revolt" is clearly the most widely used term. Jr8825 • Talk 00:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I take the point that there were several 'Welsh revolts'. 'Glyndwr Rising' seems to be a term used by a number of non-Wikipedia related sources, so I don't personally have a problem with it. Either way, the article certainly needs a longer lede intro, so to remove the wone added by Jr8825 seems to be 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater'. Sionk (talk) 10:53, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Sionk. IagoHughes has not said why they think the new lead is worse beyond writing "you did not provide an explanation" in their second reversion. (As I explained over at the Wikiproject, I presumed it's common sense the lead needs expanding, and there's no real way to describe the changes beyond rewrite/expansion/new lead, because there's very little substance to the current one). Would you support restoring my text? Jr8825 • Talk 11:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Definitely think the expansion of the lede is an improvement to the article. It's a separate thing entirely from a discussion about the name of the article. If IagoHughes has a problem with the wording of the lede they're welcome to amend it, but deleteing it in its entirety seems to be unconstructive, without them giving a reason. Sionk (talk) 15:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

I have nominated the following files for deletion as probable violations of the photographer's copyright:

• File:Owain Glyndwr Siegel 2.jpg
• File:Seal of Owain Glyndŵr.png

See the nomination at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Owain Glyndwr Siegel 2.jpg. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Infobox image

Collage

Glyndŵr portrait

@IagoHuges you reverted my restoration of the conflict collage to the infobox, replacing it again with a single portrait of Glyndŵr, and didn't explain why you did this. I much prefer the collage as it shows more aspects of the war (and the Glyndŵr portrait is still included). I'd like to restore the collage. What was your objection it? Jr8825 • Talk 03:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Apologies I mistyped your name, IagoHughes. Jr8825 • Talk 03:29, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Breverton does not seem to be a good source

I haven't read his book, but if the wild claims being added as being cited to him (e.g. Glydnŵr defeated an army of 40,000 in battle in 1405) are being correctly cited and Breverton says these things on his authority, he should be treated with abundant caution. Also, he's a popular writer, not a historian. The most authoritative text on the rebellion is R. R. Davies' The Revolt of Owain Glydnŵr (Oxford, 1997); first edition available used for £3.25 here. Gideon Brough's The Rise and Fall of Owain Glyn Dŵr (I. B. Tauris, 2017); available as an ebook here, has also received praise as a moderately revisionist examination. When Brough or Davies contradict Breverton they should be prioritised. See this review (via the WP:Wikipedia Library), which describes the reputation of Davies and Brough. Jr8825 • Talk 20:41, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

@IagoHughes I was typing this as you reverted me. Jr8825 • Talk 20:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

You misunderstood, the book does not state Owain defeated 40,000 men in a pitched battle, it states constant guerilla attacks and the capture of 40 supply wagons after raiding the English supply route demoralized them and the invasion force to retreat back to England. Hence, why I used the word repelled not defeated. The book is very well written and uses sources from the time. IagoHughes (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Neither Davies nor Brough mention the figure 40,000, or a large English army entering Wales in 1405. Where has Breverton got this number from? Jr8825 • Talk 21:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Here's what Davies says about 1405: "The financial situation of the [English] government began to ease from 1405, and it may be no coincidence that plans for a much more ambitious policy against the Welsh rebels began to emerge in the spring and early summer of 1405 ... plans were put in place for a major twin-pronged expedition against the Welsh—the prince [of Wales] leading the offensive in the north, while his father (who had arrived at Hereford on 14 May 1405) was to take command in the south. In the event, news of Scrope's revolt in Yorkshire led to the expedition being aborted, as Henry IV and the prince hurried north; with this sudden change of plan the king's last opportunity, as it proved, to deal with the Welsh revolt by a major expedition disappeared." (first edn., pp. 118–119) Jr8825 • Talk 21:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Brough speculates a truce may have been in force in late 1405, and says it is "extremely unlikely" Henry IV went any further west than Hereford that year: "[After returning from Yorkshire] By 4 September Henry had advanced to Hereford where he tried to raise a loan and recorded his intent to march against the French in Wales ... the king remained at Hereford at least until 10 September after which point, though it is unclear when, he left the city. The king resurfaced in the records on 28 September, in Worcester, less than thirty miles to the east ... thousands of men and horses are easy to track and there is a lack of any corroborating reference [for an engagement with the Franco-Welsh]" (p. 148). He also says "Evidence from March [1406] implies that the king had not managed to resupply Coity castle in the Vale of Glamorgan since he "was last in Wales" in late 1404 (p. 151).

Brough says that in 1406: "parliament debated a strategy for the Welsh war and demanded action; it voted funds for Prince Henry to raise a sizeable army of 5,000 men that year, yet they did not enter Wales at all and were not redeployed to cover another emergency, as happened the previous year [the Yorkshire revolt]." Jr8825 • Talk 22:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Not only does the 40,000 not appear in any major works on the war, the figure is completely improbable and unrealistic for the time period and context and historians dismiss the idea there was even a major English expedition into Wales that year. I wouldn't touch Breverton with a bargepole, my guess would be that he's taking a dramatically exaggerating primary source at face value (the primary sources of this time period require extremely careful scrutiny as they're full of hyperbole and speculation, compare this with how Davies and Brough carefully discuss source biases, exaggerations, reliability etc.). Jr8825 • Talk 23:10, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

P.167 titled SIXTH ROYAL EXPEDITION INTO WALES SEPTEMBER 1405 Breverton said: "The intended invasion had been delayed because of Scrope's conspiracy. Caernarfon Castle was still in real danger of falling, but Beaumaris had been recaptured and the King was confident of defeating Glydnŵr, persuading parliament to grant him more funding. He left Hereford with around 40,000 men and heavy artillery. Glydnŵr refused to give fixed battle against overwhelming odds, and concentrated on hit and run tactics with his lightly armoured horsemen and archers. Coity was relieved once again, but instead of heading west and relieving other besieged castles, Henry IV headed almost immediately back to England. There were constant guerilla attacks with English losses, and extremely bad weather made the retreat back to Hereford miserable. The Kings baggage train was lost in flash floods and forty valuable wagons laden with jewellery, arms and supplies fell into Welsh hands. This the time of 'Cadwgan of the Axe', from near Treorchy, who led a warband from the Rhondda to harass the English."

Terry Breverton's book "Owain Glyndŵr: The Story of The Last Prince of Wales" is currently the No.1 best selling book on amazons "History of Wales" category, 19th in "Medieval History, and 15th in "British historical military biographies", it also has a rating of 4.6/5. The book contains hundreds of quotes from letters and documents that were written during the actual time of the rebellion, it is a very well sourced book. I recommend you read before passing judgement. Breverton has also written and published dozens of other books on Welsh history. IagoHughes (talk) 23:34, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Fortunately we don't judge the reliability of a source on how many copies it sells on Amazon. Here's number 3 on the history bestsellers list; and here's 4, and 5 and 6. Breverton is not a historian. His 40,000 claim is inconceivable and conflicts the actual scholarship on this topic. Jr8825 • Talk 23:54, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I only mentioned his sales in response to your statement that the 40,000 does not feature in any "major works of the war". The number is not unrealistic at all when you consider that in 1405, the rebellion was still at its height with Owain having full control of almost the entirety of Wales, and the fact that a French army was also present in the country during that year alongside the Welsh forces which at that point swelled to 8,000-10,000 in south Wales alone. For comparison, a century earlier in 1294 King Edward I of England marched into Wales with 37,000 men, just to put down the rebellion of Madog ap Llywelyn, a Welsh rebel who barely controlled Gwynedd. IagoHughes (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not just this either. Breverton is repeating popular myth and rumour. Contrast this with Brough, who devotes a whole chapter to discussing the primary sources regarding the route of the French force in Wales (itself a major historical occurrence), which may or may not have marched into Glamorgan and towards the March after reaching Carmarthen. There are no English or Welsh accounts and two conflicting French ones. Brough says "The two French chronicle accounts present a common core of a story, and then diverge to the point where either one omits a large section of the tale, possibly through ignorance but perhaps for political gain, or the other invents a significant part of the account, doubtless for similar, if opposing, political reasons." He examines the Chronicle of Saint-Deny, which says the French landed near Milford/Haverford, seized several towns and castles on the way to Carmarthen and then from there went to Cardigan before departing in early November. Conversely, Enguerrand de Monstrelet's account says that after Carmarthen the Franco-Welsh force marched towards Worcester via Glamorgan, before encountering Henry IV's army outside the town, leading to an eight-day stand-off, after which Henry withdrew pursued by the Franco-Welsh, who seized 18 supply carts. Brough then discusses the evidence for these versions, noting that "although Monstrelet is sometimes viewed as a less reliable source than the monk of Saint-Denis, there are indicators favouring the Worcester standoff theory" such as vernacular folk-tales and, tentatively, possible evidence from lower tax receipts in the border shires. Brough says a figure of 40 supply carts is supplied by Lloyd (1931), who attributes their loss to swollen rivers. Regardless, there's only fragmentary evidence to support either French account.

Compare all this with the text you've just quoted from Breverton, which bears only passing resemblance to previous primary or secondary sources. He clearly isn't concerned with the inconvenience of piecing together contradictory and confusing medieval sources and is currently being cited for the implausible claim that an Anglo-Welsh army definitively "burned the English counties of Herefordshire and Worcestershire", without bothering to note that this is only the version of one chronicle (actually it's an exaggerated version of a likely already exaggerated medieval text: Monstrelet doesn't clearly say the Franco-Welsh burnt down two counties, all the primary source says is "they burned the suburbs [of Worcester] and the surrounding country") and there's no concrete evidence either way. As for Henry IV leading a 40,000-strong invasion force from Hereford to Coity Castle, it's impossible to conclude this is anything other than artistic fabrication. Jr8825 • Talk 00:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I have removed all references to Breverton, replacing with others or adjusting text to match other sources. The lead was a mess. Per MOS:INTRO and MOS:CITELEAD I have cut it back and made sure it summarises statements in the main text. This also allowed considerable reductions of lead citations. Please consider lead guidance before adding new material to the lead. This lead is already 4 paragraphs, which is as long as it should get, and fully summarises the rebellion. No novel information should be added to the lead. Update the main text and only then consider lead revisions as a new summary.

There is one statement in the lead that retains its reference: The revolt was the last major manifestation of a Welsh independence movement before the annexation of Wales into England by the Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542. The assessment that this is the last major manifestation of Welsh independence prior to annexation is certainly right, but not currently diuscussed in the main, so I have left it there. Ideally we would have some discussion of that in aftermath, allowing the last lead citation to be moved to the main text and fully clean lead that can then be defended against novel inclusions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Penal Laws in Lead

Seems like a strange omission not to include any reference at all to the Penal Laws in the lead. Titus Gold (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

So the page subject is the Welsh Revolt. The laws were a response to this, which is detail, although not the direct cause of the revolt, so not essential summary detail. I am not opposed to having some brief mention of them in the lead, but your edit introduced a fifth paragraph, and MOS:LEADLENGTH strongly argues that a lead should not exceed 4. Your edit also gave the 1402 laws (which are just detail) a full paragraph, which is undue weight when what we are trying to summarise is the revolt. Your edit also only mentioned the 1402 laws but nothing of the later laws and after effects. A lead needs to be considered in its totality, trying to summarise the whole subject as succinctly as possible. Finally, and this applies to all the places you asserted your edit, the use of the term "apartheid" is editorialising and controversial. I was involved in the RfC at Andrew Jackson over whether to include "ethnic cleansing" and, indeed, "genocide" in the lead to describe Indian removal, and it was clear that backporting a modern concept onto the actions of history was only going to fly if it could be demonstrated that a plurality, indeed a majority of sources were going to describe it that way. I see on other pages you link "Apartheid" to the Crime of Apartheid pages. That is a definite no from me, and I think you are going to need an RfC if you want to use that wording. And I wouldn't recommend it! At the very least, please conduct a source review and establish that multiple sources describe this as a policy of aparthaid (I know you searched google books for the term because you left the search strings in the links, but you need to access all the sources and see how each describes it). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

And indeed you just added the crime of apartheid link here too. I have reverted. See the reason above. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy My apologies, hadn't seen these replies to my query. Please try to avoid assuming that I haven't read each source. I read the sources and context. I would suggest in future that you amend an addition to a way that you see fit rather than remove the addition altogether. Would it be acceptable to re-add the last addition without any links other than to the penal laws then? Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Not if it is going to extend the lead to 5 paragraphs. The lead as we have it concentrates on the key events of the revolt. How would you change it to make mention of these laws relevant? It seems to me it would need a rewrite. Why is it important that this detail be in the lead? You have added it as a section with a link to your new page, but I am not seeing how it is essential detail for the executive summary. Perhaps other editors might like to weigh in on this. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes happy to incorporate it into a paragraph rather than create a new one. The Penal laws were the most significant legislation passed against Welsh people during the revolt and in response to the revolt itself so forgive me but it seems bizarre that you want to omit this and raises a concern of deviation from WP:NPOV which I'm sure you want to avoid. A direct response from the English Parliament against the Welsh people due to the revolt seems like quite good reasoning to include at least half a sentence on it. Titus Gold (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 30 July 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to Glyndŵr rebellion. (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 20:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

---

Welsh Revolt → Glyndŵr Rebellion – The article title does not sufficiently disambiguate the topic, as there were several Welsh rebellions against English rule during the Middle Ages. There are several alternatives which would disambiguate.

I can fully understand why Jr8825 made the move from 'Glyndŵr Rising' based on their ngram result, but that result is flawed. Judging by my research below the Glyndŵr rebellion is rarely referred to as simply the 'Welsh Revolt', especially without context, and the phrase is also used to describe other rebellions and events in Welsh history.

The main title contenders are (GS= Google Scholar hits, OA= Oxford Academic hits):

• Glyndŵr revolt: 81 GS, 16 OA

• Glyndŵr rebellion: 225 GS, 36 OA

• Glyndŵr rising: 63 GS, 10 OA

• Glyndŵr uprising 30 GS, 3 OA

• Welsh revolt 393 GS OA 44

A significant thing to note is that many of the 'Welsh revolt' results refer to other medieval revolts or to the 1904–1905 Welsh Revival; where they do refer to Glyndŵr's rebellion it is often in phrases such as 'a Welsh revolt (led by Owain Glyndŵr)' or where Glyndŵr has already been identified as its leader. Additionally, 'rebellion' and 'revolt' seem to be more common in titles, with 'rising' and 'uprising' mainly appearing in body text.

Based on the above results I propose renaming the article 'Glyndŵr Rebellion', which seems to be the most common result, but it's a close thing so any other arguments or suggestions are welcome. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
• Comment It may just be me, but "Glyndŵr left me puzzled, but Owain Glyndŵr cleared it up for me. Perhaps using his full name would be better? (with a link to Owen Glendower, of curse)Lineagegeek (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

  If the question is whether "Owain Glyndŵr Rebellion" is any clearer than "Glyndŵr Rebellion" I'd argue it's not, as Glyndŵr is the only famous person by that name and so adding 'Owain' is unlikely to help a reader who doesn't already know who he is. He's wikilinked in the lead sentence, that's probably enough. For comparison, I wouldn't expect a reader arriving at Engelbrekt rebellion to know who Engelbrekt Engelbrektsson (what a name!) was, but it's soon cleared up. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - the argument that there are many revolts is not itself convincing to me. There is only one revolt that clearly deserves primacy as "The Welsh Revolt". No one is going to be confused by that, and I don't quite understand the reference to the 1904 revival. Surely the 1904 revolt was just a revolt against the education act, unless I am missing something. A revolt against the established church perhaps? Yet placement of that in 1904 is wrong. In any case, that clearly doesn't have title primacy. I don't think this title is confusing, but is it the best title? It makes no mention of Glyndŵr, and looking at how historians treat it, they tend to give it a longer title. John Davies speaks of the Rebellion of Owain Glyndŵr, whereas R R Davies tends to go with Welsh revolt of Owain Glyndŵr (and sometimes just Welsh Revolt). Similar will be true of other historians. But per Lineagegeek, Glyndŵr - on its own - might be puzzling. If Glyndŵr is mentioned, it is more usually "Owain Glyndŵr" in the titling. Thus "Welsh revolt of Owain Glyndŵr" or "Welsh rebellion of Owain Glyndŵr" would both be fine. Titles should be succinct, and those are five words instead of two, but I don't mind either. "Glyndŵr rebellion" is not without its academic uses [2], but I don't think it is clearly the WP:COMMONNAME. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

  You're missing the fact that the 'The Welsh Revolt' is not a title used exclusively to refer to this rebellion — among the results linked you can see it used to refer to the 1294–95 rebellion by Madog ap Llywelyn, the events surrounding the 1902 Education act and disestablishment of the Anglican Church in Wales, and Prince Charles' 1969 investiture. The sources don't give this rebellion primacy over the 'Welsh revolt' name, so we can't either.

  I disagree with the need to use the longer titles. In the academic sources the rebellion is often introduced as the 'Glyndŵr rebellion' or 'Glyndŵr revolt' without further qualification, and I believe we should follow suit. Using the same methodology as above, 'rebellion of Owain Glyndŵr' has 60 GS hits and 10 OA hits, and 'revolt of Owain Glyndŵr' has 152 GS hits and 16 OA hits. The short forms are ahead in search hits, more succinct, and in my opinion (as explained in the reply above) no more confusing. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

  Not to pile on, but in articles on English rebellions (the other medieval Welsh ones don't have articles) there's definitely a preference for using '[Person('s)] rebellion' rather than 'Rebellion of [Firsname Lastname]' when a revolt is closely associated with an individual. For example:

  • Æthelwold's Revolt
  • Buckingham's rebellion
  • Oldcastle Revolt
  • Bigod's rebellion
  • Wyatt's rebellion
  • Essex's rebellion

  A quick look at Google Scholar (forgive me for not linking, it's a bit of a faff) bears this choice out, with the above titles being more popular than the longer forms. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Current title is ambiguous. Srnec (talk) 14:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment

Not convinced that a move from the present title is needed and that this is not the WP:COMMONNAME. Firstly, while there may be other events that might be considered Welsh revolts, disambiguation/additional precision is only required if there is an actual conflict in article titles (per WP:TITLEDAB). There is no such conflict here. Hence, the argument that the title could refer to other events carries no substantial weight of itself if this is the WP:COMMONNAME. I am not seeing actual evidence to indicate it is not the common name. I did searches of Google books for "Welsh revolt" and for "Welsh revolt" AND "1400". These returned 6,670 and 2,350 hits respectively (not a majority but a substantial number). I'm not saying this is definitive but it does indicate the question requires further consideration. This ngram compares the present name with other proposals. There is no dispute that Welsh R|revolt is substantially the more common but the context from the raw search is unclear - ie is it being used for other revolts of the Welsh? Searches with wildcards can give clues to context. this ngram suggested a further refinement here returning results for Welsh revolt of 1294 and Welsh revolt under Owen that are inconclusive. I think the question remains unresolved.

Of the proposed alternatives Support Glyndŵr rebellion. Of the proposed alternatives, the ngram evidence would indicate this is the most common and using the possessive gives a similar result.

Lowercase Regardless of the title chosen, the ngram evidence supports the lowercase version (ie lowercase second word) per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS. The terms are not capitalised in a substantial majority of sources. See Glyndwr revolt, Glyndwr rebellion, Glyndwr rising, Glyndwr uprising and Welsh revolt. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

PS On whether Welsh revolt is the WP:COMMONNAME. One could determine if Welsh revolt primarily refers to this article by doing a search on "Welsh revolt" AND "Glyndŵr". However, this is problematic because Owain Glyndŵr is known by several names. The other common denominator is Henry IV, so we can use him in a conditional search. For Google Scholar: "Welsh revolt" - 394, "Welsh revolt" AND ""Henry IV" - 337, "Welsh rebellion" - 444 and "Welsh rebellion" AND ""Henry IV" - 396. Fairly conclusively, both Welsh revolt and Welsh rebellion primarily refer to this article's subject. While rebellion predominates slightly in the GS results, the convers appears the case for the ngram comparison (since ≈ 1900). There is no significant difference I can see to distinguish the two - not sufficient to support a change from Welsh revolt to Welsh rebellion at this time.

Now oppose/support alternativeStill not convinced but not intrinsically opposed except revolt/rebellion should be lower case. Welsh revolt. Per my PS, there is reasonable evidence to support that Welsh revolt is both the common name and primary target for this article though, per WP:NCCAPS, MOS:CAPS and the ngram evidence (above), revolt should be lowercased. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC) See my comment much further down (same time stamp as this). Cinderella157 (talk) 10:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

• If you don't mind me commenting, I think your results are useful but show the limits of Ngrams and raw search numbers. Because there isn't a clear COMMONNAME the context in which each term is used is very important, and it's only by looking more closely at the sources that we can do that.

We could start by looking at "Welsh revolt" AND "Henry IV" (which has 170 results for me, your search includes an extra set of quotation marks which apparently made a difference). The first result is a review of Malcolm Vale's Henry V, and the exact phrase it uses is 'a Welsh revolt (led by Owain Glyndŵr).' Unfortunately for our purposes Vale's book is only available in snippet view, but I can see that he uses the phrase 'the recent rising led by Owain Glyn Dwr'. The second, third, and fourth results are paywalled, but the fifth uses the phrase 'last major Welsh revolt' within an article titled 'The Revolt of Owain Glyn Dwr.' The sixth uses the phrase 'Owain Glyn Dwr was the leader of a Welsh revolt against English rule.' I won't go through the rest here, but my impression is that the standalone phrase 'Welsh revolt' is rarely used to introduce the uprising, and that it is almost always contextualised by naming Glyndwr.

(inserted) Additionally, the major academic works on the subject don't use the term 'Welsh revolt' by itself. The bibliography for the the ODNB entry on Glyndwr contains titles such as The revolt of Owain Glyndŵr (RR Davies, 1995), The Glyn Dŵr rebellion in north Wales through the eyes of an Englishman (RA Griffiths, 1966–8), and The last phase of the Glyndŵr rebellion (JB Smith, 1966–8), but none using the phrase 'Welsh revolt'. The ODNB article on the revolt is also titled 'Rising of Owain Glyndwr', and a more recent example is 'The Revolt of Owain Glyndwr in Medieval English Chronicles' (Alicia Marchant, 2014). The only instance I've been able to find of 'Welsh rebellion' being used as a standalone heading is in chapter five of Bryan Bevan's Henry IV. Even in this case, however, the title follows the introduction of the rebellion in the previous chapter as 'the Welsh rebellion of 1400, led by a great geurilla leader, Owain Glyn Dwr'. Given the above, and my earlier look at Google Scholar and Oxford Academic, I really do think that the Ngram and Google Books results are misleading us and that Glyndwr's name should form part of the title.(end)

To put it succinctly, the Ngrams are only half the story. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC); edited, 12:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, my PS, which is the substantive reason for my oppose does not rely on ngram evidence or Google Books but evidence from Google Scholar. The comments in respect to those seems misplaced. I only refer to ngrams at the last as a confirmation of Google Scholar results for "Welsh revolt" and "Welsh rebellion"; that these two terms appear in sources with similar frequency; and, consequently there is insufficient reason to change from the former to the latter. As for the search string, I acknowledge the additional quote mark; however, I placed the search without this additional mark and it appeared after I executed the search. Even when I removed it and re-executed the search, it reappeared. I cannot explain this but it was not an error on my part. The evidence I gathered indicates that the phrase "Welsh revolt" appearing in the corpus of GS is primarily (not exclusively) used in the context of this article. That the phrase "Welsh revolt" is also at times used with modifiers ("Glyndwr's Welsh revolt") or qualifiers ("the Welsh rebellion of 1400") does not change this. The Google Scholar and Oxford Academic searches offered at the start of this RM equally do not establish usage in titles or whether it is used to introduce the uprising. The premise of this RM is that there are other Welsh revolts that this could refer to. It is not disputed that there are other Welsh revolt, this of itself however, does not substantiate the need to move the article in accordance with WP:AT and there is no actual name conflict in WP article that might. To substantiate the need to move the article to the proposed target, one needs to establish that it is a more common name. To do this, one needs establish the prevalence of the target name and the extent to which the existing name refers to the article. The latter has not been done. Since we are trying to make a quantitative decision, stating that many of the 'Welsh revolt' results refer to other medieval revolts or to the 1904–1905 Welsh Revival is not quantitative or evidence that the majority of uses do not refer to this article. This was my concern when I initially posted that I was not convinced. In the absence of such evidence, my own investigations indicate my concern to be justified. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, I should say that I appreciate you joining the discussion and the points you've made. I also appreciate that the quotation mark error wasn't your fault, and I acknowledge the Scholar/Books mix-up from me. If any of my comment above was confrontational that wasn't my intent, my aim is just to interpret the results in a way which makes sense.

The issue with the Ngram and Google Scholar results is the same — the frequency has been analysed, but not the context. I believe the core problems are:

1. 'Welsh revolt' is a generic phrase which used for other events in Welsh history and as a short name for the Glyndŵr revolt within a text after the revolt has been introduced using its full name.

2. The results for 'Glyndŵr revolt' are fragmented because of the many variants of Glyndŵr's name and because the revolt itself does not have a set name. The person could be Glyndŵr, Glyndwr, Glyn Dŵr, Glyn Dwr, or Glendower, and his revolt could be a rebellion, rising, or uprising. The revolt might be introduced as 'Glyndŵr's revolt', or 'the revolt of Owain Glyndŵr'. Functionally these variants largely fulfil the same purpose and I would consider them equivalent when establishing a common name, but it is harder to track them.

Essentially, the results for 'Welsh revolt' are inflated and those for 'Glyndŵr revolt' are suppressed, which means numbers alone do not give an accurate result. This is true even when including additional phrases to try and narrow down the results, as I explained in my look at the '"Welsh revolt" AND "Henry IV"' results above. The phrase 'Welsh revolt' does appear in those results, but not as a title or introductory phrase.

I'm going to make a separate comment which collates as many of the various search results as I practially can and looks at how the revolt is titled or introduced across them. That should (hopefully) reveal the common name. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose move, support a move to Welsh revolt (lower case r) per Cinderella157. Thanks for this comprehensive look at the evidence. Just to add for reference (although you have it covered) this ngram [3] that shows Glyndŵr rebellion (with and without accent combined) falls far short of the other two. For now this page is at the COMMONNAME, albeit with a small issue regarding MOS:CAPS. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  There are major issues with assuming results for 'Welsh revolt' or 'Welsh rebellion' refer exclusively to this rebellion, Sirfurboy. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  I am striking my oppose. This is not because I am convinced the alternative is the COMMONNAME, but because, despite this, I don't really have a problem with Glyndŵr rebellion (small r), which is descriptive and in line with other articles. Were the article already named that I would probably be equally unconvinced about the need for a move. This being the case, I am striking my oppose so that the consensus here is clear (unanimous support), and that any editor, including the proposer, may close this discussion and we can get on with the move. Pinging A.D.Hope Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  At this point I think it's clear that there isn't a COMMONNAME, but also that 'Glyndŵr revolt-type' names are much more common than 'Welsh revolt-type' names. It's been an interesting one to riddle out, and I'm glad you think the move is appropriate.

  Although I could close I won't, as I've been so heavily involved in the discussion. A.D.Hope (talk) 07:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• I've gone through the various search results above (e.g. my Google Scholar and Oxford Academic results, and Cinderella157's Scholar results) to try and establish how the revolt is actually titled or introduced in texts, independent of the number of search hits each term returns.

Academic works specifically about the revolt

This first list contains published works which are specifically about the revolt.

• The Revolt of Owain Glyndŵr, R. R. Davies (1995). Book.
• 'The Glyn Dŵr rebellion in north Wales through the eyes of an Englishman’, R. A. Griffiths (1966–8). Article.
• ‘Prince Henry's war: armies, garrisons and supply during the Glyndŵr rebellion’, R. Griffiths (same as above?) (1987). Article
• 'The Last Phase of the Glyndŵr rebellion', J. B. Smith (1966–8). Article
• 'The Marcher Shire of Pembroke and the Glyndwr Rebellion', R K Turvey, (1990). Article.
• The Revolt of Owain Glyndwr in Medieval English Chronicles, Alicia Marchant (2014). Book.
• 'The Glyndŵr Rebellion and its Aftermath', Glanmor Williams (1993). Chapter.
• 'Owen Glyndwr and the Last Struggle for Welsh Independence', Arthur Granville Bradley (1901).
• The Rise and Fall of Owain Glyn Dwr: England, France and the Welsh Rebellion in the Late Middle Ages, Gideon Brough (2017)
• 'The Welsh Rebellion', Bryan Bevan (1994). Chapter. Note: the revolt is referrd to in the previous chapter (p.78) as 'the Welsh rebellion of 1400, led by a great geurilla leader, Owain Glyn Dŵr'

Secondary sources

For this list I tried to gather a representative example of references to the revolt in other academic sources. It's a little messy, but I think it does the job.

• Review of 'Medieval Anglesey' by A D Carr, Anglesey Antiquarian Society (1983). 'Glyndŵr revolt.'
• 'Short Notices', the English Historical Review (1959). 'Glyndŵr revolt'
• 'Gwaith Rhys Goch Eryri', D Foster Evans (2007). Abstract. 'Glyndŵr rebellion'
• 'Review of 'A Nation and its Books: A History of the Book in Wales', The Library (1999). 'Owain Glyndwr's rebellion'
• 'The Manor of Llanblethian', Maud Gunter, (1961). 'the Owen Glyndwr rising'
• 'Occasional Poetry, Popular Poetry, and the Robin Hood Tradition' Helen Philips (2023). Chapter (p.391). 'Glyndŵr's rising'
• Review of four books in the UWCASWC series, The Year's Work in Modern Language Studies (2000). 'Glyndŵr uprising'
• 'Female Castellans: Prevision, Not Prejudice', Charles L H Coulson (2003). Chapter (p. 320). 'Owen Glyndwr's uprising'
• Review of 'Henry V' by Christopher Allmand, The Historian (1993). 'Welsh revolt of 1400–1409'
• The Chronica Maiora of Thomas Walsingham, 1376-1422, Thomas Walsingham, trans. David Preest (2005). Book. '...the Welsh, led by a certain Owain Glyn Dŵr, seized the opportunity of the king's absence and started a rebellion.'
• Henry V: the Conscience of a King, Malcolm Vale (2016). Book (p.154). 'In Wales itself, the effects of the recent rising led by Owain Glyn Dwr were still being felt.'
• 'The Monarch Who Was More Than a Warrior-King' (Review of the above, Global Education Review (2023) 'a Welsh revolt (led by Owain Glyndŵr)'
• 'Rebellion, sedition and the legend of Richard II's survival in the reigns of Henry IV and Henry V', Peter McNiven (1994). Article. 'Owain Glyndwr's Welsh rebellion'.
• 'On writer’s language use in some multilingual letters', Carmela Perta (date unknown). Article(?). 'Welsh rebellion'.
• 'Henry IV and the Welsh March: The Application and Limits of Royal Patronage and Glyn Dwr’s Rebellion in South Wales, 1399–1405', Douglas Biggs (2018). Chapter.
• Review of 'Owain Glyndŵr: A Casebook', Textual Cultures (2014). 'the rebellion of the Welsh leader Owain Glyndŵr'

Other sources

For the sake of completeness I've also looked at non-academic sources. There's not a vast amount that I can find.

• Cadw has used 'Owain Glyndwr and his uprising'
• BBC: 'St David's Day: Owain Glyndwr visit to aid regeneration plan' — 'The rebel leader was behind a rising against the rule of Henry IV'
• Independent 'King to visit Wales on Owain Glyndwr Day' — 'The same day in 1400 is when Glyndwr began a 15-year uprising against the then-king of England, Henry IV'

A.D.Hope (talk) 11:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Although there is not a COMMONNAME per se, in the manner of the Peasant's Revolt or Pilgrimage of Grace, I believe the above shows that the revolt is strongly associated with Glyndŵr. His name is practically always attached to it in titles and introductory passages, and should therefore form part of the article title. 'Welsh revolt' and its variants are frequently used in the sources above, but almost always as a short name after the revolt has already been identified as the 'Glyndŵr revolt' or similar.

The varying forms of Glyndŵr's name should be conflated for our purposes. His article is currently titled Owain Glyndŵr, so this article should follow suit and use 'Glyndŵr'. As R. R. Davies' authoritative 1995 account includes 'Owain' I would favour including it in the article title — this also addresses the concerns raised by Sirfurboy and Lineagegeek above. Similarly although there is not a clear favourite among 'revolt', 'rebellion', 'rising', or 'uprising' I would follow Davies and use the first. Owain Glyndŵr's revolt is my preferred title.

Pinging @Cinderella157 @Sirfurboy to make them aware of my last two comments. To be clear, this is a courtesy and I have no expectation of them replying or changing their vote. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I am always concerned whenever I see a list of sources like this in an RM discussion and the process by which it was collated: whether It was collected to support one outcome or more objectively to compare two outcomes with appropriate steps to minimise observer bias and sample bias. Could you please give some detail of how this was collated. To your last response to me: all's good. This is a good robust discussion. The brevity of communication should not be misconstrued as terse. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I used the search terms which had already been mentioned in the thread, in part because they cover most of the options, but also to allow some degree of comparison and demonstrate how numerical and contextual analysis can produce different results. So:

• Glyndŵr revolt: Scholar, Academic
• Glyndŵr rebellion: Scholar, Academic
• Glyndŵr rising: Scholar, Academic
• Glyndŵr uprising Scholar, Academic
• Welsh revolt Scholar Academic
• rebellion of Owain Glyndŵr Scholar and Academic
• revolt of Owain Glyndŵr has Scholar hits and Academic.
• "Welsh revolt" - Scholar
• "Welsh revolt" AND "Henry IV" - Scholar
• "Welsh rebellion" - Scholar
• "Welsh rebellion" AND "Henry IV" - Scholar.
• The ODNB 'Glyn Dŵr' entry bibliography.

I doubt anyone working from scratch would choose the above terms, but they broadly cover the bases: six focus on 'Glyndŵr' and five on 'revolt/rebellion', plus the ODNB entry.

Terms established, I went through the results and broadly attempted to pick the first result from each search in which it was possible to tell how the revolt was titled or introduced. I tried to avoid referencing the same author twice or referencing a review of a text already mentioned, and tried to get a rounded set of source types overall — articles, reviews, books, etc. I also attempted to assemble the main secondary sources, as I would personally give them the most weight in a niche case such as this where the overall number of sources is not high.

In hindsight I should have mentioned which search each result above came from, but to give an example I'll use "Welsh revolt". The first result is irrelevant as it's about the educational 'revolt' in c. 1902, so I would move on to the second. This is titled 'The Revolt of Owain Glyn Dwr', so gets added to the list. As the 'Glyndŵr' majority became more pronounced I scanned the 'revolt' searches particularly carefully make sure there were no relevant 'revolt' results, but for the most part there weren't. Looking at "Welsh revolt" again:

• result three is a review of the Marchant book already included in the list.
• result four is about the 1294–95 revolt.
• only the first page of result five can be read, so it's not possible to determine the full context in which 'Welsh revolt' is being used.
• result six is about the nineteenth-century Nonconformist 'revolt'.
• result seven has the same issue as result five, as only the end of the review can be read.
• result eight is a chapter title within Marchant's book, which refers to 'The Revolt of Owain Glyndwr' on the cover.
• result nine turned out to only be the description of the Chronica Maiora from Boydell & Brewer, however I did include the translation of Thomas of Walsingham's description of the revolt from within the book.
• result ten is an irrelevant citation.

I don't doubt that my original methodology could be improved, but I also think the overall result is broadly correct. There are a small number of secondary sources about the revolt, a larger number of secondary sources which don't focus on the revolt (e.g. the Henry IV and V works), and then more sources which only mention the revolt in passing. In each case the revolt is typically introduced as the 'Glyndŵr revolt' or a variant. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

A.D.Hope, thankyou for the explanation. However, the methodology in IMHO is flawed. There are six searches explicitly looking for "Glyndŵr X" and two looking for Welsh X that have been contexturalosed. Furthermore, just the first instance from the searches (more or less) is reported. A random sample of "Welsh revolt" AND "Henry IV" would be statistically sound but I am not that invested in opposing the move - just that I am not convinced to support it. While I am open to being convinced, I think we can agree to disagree without killing any more electrons. I came here, not because I was notified of the RM but looking at capitalisation of "revolt/rebellion", where this was being cited as an example of using uppercase. However, I note that you don't appear to support capitalisation of revolt/rebellion and you might state this more prominently. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I think your suggestion of randomly searching the results is worthwhile, so I've done it. I searched "Welsh revolt" AND "Henry IV" and randomly analysed the first hundred results by using a random number generator to pick numbers from 1-100. The results were:

• Result 88: Gruffudd ap Cynan. The source is about Gruffydd ap Cynan and mentions the his 1094–95 revolt.
• Result 8: review of "The Revolt of Owain Glyndŵr in Medieval English Chronicles". First sentence refers to the 'Welsh revolt of the early fifteenth century', but is already contextualised by the book title.
• Result 74: Rebirth of a Nation Wales, 1880-1980. The book is not about the Glyndwr revolt, and uses 'Welsh revolt' in a different context.
• Result 15: The Marcher Shire of Pembroke and the Glyndwr Rebellion. The snippet view shows that the text contains the phrase 'Welsh revolt', but this is contextualised by the title.
• Result 92: The Philosopher's English King: Shakespeare's Henriad as Political Philosophy The text contains the phrase 'Welsh revolt', but the first mention seems to be 'Wales [...] was almost continuously in revolt, led by a shrewd and charismatic Welsh nobleman, Owen Glendower (Owain Glyn Dŵr)' (p. 47)
• Result 25: Welsh Soldiers in the Later Middle Ages, 1282-1422 earliest reference I can find is page 2, 'the revolt of Owain Glyndŵr'. The section dedicated to the revolt is titled 'The Reign of Henry IV: The Glyndŵr Rebellion, 1400–10'
• Result 71 1415: Henry V's Year of Glory 'the revolt of Owen Glendower' (p. 26)
• Result 59: The Demolition of the Roman Tetrapylon in Caerleon: An Erasure of Memory. The article is not viewable, but the snippet refers to an earlier revolt under Henry I: 'In the aftermath of the death of Henry I, there was widespread Welsh revolt'
• Result 43 review of Henry IV by Chris Given-Wilson 'the Welsh revolt'. This is the second page of the review, but I've checked the first via JStor and there are no earlier mentions of the revolt.
• Result 47 review of English Lordship in Ireland, 1318–1361. References a separate, unrealised Welsh revolt: 'In 1318 Ireland was just emerging from the crisis caused by the invasion of Edward Bruce in 1315, which had aimed at bringing Ireland under Scottish control and which at one point had also seemed likely to add a Welsh revolt to England's problems.'

Note: I had to 're-roll' twice, first when the result was an unsafe link and second when the result was written in Cyrillic.

I haven't done this to convince you so much as to continue to build the case for the common name. I do think this adds to the evidence that 'Glyndŵr revolt' or equivalent, rather than 'Welsh revolt' or equivalent, is most commonly used as a title or introductory phrase. Of the six results above which do refer to this revolt, five use the former and only the review of Henry IV uses the latter. For the sake of fairness I did look in Henry IV itself and the phrase 'Welsh revolt' is used unqualified in its introduction, with Glyndŵr only being mentioned later. While this should be noted, the other results indicate it is an outlier.

On capitalisation, I don't support capitalising 'revolt' or 'rebellion' where that would be against the MOS. Owain Glyndŵr's revolt is still my preference. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is much more convincing and objective - sufficiently for me to support the move rather than being more neutral and not opposing it (above). Thank you for the collegiate way this discussion has progressed. This could be closed by anyone and moved to Glyndŵr rebellion as the consensus is clear and indisputable. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support "Glyndŵr's rebellion", or something similar to it. Sceptre (talk) 02:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
• Glyndŵr rebellion without the capped Rebellion seems best to me; or other alternatives without the excess capping. Dicklyon (talk) 05:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
• Move to Glyndŵr rebellion, or some other title naming Owain Glyndŵr and in sentence case. The difficulty in finding a WP:COMMONNAME suggests that a descriptive article title (rather than a proper name for the event) should be used, and that means that Glyndŵr's name is needed in order to be WP:PRECISE (there having been other Welsh rebellions against English rule). Ham II (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
• Move to Glyndŵr rebellion per Ham II and others above. DankJae 22:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anti-Welsh Laws opening

The start of the Anti-Welsh Laws section says "The core Lancastrian supporters would have none of this." It's not abundantly clear what "this" is, I assume it's Hotspur's outlook in favor of negotiations that ends the previous section, but it feels a confusing opening to the section. J22M (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@J22M looks like someone merged paragraphs without paraphrasing, and the text was likely a continuation of the section above. I don't have the books to reference, but your right about the Hotspur reference, I'll try some paraphrasing. Cltjames (talk) 20:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)