|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 2||Archive 3||Archive 4|
- 1 Principality of Wales?
- 2 Poor wording
- 3 Ethnic composition
- 4 Monetenegro
- 5 The Queen will have a role in Welsh Government
- 6 History section
- 7 capital.tv?
- 8 The dab header
- 9 Non-Christian religions
- 10 Actual Legal Status of Wales as Subunit of "England and Wales"... or Something
- 11 Pronunciation
- 12 Whats in a letter? Llyw (Leader) or llew (lion)
- 13 History section
- 14 Coat of Arms removal
- 15 Dollars
- 16 Welsh Assembly: Tax Powers and Spending oversight
- 17 New Proposed Wales Project
- 18 Principality
- 19 Powers of Welsh government executive body
- 20 Snooker section: Ray Reardon should be added.
- 21 Intro
- 22 Category:Germanic culture
- 23 Nationalist revival
- 24 Proposed deletion of England and Wales
- 25 Education?
- 26 cwn.wikipedia.org
- 27 Words added by User:220.127.116.11
- 28 Archiving
- 29 Flag
- 30 Infobox flag straw poll
- 31 Unification
- 32 Stemonitis' "Tidy Up"
- 33 Welsh
- 34 Bangor's city status
- 35 Gymru vs Cymru
- 36 Statement half wrong/half right
- 37 Which is the Head of Wales? The Queen or the Prince?
- 38 Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Celts
- 39 Introduction
- 40 Ulster Banner straw poll
- 41 Main picture issue
- 42 Cricket in Wales
- 43 History of the Jews in Wales
- 44 Prince of Wales
Principality of Wales?
Is it at all accurate to say that Wales is the "Principality of Wales" (and to have Principality of Wales redirect here)? My understanding was that the Principality of Wales only existed between 1282 and 1543, and consisted of the original 8 counties created by Edward I in the former year (while the rest of Wales continued under the control of the Marcher Lords). After 1543, Wales was simply part of England, and not a separate "principality" in any real sense... john k 17:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Wales is referred to as a Principality because it was originally a group of separate prinipalities of which Gwynedd was the most powerful. The term was then used to refer to the area which was under the direct control of the crown (the north west) following the Statute of Rhuddlan 1284. During Owain Glyndwr's successful rebellion he was declared Prince of Wales on the 16th Sept 1400 (Owain Glyndwr Day) a title that was recognised by the Welsh Parliament in 1404. And even after the Acts of Union 1536-1543 (which finally gave the Welsh a degree of equality in their own land) Wales was still referred to commonly as the Principality.
- I am leaning towards Wales as a legally described Principality because the Treaty of Montgomery formally establishes a political entity recognized by other states as a "Principality of Wales." Though later Statutes would redefine the borders, first to restrict them with the Statute of Ruddlan in 1284 (limiting the principality of Llywelyn II after a war, and releasing Welsh lords from direct feality to him), it would be seen to actually expand the principality with the Laws in Wales Acts 1535-1542 to actually include formerly Marcher lordships. Additionally, while the title "Prince of Wales" always returns to the crown and has to be conferred again to the male heir of the UK monarch, the area administered by the council of Wales (usually seated at Ludlow). The initial intention of the Laws of Wales acts were to completly annex Wales formally into the English kingdom, but the very presence of a newly defined administrative area for the Council of Wales I would say means that the principality of Wales was a fact, even with the title was merged again with the crown. One could view the present Assembly of Wales as a kind of continuation of the Council of Wales for all intentens and purposes (though more responsable to the Welsh people directly). Given this, and the lack of any repudiation of the legal status of Principality of Wales, I would say it continues to be such, as established in 1262.Drachenfyre 14:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- I wrote to the Welsh Assembly and the reply confirms that the official name of Wales is indeed a principality:
Many thanks for your enquiry to the National Assembly for Wales / Diolch am anfon e-bost at Gynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru. You are correct in stating that Wales is a principality and that the current Prince of Wales has no direct governmental authority / Yr ydych yn gywir i ddweud fod Cymru yn Dywysogaeth ac fod y Tywysog Cymru heb awdurdod llywodraethol.
Regarding the role of a constituent country the official name is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Teyrnas Unedig) - Wales (Cymru) and Scotland (Yr Alban) being semi independent countries within the union since devolution in 1999, with further law making powers transferring to the National Assembly following our elections on May 3rd 2007.
The following website should provide you with further historical context -
Hoping that this is of some use to you / gobeithio fydd hwn yn ddefnyddiol i chi. Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda.
Yn gywir / Yours sincerely, Phil Rogers Swyddog Addysg a Gwybodaeth i'r Cyhoedd / Public Information and Education Officer Ffon / Phone: 029 2089 8200 E-bost / E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
So, this should settle it. The Principality of Wales then. Drachenfyre 13:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Um. Could you ask him to clarify that the term "Principality of Wales" is the correct term for Wales in the present day, and not simply that Wales is a principality, which I don't think anyone has questioned? Neither the email nor the webpage say that it is. Vashti 14:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hello Vashti, aye, I can resubmit the question but I understood him to verify that "Wales is a principality..." in his response above. It may not be used in common speach, but that is not unusual, for even here in Virginia we don't use Commonwealth of Virginia is everday speach, even though that is the correct designation. Most refer to it as a state. So... I am uncertin were the ambiguity is now, with weather or not Wales is a principality.12:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, the term "principality" only means that Wales was governed by a prince; it's not part of the name of Wales and he has not said that it is. He says that the offical name of the country is the United Kingdom etc., and that Wales (not "the Principality of Wales") is a semi-independent country within it.
- Wales is a principality in the same way that it is a nation, but you wouldn't use "the Nation of Wales" as the full name of Wales. Living here, I very occasionally hear older people refer to "the principality", but this is vanishingly rare, and I don't think I've ever heard people refer to "The Principality of Wales" outside of a historical context. I was also not able, when I looked, to find any official body using it or any documentation for this usage.
- Simply establishing that Wales is a principality does not establish that the official name of Wales is "The Principality of Wales", as the article now states. I would really like some positive evidence for this before it's included in the article - specifically, I'm thinking of the particular Local Government Act which defined the territory and counties of Wales. Vashti 15:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- The Local Government Act wont answer your question then either, I have read the act (looking dfor the same answer as you). The act does not refer to anything other then the local "counties", not even recognizing really a seperate entitiy of Wales outside of the England. I shall redirect your question to the representitive, but I think you are spliting hairs here, because clearly the representitive of the Assembly government recognizes Wales as a principality. The term "principality" means that there is a "prince of"... and there is a prince of Wales. He does not have direct administerative or governmental functions. I will copy/edit your question to the represenitive. But I believe the question will be the same. As he, a member of the Public Affairs department of the Assembly, recognized Wales as a principality, It would seem to be so. Even referencing "older" people who refer to it as such is proof. Its more or less younger generatiosn who are less formal on such things who do not use the offical titles. Drachenfyre 15:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
"Yes the term "Principality" has been used but often very slopilly. In Wales the term "Principality" would almost always be understood to refer to the Principality Building Society. I would also question the reply from the Assembly, it's not unknown for government officials to get things wrong. Wales is not a principality, 1. The Prince of Wales has no role in Wales, (the title is analagous to that of "Crown Prince"), 2. Acts of Parliament do not refer to the "Principality of Wales". It is true that a Principality of Wales did exist historically, my understanding is that it is a pre 1282 term, refering to those parts of Wales that were already under the control of the English King, as opposed to those parts of Wales that were still under the control of sovereign Welsh rulers. Indeed I suppose by that logic from Edward I time to the Act of Union all of Wales was then a Principality. It would be better that the term "Principality of Wales", was used to refer to that pre Acts of Union historic entity.
If you Look at the official websites of the legisatures, you'll see Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a "Kingdom", and that Wales is Wales. GB&NI's full official name refers to the sort of Monarchy it is, (i.e. a Kingdom) and Wales's official name doesn't since it isn't actually any sort of Monarchy really, (it's not a Kingdom, Principality, Duchy, Empire or Epistolic See for that matter) it's just part of another one.
I hope the links to the opening sessions to Wales' two legislatures are helpful.
The Great Britain Parliament referred to as "THE FIFTY–FOURTH PARLIAMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND". http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/vo050511/debtext/50511-01.htm (I've emboldened "Kingdom".) GB&NI is a therefore a "Kingdom", more precisely a "United" one.
The National Assembly for Wales is referred to as "The National Assembly for Wales". No reference to "Principality".
This surely answeres this definatively!?!" added 29 December 2006
- I dissagree, Llywelyn I was the frist to use the title Prince of Wales in 1216, followed by his grandson Llywelyn II. The first uses of the term Principality was first recognized by the English in official documents is referenced in the treaty of Montgomery in 1269, followed in the treaty of Aberconwy 1279, followed by the Statute of Ruddlan in 1284. The Laws of Wales Acts of the 16th century abolish the marcher lordships and incorporate them into the Principality, and all was governed by officers appointed to the Council of Wales. This, has never ever been repealed, so Wales remains a principality. I shall revert it back based on the information provided by the assembly, as removing it removes information. Further information is forthcoming from the Assembly,Drachenfyre 23:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Please, let's not get into another revert war about this. Vashti 09:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I have received further comment from the Welsh Assembly on weather or no Wales is a principality. I have to say their office is VERY accomidating. The representitive I was speaking with even had the Assembly Members Research Service compile a report on the issue dated January 4th (after I sent a redirect question to them) tittled "Wales: status as a principality. Please provide a formal frame of reference as to whether Wales is or is not a principality in the current 21st century sense."
Their report is very comprehensive, but basically states that the use of the term "Principality of Wales" is the honorific designation of Wales. According to the Assembly Members Research Service "Wales’ status as a principality is essentially an historic acknowledgement of its status when it was incorporated into the English Crown, therefore it remains a largely symbolic epithet largely associated with Royal ceremonial rather than contemporary governance and administration."
Furthermore, "the House of Lords Act 1999, which abolished the right of hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords, specifically defines the Principality of Wales as a life peerage. In this sense, the term “principality” clearly does not relate to a territory." However, "the Government of Wales Act 2006 which makes the devolved structures in Wales closer to those of Scotland, for example, with Ministers appointed by the Monarch. Also, the new Measures (Bills) that the Assembly will be able to make will receive Royal Assent from the Monarch just as in Scotland and Westminster."
It concludes, as others here have pointed out, that the term "Prinicipality" remains ambigious at best. Neither the U.K. parliment nor the Welsh Assembly members refer to the "governance and administration" as a principality. The answer will come once the Welsh Assembly has come into full possession of its 2006 Authority, when Queen Elizabeth II will have to give royal assent to Assembly measures. There is a new Welsh court created to adjudicate on Assembly issues, and it will be interesting then to see how the terms are writtin down. Someone suggested laws in Wales will be signed as "Elizabeth, by Right in Wales" or some such.
As to weather we should leave the term principality as part of the name, I think it remains ambigious. I would understand removing the term given the ambigous statement from the Assembly themselves. However, given the historic and cultural context the report clearly states Wales as a principality. I think it the reference as principality is as valid as the use of an unoffical arms too. Should I post this report here? Where would it be appropriate to post this? It is a good report I have to admit. Drachenfyre 22:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd just like to add the fact that completely aside from the historical rights and wrongs of the use of the term, "Principality" as used in this context is seen by many in Wales as a derogatory comment - denying in some sense full nationhood. This arises from the fact that pretty much the only ones still using the term are usually in the [British] Government, and are seen to be somewhat out of touch with Welsh sensitivities. This comment itself may well be controversial, just thought this should be mentioned somewhere in the discussion pages... hope that's ok. --Clawsofdoom 11:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- «"Principality" as used in this context is seen by many in Wales as a derogatory comment»
- I don't doubt it. Nationalism is rife in Wales but Wales is not a nation. It seems that Wales (as we know it) wasn't really defined until the Laws in Wales Acts before that it was the principality + marches which rose out of feuds between local lords. "Wales" was handed over as part of England by Gruffudd ap Llywelyn who accepted a position as overlord to Wales but subordinate of the English crown (Henry III allowed the title first IIRC). Wales wasn't ever taken back, not even by the rebellion of Owain Glyndwr. Wales is simply a short-hand for a group of counties. A bit like how Wessex might be used (though that was a pre-england monarchical nation). I think the key to this comes in the Acts of Union 1707 (transcript) which establishes Great Britain. Nowhere is Wales mentioned, it's an agreement to merge the Kingdom of England and that of Scotland. Thus, inasmuch as Wales is part of Great Britain it's also part of England. The outcome of this is that the first line of the article is wrong as Wales is not a constituent country (yet!) as it was (in the words of the Statute of Rhuddlan article "incorporated into England". One last point, said Statute of Rhuddlan article refers to Wales when it means the kingdom of Gwynedd, the Marches were already absorbed and under the control of the English crown. -- Pbhj 02:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Owain Glyndwr was actually given the title "King of free Wales" Meredudd Glyndwr was the prince of wales.
First line "Wales (Welsh: Cymru; pronounced /ˈkəmrɨ/) is one of the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom." The Uk is is the uninfication of scotland and england (making GB) and ireland. It is assumed it is part of england and not its own 'country'. Its more of an administrative state than 'a constituent countries ' Dave —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
"Wales is closely, but far from completely, integrated politically with England, although it was from around the 16th century until the mid-19th century."
" ... although it was" what? Closely integrated? Completely integrated? Far from completely integrated? Integrated? The complement to the verb "was" is missing, and it is not clear what the implied complement might be. It's ambiguous. Someone who knows the details of what this should mean should correct this poorly-constructed sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 01:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ethnicity: 97.9% White, 0.9% S.Asian, 0.6% Mixed, 0.4% Chinese, 0.2% Black
This is ridiculous. That is not ethnic but racial composition of Wales. Does somebody have information what is the ethnic composition of the region? How many of its population are ethnic Welsh, and how many are ethnic English? Can I find this information somewhere? User:PANONIAN
- DNA evidence suggests that 80% of the Welsh are of the same stock as 80% of the Irish. In particular, I would recommend you go to the BBC website and search for "Blood of the Vikings" where there are details on this.
- Additionally, I do not think there was an option for the Welsh to identify themeselves as such, the option was "White British". There was an option to write in what ethnicity one consideres oneselve, but that would have been an extra step. In the next census, it is said there will be an option for people to check off if they consider themselves Welsh or Scottish or English, rather then or with White British.126.96.36.199 07:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC) I claim this statement! lol. Appearently I wasnt logged in when I posted it! Drachenfyre 21:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Back to the original criticism of the data- for the benefit of the non-UK based audience, the terms "ethnicity" and "race" are now used increasingly intherchangebly in the UK. This has occurred since it is now seems now that it is preferred to use the phrase "ethnic minority" when we are generally mean "racial minority", yes there is an overlap between the two terms, but of course they don't mean the same thing really. For example in a UK wide context the Welsh are obviously part of a "racial majority" but part of an "ethnic minority". From a linguistic point of view Panonian is absolutly right to point this out. Data was published after the last census as to how many people in Wales considered themselves of "Welsh" ethnicity, (Census information is available from the UK's Office for National Statistics http://www.statistics.gov.uk/) but as explained above the methodology on collecting data on Welsh (and for that matter, English and Scottish) ethnicity was seriously flawed. No doubt we will see a jump of several hundred percent in the proportion of the population of Wales that is of "Welsh ethnicity" in 2011, due to the different methodology of collecting the data!!!! I do remember a question from the Census form about which country in the UK you were born in, which may give a very rough idea as to the ethnic composition of Wales, (it'll give an idea of the extent of population churn at least).
- I have to disagree with your first point there, the term "ethnic minority" is far more apt than "racial minority". The largest non-native ethnic group(s) in the UK are caucasians of South Asian descent. Referring to these groups as a "racial minority" would of course be erroneous; being caucasian (like the natives) makes them part of the racial majority. --Krsont 20:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I do remember a question from the Census form about which country in the UK you were born in, which may give a very rough idea as to the ethnic composition of Wales, (it'll give an idea of the extent of population churn at least).
I will be interested in your results! But one thing to note of this is that, because of the lack of hospitals on the Welsh side of the borders, many Welsh families drive from Powys and Clwyd into England to deliver their children. This is seems to be especially acute as the closing of hospitals in rural Wales. There was this one story I saw on BBC Wales online that reported a family living in Wrecsam (Wrexham) drove into England because it was the nearest hospital with an open bed. Would one consider these cross-border deliveries as Welsh or English then? It will give a rough idea though. Drachenfyre 21:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
According to a study posted on the WAG Economic Research site a while back, 35% of the Welsh population have "Welsh" surnames (of course this can be difficult to disentangle, as some 'English' names, like Greenaway, are said to be corruptions of Welsh, in that case Goronwy). As to the Welsh born, it's 75 per cent of Wales' population. A further 20 per cent were born in England, 2 per cent were born in other UK countries or Ireland, and 3 per cent were born in countries outside the UK. See http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=445
- sorry for the late reply. This is interesting, but does it take into account those Welsh families that have to cross the border for hospitals in England to deliver? Are those births recoreded as Welsh or English? Drachenfyre
The article is about Wales not Monetenegro.
The Queen will have a role in Welsh Government
After May 2007 the queen will have a role in the Government of Wales. The interesting thing is that the monarch has not been placed in the Wales table on this page. After next year it will be factually correct to place the Queen on the table as she will be appointing the Welsh Assembly Government and the First Minister for Wales.
Amlder20 12:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- The Queen is already the monarch of Wales, as she is of Scotland and England too... I'll put this in the table, leaving it out seems very nationalistic HawkerTyphoon 13:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- I am still waiting to see the Queen being placed on the table above Rhodri Morgan as the First Minister. Amlder20 14:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- This article is now looking really good and factually correct Amlder20 12:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Since the passing of the Government of Wales Act 2006 the Queen is no longer just linked to Wales as Queen of the UK. She is becoming the legal entity 'Her Majesty in Right of Wales' which means there will be Welsh laws (as opposed to UK laws that apply to Wales)for the first time in centuries and she will legally be a specifically Welsh head of state as well as being the British one. This already is true of Northern Ireland and Scotland and the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. Interestingly England does not have this status and will continue to be goverened by UK laws that are limited to England.
The Queen is already the monarch of Wales, as she is of Scotland and England too... I'll put this in the table, leaving it out seems very nationalistic - A clear attempt to use wikipedia to attack Nationalists? Though when I last read not all of us Welsh nationalists were anti-monarchy. Amlder20 16:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- This is outright wrong, the Queen remains the Queen of the UK. 'In right of Wales' implies a separate legal personality, which simply doesn't exist. --Breadandcheese 16:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I know it's not the main history page, but there does seem to be one of those puzzling "history gaps" you often see on WP country main pages here between the mid-18th and 20th centuries where perhaps a few words would be useful, what about for example the Treachery of the Blue Books or a brief description of the expansion of the mining industries? MarkThomas 10:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well the Blue Books are referenced in the History of Wales and Welsh language articles, but they could have a small mention here too. How have we managed to avoid mention of mining? -- Arwel (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, accepted coal is in the Economy section, but I would have thought something so important to Wales history as mining should get a mention in the main page History facts. MarkThomas 12:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm concerned about this capital.tv which has added itself to the media section. As a local TV station broadcasting only to Cardiff, and which has only just launched, is it any more notable than the extremely local mini-stations that broadcast for a month at a time? Vashti 18:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- No, I don't think it is. The website currently seems to be showing QVC home shopping, strangely enough. I think it should go. It might fit better in the Cardiff page, perhaps? Telsa (talk) 07:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well, it's being enthusiastically added there by an account, User:Newsnet, whose only contributions are to add plugs for that station. Seems like a wholesale violation of WP:WEB to me, but I really don't want to get into an edit war today. We have student radio and occasional local radio too, but I'd question how relevant they are as well. Vashti 12:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
The dab header
The disambiguation header is there to redirect viewers who have ended up at the wrong page. Somebody is not going to type in "Wales" (or follow a link) expecting to get to an article about Britain the British Isles. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation.
"For an explanation of terms such as Welsh, Great Britain, British, United Kingdom and Wales, see British Isles (terminology). For other uses, see Wales (disambiguation)" makes perfect sense on Britain, British Isles and a number of other articles but it is inappropriate here. It should be replaced with the simpler "This article is about the country. For other uses, see Wales (disambiguation)".
Thanks/wangi 21:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I notice that 'less than 2%' in the following has been changed to 'much less than 2%'.
Non Christian religions are small in Wales, making up much less than 2% of the population. 18% of people declare no religion.
Does anyone have the figures to hand? To me, 'much less' implies close to 1%, in which case 'just over 1%' might be a better way of phrasing it. Alternatively, we could just give a more precise figure and remove uncertainty. garik 13:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- I've just checked statistics.gov.uk and apparently it's 1.5%. I think, on balance, saying that is better than just 'much less than 2%'. garik 13:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Actual Legal Status of Wales as Subunit of "England and Wales"... or Something
This article needs less spin and aspirationalism and more analysis of the actual complex, unclear, and evolving status of the counties grouped together as "Wales" within the UK.
Wasn't there a point in time when "Wales" was -- legally speaking -- nothing but an unofficial cultural zone within a country called "England"? Did the country called "England" cease to exist and get replaced by a country called "England and Wales" -- or is that just a term used for clarity in the legislation for a country called "England"?
What is the exact legal status today with devolution? Something bizarre and schizophrenic? Still subject to "England and Wales" law (a part of England/England-and-Wales), able to modify "England and Wales" law (now a legally-defined autonomous unit within England/England-and-Wales), and able to modify "UK" law (now also operating within the UK above the level of England/England-and-Wales).
Please explain where Wales has come from and where it is today -- rather that where you would like it to be.
Please actually tell us what's going on instead of giving Blairite feel-good atmospherics with no substance.
- The Wales and Berwick Act 1746 stipulated that from that time onwards, when Parliament said "England" in an Act, unless it specifically said otherwise it included Wales and Berwick-on-Tweed too. With regard to Wales, the W&B Act was repealed by the Welsh Language Act 1967. The Local Government Act 1972 which came into effect on 1 April 1974 specifically stated that "England" was the 46 metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties created by that act (including Berwick!) and "Wales" was the 8 Welsh counties created by that act; this also had the formal effect of excluding Monmouthshire/Gwent from England. The Interpretation Act 1978 restated the provisions of the LGA and explicitly noted that in legislation passed before 1.4.1974 England included Berwick and Monmouthshire, and in legislation passed before 1967 it also included Wales. -- Arwel (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- The parts ruled over by various lords (and self-titled Princes) were "conquered" gradually and so absorbed into the country of England. Henry III allowed the title of Prince of Wales to a welsh overlord called Gruffudd ap Llywelyn in return for the lands that Gruffudd ruled becoming part of England. It wasn't until the 16C that Wales was really defined, in the form we know it now, as a convenience for legal administration of the regions which had previously shared similar legal arrangements. Most Welsh appear to think Owain Glyndwr took back Wales but instead he led a failed rebellion, the last, and so Wales remains a convenient subsection of England. And yes, I know I'll get flamed to hell and back for this entry!! -- Pbhj 03:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- You probably need to read all the previous discussion. The Treaty of Montgomery was in effect forced on Henry, and is linked the the Rebellion of the Barons. Gradual conquest is far from the case. yes parts of what is now South Wales and the MArches were taken early in Norman Times, but Edward fought a "nation" in the two wars of conquest. The current boundaries of Wales are pretty close to the relatively stable Welsh-Saxon period--Snowded 03:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- From the horses mouth, so to speak, Plantagenets > EDWARD I (r. 1272-1307), quoting:
Edward was determined to enforce English kings' claims to primacy in the British Isles. The first part of his reign was dominated by Wales. At that time, Wales consisted of a number of disunited small Welsh princedoms; the South Welsh princes were in uneasy alliance with the Marcher lords (feudal earldoms and baronies set up by the Norman kings to protect the English border against Welsh raids) against the Northern Welsh based in the rocky wilds of Gwynedd, under the strong leadership of Llywelyn ap Gruffyd, Prince of Gwynedd.
In 1247, under the Treaty of Woodstock, Llywelyn had agreed that he held North Wales in fee to the English king. By 1272, Llywelyn had taken advantage of the English civil wars to consolidate his position, and the Peace of Montgomery (1267) had confirmed his title as Prince of Wales and recognised his conquests.
However, Llywelyn maintained that the rights of his principality were 'entirely separate from the rights' of England; he did not attend Edward's coronation and refused to do homage. Finally, in 1277 Edward decided to fight Llywelyn 'as a rebel and disturber of the peace', and quickly defeated him. War broke out again in 1282 when Llywelyn joined his brother David in rebellion.
Edward's determination, military experience and skilful use of ships brought from England for deployment along the North Welsh coast, drove Llywelyn back into the mountains of North Wales. The death of Llywelyn in a chance battle in 1282 and the subsequent execution of his brother David effectively ended attempts at Welsh independence.
Under the Statute of Wales of 1284, Wales was brought into the English legal framework and the shire system was extended. In the same year, a son was born in Wales to Edward and Queen Eleanor (also named Edward, this future king was proclaimed the first English Prince of Wales in 1301).
The Welsh campaign had produced one of the largest armies ever assembled by an English king - some 15,000 infantry (including 9,000 Welsh and a Gascon contingent); the army was a formidable combination of heavy Anglo-Norman cavalry and Welsh archers, whose longbow skills laid the foundations of later military victories in France such as that at Agincourt.
As symbols of his military strength and political authority, Edward spent some £80,000 on a network of castles and lesser strongholds in North Wales, employing a work-force of up to 3,500 men drawn from all over England. (Some castles, such as Conway and Caernarvon, remain in their ruined layouts today, as examples of fortresses integrated with fortified towns.)
Edward's campaign in Wales was based on his determination to ensure peace and extend royal authority, and it had broad support in England. Edward saw the need to widen support among lesser landowners and the merchants and traders of the towns. The campaigns in Wales, France and Scotland left Edward deeply in debt, and the taxation required to meet those debts meant enrolling national support for his policies.
- From the BBC Union Flag information, the BBC are known to be pretty impartial in these things:
Largely because of the Laws in Wales Acts and the Statute of Rhuddlan, Wales is not represented on the Union Jack, other than through the cross of St George (Wales and England being, according to the acts, one country). Although proposals to incorporate it have been made, they have been met with muted enthusiasm.
Come- Ree (Like reel but without the L) Hope that helps! The Gannet 20:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- of course pronunciations differ, I'd write it more as "Cum-ri" based on South Wales pronunciations. pbhj, 188.8.131.52 (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Whats in a letter? Llyw (Leader) or llew (lion)
- Would anyone interested in Wales, please spend the time to check out Talk:Carnedd Llewelyn, and add their thoughts and comments regarding the memory of Llywelyn Ein Llyw Olaf, 'Our Last Leader'. From a gale bound Eryri / Snowdonia, greetings.
BrynLlywelyn 12:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- Official British Monarchy Website in Welsh: http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page3762.asp
Ych!, Who would want to go on that site?! Plus Mark if you didn't believe the poll to be a binding one then why did you bother to vote?! Sion 18:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't post the monarchy site link Sion - personally I regard it as garbage. :-) On the poll question, I do think straw polls in Wikipedia are interesting and useful - just stating the policy, which is that they are not binding, so endlessly reverting citing the poll as justification is so much WP:HotAir. On the issue, I think the order should pretty clearly be Wales/Cymru as Wales is the name most commonly recognised internationally, and this is the en-Wikipedia. I also think that the entries for some oft-cited support countries like Isle of Man and Belgium are wrong, but there you go! MarkThomas 18:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Why does this make no reference to the Irish settlement in Wales during the sub-Roman period and Dark Ages? This was just as important as the Anglo-Saxon settlement in what became England. TharkunColl 13:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- It could and should make note of the Irish settlements in Dyfed and Llyn and elsewhere, as well as more on the Norse settlements too where appropriate, but these, and the later Flemish settlements, were largely absorbed into the Welsh culture. I shall have to consult John Davies! (unless anyone else gets there first) Drachenfyre 15:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
As I review, I am also noticing something further. In the introduction (as well as history) it states catagorically that there was no independent state of Wales. While that statement on the surface may seem true, I do not feel that it is correct. From the end of Roman rule in Britain (410ad) until at least 880-899 ad there were successive independent Welsh states, the strongest of corse Gwynedd, Powys, Dyfed, and Morganwg. So... while there was not an independent state called Wales, there were various independent Welsh national states for at least 400 years. Additionally, when in Alfred the Greats 20 year reigh the Welsh princes agreed to some sort of fealty, it, according to John Davies, could not be defined as absolute subservience. And furthermore, successive Welsh leaders such as Hywl Dda, and others up to Llywellyn ap Gruffydd of Powys (1063) would be kings of Wales. What do others think? I am thinking this portion should reflect this, as currently the paragraph leaves the impression that there has never been any soverign Welsh asperations. What are your comments? Drachenfyre 17:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- There never was exactly a sovereign state of Wales and you seem to support that case until your last sentence Drachenfyre! The nearest it got was Owain Glyndwr and that was recognised I believe by a number of foreign powers, although not for long, and not covering the whole of modern Wales. Prior to that it was always multiple smaller kingdoms and chieftain-ates/princedoms. England of course was the same until Athelstan - Alfred never ruled the whole of what is now England. Neither did Hywl Dda or Llywellyn ap Gruffydd of Powys rule anything like the whole of what is now "Wales" despite your assertion that they did. The current article is accurate on this point. MarkThomas 18:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- In so far as one can speak of sovereign states in the mid to late Middle Ages, I would say that Gruffudd ap Llywelyn ap Seisyll, Rhodri Fawr, Hywel Dda, the two Llywelyns, and Glyndŵr could all be described as sovereign or independant leaders of Wales in different ways. The question is debatable - how much territory etc. My recommendation is that the statement "Wales has never been a sovereign state" is too absolute to be included so high up in the article and it smacks of (I'm not saying it is) anti-nationalist POV. The issue is not as simple as that - let's remove the statement because it could be misleading. Siswrn 21:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- A always, I'm happy to consider and refine statements if contibutors feel they do not do the issue justice. However, it is important to note (however you wish to phrase it) that Wales has never been a sovereign or independent state. This is a major part of understanding why Wales is as it is today (pace G A Williams), which is surely the point of the article. Therefore I suggest that we say something to the effect that "Although Wales has never existed as an independent soveriegn state, it's predecessor kingdoms (and name then) enjoyed a period of independence from xxx to xxx".
- As a secondary point, while I appreciate the additional material that Drachenfyre has added, there is now far, far too much about post-Roman and Medieval Wales in the introductory paragraphs. I suggest we edit these down and add them to the history section, and at the same atime add some more points about the period from 1536 to 1995. We may also wish to consider summarising some other sections of the article (politics, geography, economy etc). This section is supposed to give an overview of the whole article, but at present it detours into the dynastic links of the Welsh princes (important and useful though that is) at the expense of all else.Normalmouth 17:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- There are two issues here. Yes Wales has never been a sovereign state in the same sense as England, it had a different legal and inheritance system for a start. however it did have clear cultural identity and distictiveness throughout the post Roman period and beyond. The history section is now much better for the full development of the history of the Welsh Princes (real ones as opposed to those who at birth spoke no world of English). However I think the introduction needs to make two key points about the emergence of Wales. Firstly the post-Roman concentration, secondly the conques--Snowded 07:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd agree that Wales's clear and continuing cultural identity is worth noting (if you look in the politics of Wales stub which I wrote I make that very point). But it is not simply a case of not being sovereign as England has been. Wales has never been a sovereign state as Scotland, France, Ireland etc have all been. It shouldn't be a contentious point, it is merely a factual observation that the history and development of the nation of Wales did not see her become a unitary state, and has latterly seen her statehood pooled (or subsumed depending on your point of view) first with England, then Great Britain and then the UK. Anyway, I'll amend. Normalmouth 08:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- I am still not pleased with the sentence, I do not think it is accurate:
- Despite never having been a sovereign state, Wales has retained her identity as a distinct country. Wales's constituent kingdoms enjoyed a period of independence after Roman rule, during which time a common legal system was developed.
- "enjoyed a period of independence after Roman rule" is too patronizing a statement in my opinion, and lumping 600 years of independence too closely with the Empire, and "Dispite not being a soverign state" is debatable, as there were at least 4 polities, completly independent of each other, form as early as 400's ad to the 13th century. The debateable part is weather these polities should not be recognized as such. I think we could do better.
- I would prefer something like:
- I sincerly do not feel that Wales as "not (ever) a soverign state" be the anchor for the opening paragraph. We are attempting to summerize 1602 years into a sentence that best describes Wales, and not a soverign state (debatable and inaccurate for this swaith of time) is not the best anchor for the opening paragraph. Drachenfyre 11:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- I have a lot of sympathy with Drachenfyre here. One of the tragedies of the 13th Century is that the "sovereign state" became the onoly viable political form. Personally I blame Llywelyn the Last for not supporting Simon de Montfort imeedaitely prior to the Battle of Evesham..... Rephrasing it to talk positively about the strucuture that emerged over 600 years without making an assertion of a soverign state might be better. The history does not really record the progressive nature of 6th Centrury Welsh Law on property and marriage either. My daughter was taught at (an English) school the normal myth that the welsh were civilised by the english when in practice you could argue that many aspects of the conquest resulted in an un-civilisation of a valuable social strucutre. --Snowded 12:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- I sincerly do not feel that Wales as "not (ever) a soverign state" be the anchor for the opening paragraph. We are attempting to summerize 1602 years into a sentence that best describes Wales, and not a soverign state (debatable and inaccurate for this swaith of time) is not the best anchor for the opening paragraph. Drachenfyre 11:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm more than happy to anchor the description differently, but I believe there is some cross purpose with what we are trying to achieve with the opening to this second paragraph. I am not attenpting to describe the nature of Wales in the period from Roman rule until conquest; a discussion of soveriegnty just for that period would indeed be wrong. What I want to do is give a sense of a place that emerged out of Roman rule into rival Kindoms, then subjugation by a more powerful neighbour, followed by integration before a recent revival of a distinctive form of politics and governance. During all that the character of Wales as a nation has remained intact, but it has never been accompanied by statehood, this is especially important given the current and unfolding constitutional debate and needs to go in. Normalmouth 12:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- Why not this as an example of compromise:
- Welsh monastic asceticism, a highly evolved secular legal system, and a distinctive litary tradition illistrate a stong sense of cultural identity, which emerged among the Welsh after the Roman withdrawal from Britain in the 5th century. Of the principal polities, Gwynedd retained nominial independence until the 13th century, when it too was conqured by England. However, formal annexation and abolishment of Welsh law did not take place until the 16th century. From the 19th Century much of Wales became heavily industrialised, supplying the British Empire and her colonies vast quantities of coal and steel. In more recent times, manufacturing and more latterly services have replaced heavy extractive industry. Perhaps because of the decline of her main industries Wales remains relatively poor, with lower per capita GDP and wages than the UK average. From the 20th Century a revival in Welsh national consciousness (together with a reversal in the decline of the Welsh language) has taken place, with the establishment of Cardiff as the capital of Wales in 1955, and administrative devolution in the 1960s. In 1999, the National Assembly for Wales was formed, with powers to amend primary legislation from the Parliament of the United Kingdom. In 2006 these powers were widened through a second Government of Wales Act. Drachenfyre 13:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well, it doesn't mention sovereignty at all, so I'm not sure it's that much of a compromise :-( Normalmouth 13:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- I can work on that, but the "soverignty" issue is just that, an issue. For it can soundly be argued that Gwynedd, Deheubarth, Powys and Glamorgan each retained relitively definable borders, and each negociated with neighboring kingdoms and treaties independent of each other, as when Gwynedd switched alliences from Northumbria to Wessex, or when Gwynedd allied with the Norse and the trade agreements between Deheubarth and Gwynedd to Ireland. So, as this seems to be the sticking point, I suggest we tread discuss this particular point more fully before adding it. As it is now, as the anchor for the whole of the paragraph, it overlooks so much else.Drachenfyre 13:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
edit: Nominal Independence was my nod to the soverignty issuse, as it could be debated weather or not Principality of Wales was part of Kingdom of England or, like Gascony and other realms, linked to the Angivine empire but nominally independent. Accordng to te papers written by Llywelyn himself this is how he saw his realm. User:Drachenfyre|Drachenfyre]] 13:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Garth Celyn
- Again, we're getting too bogged down in the specific era. The point - which is esp. appositie given the constitutional debate unfolding since the 1960s - is that Wales has long been a nation, but never a state. That is as important to describing it as anything. Normalmouth 13:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's as clear-cut as you define the argument Normalmouth. The very concept "state" and the distinction you draw between "state" and "nation" are really fairly modern (eg, 17/18th century and newer) conceptions; before that, there were imperial powers through conquest, tribes, nations and a spectrum of things in between. Something in the concept "state" tends to imply "recognition" by "other states" anyway, and this was certainly the case with Kings of Welsh kingdoms like Hywel Dda and (later) Llewellyn the Great and (later still) Owain Glyndwyr. This is why academics frequently use terms like "polity" to define early "states" since modern terminology is an imposition on earlier patterns. I think that there is something in the concept that Wales was a "nation-state" in early medieval times under it's more powerful and unifying rulers in the same (or at least a similar) sense that England was. It's certainly true that in 1267 effectively "Wales" signed a treaty of recognition (Treaty of Montgomery) with "England". Doesn't that really make it a "state" by any other definition? Obviously nowhere near as big and powerful as France or England at that time, but a genuine recognised polity. MarkThomas 15:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- A number of eminent historians, most notable G A WIlliams, say otherwise. They argue that Wales has never been a single, unitary nation-state. Normalmouth 18:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think Mark is correct here - the concept of a "sovereign state" is a comparatively modern one and it would be misleading to include dogmatic statements that Wales either wasn't or was a sovereign state at certain times in the early medieval period. As usual with Welsh history, the reality is more complex. Rhion 18:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- As I have stated several times, the statement about sovereignty does not refer only to early medieval times, but to its complete existence as a nation. Normalmouth 19:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Is there an argument for cutting down on the sport article in this general "Wales" article- perhaps a spin off "Sport in Wales" article going into more depth.
For example the reference to Welsh Drivers in F1 don't really merit a place on an article about Wales itself, but they would in a specific article on Welsh Sport.
Also could be argued this is from a South Walian point of view, e.g. the statement to the effect that, Rugby is central part of the National identity- yes definately the case in South Wales, but not the North.
Indeed the statement about Football and Rugby being the most popular sports is not totally true- they are in terms of spectators, but not in terms of participants, golf has more participants in Wales than either sport, I suspect fishing has a higher number of particiapants than football or rugby.
There certainly does need to be reference to rugby perhaps something like "rugby has a prominent role in Wales". Indeed there is already a "Rugby union in Wales" article which should logically link from a Welsh Sport article.
Interestingly there is more on Sport in Wales on the General Welsh article, than on the Welsh culture article. This needs serious re-editing!
I would agree with you and your observations!Drachenfyre 21:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Coat of Arms removal
Why are economic figures given in dollars in this article, Pounds are used in the UK. You wouldn't see the per capita GDP of California given in Pounds Sterling would you!
- GDP is given in dollars for all areas because otherwise it would be impossible to compare them. Marnanel 13:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- This seems a little odd to me. Since the exchange rate isn't constant, you'd have to constantly alter the figure everywhere in order to have meaningful comparisons. Tim 14:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. The amounts should be given in the units in which they were measured (presumably Sterling), with a rough conversion to dollars for ease of international comparison. Having either on its own reduces its usefulness. --Stemonitis 20:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Welsh Assembly: Tax Powers and Spending oversight
The sentence "The Assembly itself will now have tax raising authority and spending oversight" has been removed because there is no evidence of this in the 2006 act, and the U.K. Parliament would never allow this. The Welsh Assembly will have law making powers in the form of Measures but it will keep having it's money from the Treasury only. The money from the treasury will go to the Consolidated fund which is the government of Wales's government bank account. It will most probably be monitored by Members of Parliament. There has never been any reference towards Wales ever having it's own tax raising authority in the future. Amlder20 01:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually there is a reference to it being a possibilityu in the future without a new act of Parliament. It comes under the same trigger mechanism as full legislative powers (Scottish style) and would need a referendum. I agree that it doesnt currently have those powers however.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs)
New Proposed Wales Project
There is now a new proposed WikiProject to deal explicitly and exclusively with Wales at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Wales. Anyone who would be interested in joining should indicate as much there, to let people know whether there is enough interest in such a project to formally create it. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I find it interesting that the term "Principality" is used so prominently, especially as it seems to be increasingly frowned on in Wales, even by the BBC. --MacRusgail 19:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Powers of Welsh government executive body
From the introduction:
The Welsh Assembly Government (Llywodraeth Cynulliad Cymru) will be reformed from a committee within the Assembly to a separate Welsh Government executive body, with similar powers to the Scottish Executive.
Are the powers really that similar to those of the Scottish Executive? garik 12:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I can look and link up the information for you, but it is what BBC Wales has been reporting, as well as comments Ive been getting from the Welsh Assembly spokespeople. They will not be as comprehensive as the Scottish Executive (the U.K. Government felt the Welsh did not wish to be so responsable it seems). 220.127.116.11 05:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- The Scotland Act stipulates those areas that are reserved to the UK Parliament (foreign policy, defence etc). Anything not mentioned falls within the powers of the Scottish Parliament and the Executive. The original Wales Act did the opposite, i.e stipulated those areas that would be devolved. The new Act allows the Assembly to draw up legislation in those areas, which are then passed by Parliament as Orders in Council. The Assembly will not, for example, over justice and policing. The Scottish Executive does. Normalmouth 07:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
No the point here is not about the vertical power relationships within the UK, (i.e. is the power to do "x", at UK, devolved, or local level), the point about setting up the executive is about a separation of powers between the legislative bit of the assembly and the executive bit, (i.e. horizontal power relationships within Wales). So in that sense the Scottish comparison is right.
There are two main difference between Scotish and Welsh devolution as set up in 1999:-
1. Scotland Devolved Institutions have more powers than the Welsh Assembly, (this point is generally well understood - for example primary versus secondary legislation issue amongst various other differences about what's develoved and what's not). (The vertical power issue)
2. Scotland from day one had a parliament that was legally distinct from the executive, in Wales the "assembly", is not just the parliamentary body, it's the whole executive thing, (a bit like a local council's structure). So for example Civil Servants who on 30 June 1999 administered agriculartural payments for the "Welsh Office" from 1 July 1999 administered them for the Welsh Assembly. (This horizontal issue is not generally well understood, and indeed even here's it oversimplified!).
Indeed if you look at the constitution of Britain there has been a move towards more of an executive/ representative split, even at local government level- e.g. abolition of the traditional committee system. The best example of separation of powers of course would be the other "devolved" area that we tend to forget about- Greater London- where there is an almost American style separation of powers, (separate elections for the Mayor and "legislature/ representative chamber".)
- A good point. I suggest we reword. the current draft, which talks of "powers [that] will be widened...[so that] the Welsh Assembly Government will [have]...a role similar to that of the Scottish Executive" suggests to many that the breadth of the Assembly's powers will match those of the Scottish Parliament. I suggest:
- "The Government of Wales Act 2006, which will take effect after the 2007 Welsh Assembly elections, wil create a formal separation of the Assembly as a legislature and the Welsh Assembly Government (Llywodraeth Cynulliad Cymru) as an executive body, in keeping with the model adopted for the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Executive". Normalmouth 08:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Snooker section: Ray Reardon should be added.
Ray Reardon Wales' most successful snooker player is ommitted from the list of players. He already has a page on Wikipedia.
18.104.22.168 04:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I've had a look at other countries' pages and I believe that there is room for improvement on the our intro. There is nothing about the general population distribution/topography (I've today added a bit) and very little on the economy. It too history-heavy, and that history is excessively focused on the pre-conquest and post-Empire times (you would think that Wales has no industrial legacy). I think we need to amend. Can other users have a look and and make comments or amends? Normalmouth 07:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
There had been a section on the economy and industry just a few weeks ago that seems to have been edited out. I did not notice its deletion until you posted this actually. It should be reintroduced. Drachenfyre 08:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Edit: Went back and readded economic information. It may have accidentially been removed by the plethoria of addition edits. Welsh manufacturing and industralization is a very important chapter in its history and should not be minimized.Drachenfyre 08:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
There is a very comprehensive article on the economy of Wales - we should avoid duplication.Pondle 18:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- introductions aim to tell the reader what they are about to read, and hence should touch upon the main themes of the article, including the section on the economy. That isn't duplication, it's summary. Normalmouth 19:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- In reading this article, I noted the sentence "Wales is closely, but far from completely, integrated politically with England, although it was from around the 16th century until the mid-19th century (see Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542)." in the introduction. Following "with England" the sentence becomes run-on and has no distinct meaning since the question "Although it was" what? "from...." is not answered. As I am not a subject matter expert on this, I can not fathom the meaning. This should be reviewed. --Jon Cates (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Wales has been add to the new Category:Germanic culture by an editor. Please discuss this to ascertain whether this is appropriate or not - and act accordingly.-- Zleitzen(talk) 13:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- I did take a look at the link and it seems to me it is attempting to link every nation to Germanic culture. West Germanic tribes did settle in Roman Britannia and form the origions of the English nation, and thus applying the name Walha, meaning "stranger" or "foreigner" to the native inhabitants. However I doubt that you could discern precise West Germanic influence in Welsh culture until after the Norman conquest. And by then, it ceased to be Germanic and more Anglo-Norman. Wales is influenced by Anglo-Norman, or English culture, but I would not extend it further into a wider Germanic. I would not feel the linkage would be warrented. Drachenfyre 08:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Agree, the Wales article should not be categorised with Germanic Culture. --Llygadebrill 17:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I do not agree with the picture of Prince Charles being used as the main illustration for the sub-heading of nationalist revival. The nationalists mentioned in the section were trying to stop the ceremony in Caernarfon taking place. At first glance, the image's position implies the prince is a focus for welsh nationalism rather than the opposite.--Throquzum 21:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with this. If the picture is to be there it should be linked to text which explains the disputes that took place at the time --Snowded 22:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Seems fair to me too. garik 23:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Snowded, if placed here, it should be in context.Drachenfyre 06:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Agree also. Normalmouth 11:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of England and Wales
I have proposed the deletion of the above page. There is hardly anything there, anything that is there is better handled on this page. Any comments to the debate would be appreciated. --Snowded 22:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- I see where you're coming from, but I don't think it should be deleted. England and Wales form a single entity with regard to law. Even if you argue that the Assembly has changed that, such a single entity at least existed historically. It seems, therefore, that Wikipedia should include an article about this entity. If there's "hardly anything there", then it seems much better to improve the article rather than delete it. garik 23:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
There appears to be no education section in the Wales article. Scotland and England have such a section, so it would be right, surely, for Wales to have one too - naming the universities, talking briefly about the University of Wales, etc. 23:46, 15th March 2007, Benbristol (UTC)
Why isn't there a Wikipedia based on the Welsh language? There is one for other European lanaguges. fr.wikipedia.org de.wikipedia.org. This would reflect the culture and interests of Wales plus promote the learning the langauge by children.
- There certainly is a Welsh 'Wicipedia', at cy.wikipedia.org, with nearly 8,000 articles to date. And it is not only a great way to promote the Welsh language amongst children, it is also great practice for dyswgyr oedolion (adult learners) such as myself! I encourage any native speakers, or learners of Welsh, to help out in any way they can - you don't need to be a fluent speaker to be useful. Rob Lindsey 05:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Words added by User:22.214.171.124
I don't like to remove the following italicised words completely, as they may be useful information. However, apart from the awful spelling, I have no idea what it's supposed to mean generally. Anyone?
The Welsh section of the motorway, managed by the Welsh Assembly Government, runs from the Second Severn Bridge to Pont Abraham in West Wales, connecting cities such as Cardiff, Newport and Swansea and crosing the main Nort- South link the A470
garik 20:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm guessing that he's saying that the M4 intersects the A470. Perhaps it'd be better to remove the italicised words above and add 'linking the A55 to the M4' to the end of the paragraph. Gareth 20:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I've archived several old discussions from this page, since it was getting a bit unwieldy. I probably could have moved more stuff, but I tried to be reasonably conservative. garik 22:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Infobox flag straw poll
Hello fellow editors. A straw poll has opened today (27th March 2007) regarding the use of flags on the United Kingdom place infoboxes. There are several potential options to use, and would like as many contrubutors to vote on which we should decide upon. The straw poll is found here. If joining the debate, please keep a cool head and remain civil. We look forward to seeing you there. Jhamez84 11:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
This wiki link links to a page about mathemathics. Is it the unification of the Welsh country that is implied, and if so is there a wiki article about that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 09:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC).
Stemonitis' "Tidy Up"
I can agree with some of the proposed deletions, but not all. For example the deletions seem to punish athletics, remove an important aspect of South Wales sports (the unique role of Baseball). Also material on the balance of population etc etc. I also like several of the photo's and see no major advantage in their deletion.
If there is need (and I am not sure there is one) too reduce the size then we shoujld surely be talking here about how to do that, possibly create or amend some of the linked articles? Also one post making many changes makes it difficult to amend or disagree in part. Better to make one edit per section and thus enable better debate.--Snowded 08:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- [I hope you don't mind my changing the heading above, by the way.] 61 kB is too long. In particular, the history section is massive, but I can't see how to cut it down fairly, although I would recommend that it be cut down, and anything that isn't already at History of Wales (or the articles summarised there) be shifted over. The gallery serves no real purpose, and could be moved to its own article, if it must be kept. The lead is supposed to be a single paragraph; the five here take up most of the screen (does "monastic asceticism" really deserve to be in the introduction?). For an article on such a broad topic, we need extensive use of summary style, with very few details. My edit was really just the beginning of what needs to be done, and I'm not sure that arguing about the value of every sentence is really worthwhile. The information is all good and relevant, but much of it doesn't belong here. Which parts do you agree with? Surely the trivia section must go? --Stemonitis 09:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- No problem with the title change - its more appropriate. I agree with you that there needs to be a major tidy up and use of supporting articles is one way to do that. I agree on Trivia, and think a new article on "Images of Wales" would be a good idea. Maybe it is worth starting by getting the "History of Wales article" to the point where it has everything here, then debate the highlights that should appear here? Move on to Sports etc?--Snowded 09:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Is it just me or have the Welsh Language police gone way too far on this one? Wikipedia is multilingual, this article is in English.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs)
- I'm not sure what you mean. Adding translations into alternative native languages is commonplace on Wikipedia, and is not restricted to Wales-related articles. --Stemonitis 08:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with unsigned. What is the possible need to translate words like "England" and "Bristol Channel" into Welsh, any more than "south-west" or "estuary"? This is an article about the country, not the language. The article on France doesn't translate (eg) "Mediterranean Sea or "English Channel" or "North Sea" into French, just the name of the country itself, and the same applies at Germany, Ireland, Scotland and so on. So I'm not sure what you mean when you say "Adding translations into alternative native languages is commonplace on Wikipedia, and is not restricted to Wales-related articles". Flapdragon 12:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Should the Welsh WP article on England give translations into English of similar geographical terms? Flapdragon 12:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with the main point: although learning that Lloegr is Welsh for England is interesting, there's no principled reason for including the information, and the constant inclusion of italicised translations in the first few paragraphs is a little annoying to the eye. garik 12:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- [edit conflict] Well, this article may go a bit far in translating nouns other than proper nouns (e.g. tywysogiaeth), but I see no problem with having several translations, and likewise no reason why cy:Lloegr couldn't do the same. There are plenty of examples of translations in articles: "A federal republic, Austria is divided into nine states (German: 'Bundesländer'). These states are then divided into districts (Bezirke) and cities (Statutarstädte). Districts are subdivided into municipalities (Gemeinden)." (from Austria), and it's not something we need to invoke conpiracy theories to cover (cf. "Welsh Language Police" above). Perhaps take out a couple of the less informative ones, but don't panic about it. The article on France probably should translate English Channel, incidentally, since the French term for it differs so markedly from our own. --Stemonitis 12:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- The Austrian example is different: those administrative units were of course named in German and the English termas are translations of something you might well want to know the original name for. A comparable example might be Cyfraith Hywel (which should incidentally be linked to wherever that subject is treated in full) which is a term that doesn't have an established English name, so it's correct to give the original Welsh. But the Austria article doesn't translate "Central Europe", "Germany", "Czech Republic" and so on into German, why should it? Flapdragon 13:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps it's because there's a longer tradition of bilingualism in Wales, which encourages people to name Welsh things in two languages where they otherwise wouldn't. The extra information certainly doesn't do any harm. The article on Austria doesn't translate Czech Republic, which is not a part of Austria, (as Lloegr isn't part of Wales), but there should be the native versions of Niederösterreich, Ynys Môn, etc. --Stemonitis 13:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- As garik points out, they clutter up the entry, and also give a false impression that this is about the language rather than the country. I don't see any reason to think people will refer to the Môr Hafren or whatever while speaking English, any more than they would randomly translate any other non-geographical terms. I agree about things like Ynys Môn only when they are an established title for something, such as a constituency or a county, that has a bilingual title, not just as a geographical entity (personally I'd go for "Sir Fôn" anyway but that's another story). Whatever the rights and wrongs of your reasoning, it's clearly not common WP practice as you implied, so this is really a debate about first principles which (though no doubt worthwhile) I suggest belongs elsewhere. Flapdragon 13:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- The trouble is that "clutter" is a highly subjective quantity. It is ultimately a question of taste, not principle. I gladly concede that the article was a mite over-translated, but my point, that the statement "the Welsh Language Police have gone way too far" is misleading and divisive (however poorly I may have made it), stands. I hadn't really meant to get into an involved debate about the philosophy of translation. You will notice that I removed tywysogiaeth and Lloegr a while ago, but I think most of the others should be kept. I also think it's not worth getting too worried about a couple of extra words here and there; there are greater problems with the article than that. --Stemonitis 13:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- I missed the enrollment drive for the Welsh Language Police (Heddlu'r Iaith Gymraeg). But, this statement smacks more of an anti-Welsh prejudice, especially since Wales is a multi-linguistic country. My understanding is that Wiki wants to include important information on a subject, and reporting and rendering important geographic features and the correct names of places/institutions in the native language fits this informative spirit. It does not clutter the artical to have the Welsh language versions for important geographic features and institutions. Yes, the France artical should have the French langauge version for important geographic and institutional features of France, and yes the Welsh language version should have the English language versions there too. But I do not follow those articals.Drachenfyre 04:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Bangor's city status
Would be grateful if someone could tell me when Bangor was made a city. As far as I am aware, there are no cities in North Wales (sadly!) - not official ones anyway.
- See here and here and here. Its city status predates historical record, apparently, but was originally granted because of the cathedral. garik 12:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Gymru vs Cymru
Does anyone fancy adding a note to this article that "Cymru" is sometimes written "Gymru" (depending, I believe, on what sound precedes it?) I'd prefer this to be explained by a Welsh speaker, rather attempting it myself and probably getting it wrong. Possibly a redirect from "Gymru" to this article would be a good idea too? Matt 23:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC).
- It's a soft mutation, and it's all explained in the Welsh morphology article. -- Arwel (talk) 23:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- True enough, but interested users won't necessarily find this section (for those who don't know Welsh, whose to say that 'Gymru' isn't just a variant of the name, with no connection to morphology?). Since I don't believe that 'Gymru' means anything in any other language or context, it wouldn't hurt to make a re-direct to this article. Rob Lindsey 00:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Redirecting is a start, but the reader looking up "Gymru" (say, like me, having seen it on a roadsign) who does not understand the relationship between the two words will still be confused that only the "Cymru" spelling is mentioned. "What is the connection?" will be the question in their minds, and they will certainly not know to look at Welsh morphology unless they already know the answer. For these reasons I still believe a short note about mutated spellings such as "Gymru" in this article would be useful. I am not suggesting anything lengthy; that, as you say, is covered elsewehere. Just a couple of words and a link will do. Matt 14:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Great, thanks, that would seem to cover it nicely. Matt 19:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC).
Statement half wrong/half right
"These powers were widened by the Government of Wales Act 2006, and the Assembly can now propose its own laws for approval by the UK Parliament."
The thing is with this statement it is only half right, as the new Welsh legal system does need to go to Parliament for approval, but thats only the request of powers, the actual laws are not approved by Parliament, but by the Assembly and the Queen-in-Council. So the Legislative Competency Order is the statutory instrument approved by the Assembly and both houses of Parliament, whilst the actual Assembly Measure, which would be similar to an Act of Parliament is not approved by parliament at all. I still sence quite confusion amongst people about the system, that people are only revealing half of the story. Making it simpler again, LCOs are passed by the Assembly/Parliament but Measures are passed by the Assembly/Queen. Amlder20 16:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Which is the Head of Wales? The Queen or the Prince?
The coutry infobox in the present article describes actually the Head of Wales is the Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. But traditionally Wales is considered as a principality, so Charles, Prince of Wales can be also considered as the Head of Wales.
I think the Queen and the Prime Minister should be deletedand the Prince of Wales should be added in the infobox. The head of Greater London is the Mayer Ken Livingstone not the Queen. Similarly, I think the Head of Wales is Charles, Prince of Wales not the Queen. How do you think about it? ― 韓斌/Yes0song (談笑 筆跡 다지모) 11:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and the head of Norfolk is the Duke of Norfolk...no, wait...the "Principality of Wales" (which never included all of Wales) has no real existence, and the title of "Prince of Wales" is just that - a title, which has no specific relevance to who actually rules Wales. The Queen is Queen in Wales, just like she's queen everywhere else. john k 16:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Quite so. The Prince of Wales has no position in the political/administrative organisation of the country at all. It's just an inconsequential title. -- Arwel (talk) 17:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
yeah all theese other people are right although it is kind of confusing i beleive the prince of whales does control the church of england thoughCharlieh7337 (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The whole Government section seems out of place, identifying Wales as a constitutional monarchy. Wales, as Wales, isn't a constitutional monarchy any more than Dorset or Aberdeen or Wigan is. They are all political subdivisions of one. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
This culture, which has influenced literature, farming, navigation and so much of European life, for 4,000 years, and covers places as diverse as Portugal and Asia Minor, would be worthy of its own project. Modern areas still Celtic include Brittany, Cornwall, Ireland, the Isle of Man, Scotland and Wales. Please weigh in at the proposal Chris 04:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
What is meant in the intro by "Wales, only Gwynedd retained independence until the late 13th century, when it too was conquered by England"? Its the "too" bit that stumbles me! --Camaeron 19:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think it implies that Gwynedd was perhaps more tenacious but finally succumbed to the onslaught. Is this not the case? --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 10:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Ulster Banner straw poll
A straw poll has opened at this section of the United Kingdom talk page regarding the use of the Ulster Banner for that article's circumstances only. To capture a representative result as possible, you are invited to pass your opinion there. If joining the poll, please keep a cool head, and remain civil. Hope to see you there, Jza84 22:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Main picture issue
The main map showing the location of Wales that appears at the top of the page could provide a larger view of Wales then the one curently does. I don't know whether the author of the current picture does or would allow it to be cropped or whether a better map could be located and used instead but a map showing just the U.K. and Ireland would provide a better view of where Wales is in relation to other parts the U.K. --Cab88 23:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Cricket in Wales
I've been reading the sport section and it seems rather long in parts, even referring to individual matches played by different rugby clubs against various New Zealand touring sides (is that really relevant here?). An edit about cricket seems a bit odd to me, but I know virtually nothing of the game and don't want to delete it:
- However there has been recent debate as to whether Welsh players (such as Simon Jones) should play for an England team, and not an Egngland and Wales team.
As far as I know the 'England and Wales' team is the same as the England team. Could this person have intended to write "should play for a Wales team, and not an Egngland and Wales team"? I know that some are arguing for a separate Welsh cricket national side, which might also be worth a mention here.--Rhyswynne 16:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
History of the Jews in Wales
Prince of Wales
Shouldn't the Prince of Wales (Prince Charles) be listed along with the Queen, the Prime Minister, the First Minister and the Secretary of State, as Wales is a Princpality? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)