Content deleted Content added
→Correct Welsh name: Reply |
m →top: Fixed/removed unknown WikiProject parameter(s) and general fixes per WP:Talk page layout |
||
| (22 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 26:
| collapse =
}}
{{WikiProject
{{WikiProject Wales
| importance = Top
}}
{{WikiProject Celts|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom
}}
▲{{WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom|class=B|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes|b6=yes|importance=mid}}
== Roman history is not relevant to [[devolution]] ==
Line 90:
:::May be the split initially proposed above [[Talk:Welsh devolution#Splitting Page into: "History of Welsh devolution" and "Proposed further Welsh devolution"]] be considered to improve scope, although [[Political history of Wales]] rather than History of Welsh devolution, and that done with more research than the prior attempt. This article then expanding more on the present situation since 1998 and the few commissions/referendums prior. '''[[User:DankJae|<span style="color: black">Dank</span>]][[User talk:DankJae|<span style="color: red">Jae</span>]]''' 00:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
::::The issue is that the 19th century home rule and disestablishment movements are not typically called devolution, and if you search Welsh devolution on Google Scholar for instance the sources are about 1998–present. So, if these earlier movements are not part of the article topic they should not be covered in depth in this article (mentioned as background, yes). ([[User talk:Buidhe|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|c]]) '''[[User:buidhe|<span style="color: black">buidhe</span>]]''' 01:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
:::::And indeed there is other history that is not relevant here, but when I attempted to pare that back, it was reverted back in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Welsh_devolution&diff=1149787371&oldid=1149776007]. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 23:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy]] the summary was a [[Wikipedia:POV]] concern and did not provide adequate context. Have another go if you want. [[User:Titus Gold|Titus Gold]] ([[User talk:Titus Gold|talk]]) 16:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Perhaps we could move parts to [[Draft:Political history of Wales]] [[User:Titus Gold|Titus Gold]] ([[User talk:Titus Gold|talk]]) 16:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
:::::::To me, I find how pro-devolution and pro-further devolution the article is to be the more major POV concern than adding extra Welsh history details pre-devolution. Don’t mind if that history is removed or kept although if Political history is made into an acceptable article would be more suited there. '''[[User:DankJae|<span style="color: black">Dank</span>]][[User talk:DankJae|<span style="color: red">Jae</span>]]''' 16:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
::::::::You're welcome to make additions to bring more balance. [[User:Titus Gold|Titus Gold]] ([[User talk:Titus Gold|talk]]) 01:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::I'm happy to see more criticism of devolution and analysis of devolution added to the article as a GA review suggest for the latter.
:::::::::I would consider moving large amounts of text to [[Proposed further Welsh devolution]] but I'm not sure this would benefit the reader.
:::::::::A split could be considered to something like:
:::::::::[[History of Welsh devolution]] and [[Future of Welsh devolution]]/[[Proposed Welsh devolution]], as previously mentioned. [[User:Titus Gold|Titus Gold]] ([[User talk:Titus Gold|talk]]) 01:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::{{tq|the summary was a Wikipedia:POV concern}} how are removal of statements like "Llywelyn the Last was killed in an ambush by an English soldier in 1282." form an article about Welsh Devolution a POV concern? If you want to establish context, you only need a sentence or two. Something like: {{tqb|Wales was conquered by Edward I of England and was annexed to the realm. The Laws in Wales act of Henry VIII created a unitary state with a defined Welsh border, and the unitary state persisted with the union of Scotland and later Ireland into the Inited Kingdom.}} This still may be too much or not ideal wording, but all we need to establish here is that the UK is a unitary state. Indeed, we could just say that and omit the conquest altogether. Instead you have text that is copied from and to several other pages. This exact text is on [[Politics of Wales]] and comes from (but adapted from) [[Wales in the High Middle Ages]] but also has been found on [[Wales in the Middle Ages]] and [[Welsh History]]. It was also on the now merged [[English rule in Wales]] as well as [[Welsh rebellions against English rule]]. You also have it on [[Welsh independence]] and I am willing to bet it is on other articles I haven't yet found.
::::::::::There is a POV concern here, and that is that this article seems to begin with grievance and to establish a context of devolution as the end of a long struggle for independence, by which this then looks like a half way measure. This is somewhat ahistorical, but more importantly, it is irrelevant in this article. This article is about devolution, so we don't need to know about Llywelyn, nor any of that rather detailed history section. This is in the same way we don't include it in the [[Welsh Revolt]] or [[Owain Glyndŵr]] pages. Does it leave that section too brief? Sure it does. So remove the section, which rather incongruously sits before the history section. The context can go in the history section, probably non-linearly. Again, the only context required is that the UK is a unitary state.
::::::::::A final point: I agree we should not have a separate [[Proposed further Welsh devolution]] page at this time. I think this should be a section on this page. I prefer to see a page grow organically, and where a part of the page becomes overweight, and is not usefully cut back, then a split will propose itself. I don't think we are there yet. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 07:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::After reading your comment I have since made a page, [[Proposed further Welsh devolution]] but have now realised I misread your support, so apologies for that.
:::::::::::Nevertheless I actually think it all sits well with a reader and I have made a summary of proposed further devolution on this article to replace the content I moved over. The move seems to address any concern about too much devolution proposals in this article
:::::::::::Pinging @[[User:DankJae|DankJae]] and @[[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy]] [[User:Titus Gold|Titus Gold]] ([[User talk:Titus Gold|talk]]) 20:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::Perhaps take it back to draft for now? [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 22:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Appreciate the sensible suggestion, but it doesn't seem like it needs to be draftified as it looks. As long as there is no opposition to this bold split after having a look at both pages as they stand? [[User:Titus Gold|Titus Gold]] ([[User talk:Titus Gold|talk]]) 21:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Overall neutral on the split, while it would be greater long term to have it all in one article, the pre-existing section did give excess weight to proposals, and I believe more detail can be added to the proposals which would overload this article, so don't mind it, and am fine with it. '''[[User:DankJae|<span style="color: black">Dank</span>]][[User talk:DankJae|<span style="color: red">Jae</span>]]''' 23:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
== Correct Welsh name ==
Line 96 ⟶ 114:
:It is both. The difference between devolution for Wales and Welsh devolution (pretty much… !). The latter is a tad better, more concise and consistent with Welsh Wikipedia, as you point out, so I changed it. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 06:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
::"Datganoli i Gymru" = "Devolution to Wales" or "Devolution for Wales"; "Datganoli Cymru" = "Devolution of Wales"
::Both correct. [[User:Titus Gold|Titus Gold]] ([[User talk:Titus Gold|talk]]) 13:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
== Interesting article for insight additions ==
Some suggestions as to why the majority in the '98 referendum was relatively narrow: https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2021-07-20/worries-language-mafia-almost-cost-victory-in-welsh-devolution-referendum [[User:Titus Gold|Titus Gold]] ([[User talk:Titus Gold|talk]]) 02:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
:It's a news report which picks up on one comment from one person and makes a headline out of it. We don't want pages that are following newspapers. There must surely be much better secondary sources analysing that referendum. What can we learn from them? [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 08:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
::Just thought it might add a bit more depth and variety to the understanding of the factors influencing the referendum. [[User:Titus Gold|Titus Gold]] ([[User talk:Titus Gold|talk]]) 01:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
:::Might also be a valuable addition to [[1997 Welsh devolution referendum]] [[User:Titus Gold|Titus Gold]] ([[User talk:Titus Gold|talk]]) 01:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
== Update needed: Constitutional Commission ==
https://www.gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2024-01/independent-commission-on-the-constitutional-future-of-wales-final-report.pdf
There are various secondary sources to look at in the news, all published today. [[User:Titus Gold|Titus Gold]] ([[User talk:Titus Gold|talk]]) 17:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
| |||